BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 – Ethical Theories & Decision-Making Guide 2026

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 – Ethical Theories & Decision-Making Guide [2026]

Updated: September 2026

Are you an ICL Graduate Business School student working on BBIS 6101 – Ethics for the Information Systems Professional, Assignment 1: Ethical Theories & Decision-Making?

This comprehensive guide explains the 2026 assessment requirements, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) AI automation and customer-service job-cuts case, ethical theory requirements, the Markkula Center Framework for Ethical Decision Making, professional ethics, APA 7 referencing, report structure and common mistakes to avoid.

If you are searching for BBIS 6101 assignment help, Ethics for the Information Systems Professional assignment help, NZ assignment help, New Zealand university assignment help, Australian assignment help, or Information Systems assignment help, this guide provides a practical starting point.

Quick Answer: What Is BBIS 6101 Assignment 1?

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 – Ethical Theories & Decision-Making is a structured analytical report requiring students to examine the ethical and social issues surrounding the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's use of AI automation and proposed customer-service job cuts.

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 at a Glance

ICL Graduate Business School's programme handbook identifies 6101 – Ethics for the Information Systems Professional as a Level 6, 15-credit paper within the Bachelor of Business Information Systems programme.

What Is BBIS 6101 – Ethics for the Information Systems Professional?

BBIS 6101 focuses on the ethical responsibilities associated with information systems, technology and business decision-making.

The subject is not simply about whether a particular technology works.

Instead, students are expected to consider questions such as:

• How should organisations make ethical technology decisions?
• Who benefits from technological innovation?
• Who may be harmed?
• What responsibilities do organisations have toward employees and customers?
• How should competing stakeholder interests be balanced?
• What ethical principles should guide technology professionals?
• How can organisations make better decisions when the consequences of technology are uncertain?

These questions become particularly important when artificial intelligence changes the way people work.

That is why the CBA case provides a strong real-world context for analysing information systems ethics.

image

What Is the CBA AI Job-Cuts Case?

The required ethical case is:

Commonwealth Bank of Australia – AI Automation and Customer-Service Job Cuts

In July 2025, Commonwealth Bank of Australia confirmed that 45 customer-service roles were being cut following the introduction of an AI-powered chatbot/voice-bot designed to handle customer enquiries.

CBA stated that its technology investment was intended to make it easier and faster for customers to obtain help and that automating simpler enquiries could allow employees to focus on more complex customer needs. The bank also stated that it would explore redeployment, reskilling and other support for affected employees.

The Finance Sector Union challenged the decision and raised concerns about the consequences of AI-driven automation for employees.

The situation subsequently changed.

In August 2025, CBA reversed the proposed redundancies and apologised to affected employees. ABC News reported that the bank described the original decision as an error and said it had not adequately considered all relevant business considerations. Affected employees were offered options including remaining in their roles, redeployment or leaving the bank.

Important: Do Not Treat the Reversal as Automatic Proof

This is one of the most important points for BBIS 6101 Assignment 1.

The August 2025 reversal should not automatically be treated as proof that the July 2025 decision was unethical.

Instead, students should distinguish between:

July 2025 – Original decision

What information, assumptions, evidence and stakeholder considerations were available when CBA proposed the redundancies?

and:

August 2025 – Reversal

What new information or experience emerged, and what does the reversal reveal about the quality of the original decision-making process?

ABC reported that workers experienced increased call volumes after the AI voice-bot was introduced, while CBA acknowledged that its original assessment had not adequately considered all relevant business considerations.

A strong assignment therefore analyses the decision at the relevant decision point, rather than simply judging the July decision using hindsight.

CBA Case Timeline

July 2025

CBA announced that 45 customer-service roles were proposed for redundancy following the introduction of AI technology.

↓

Union challenge

The Finance Sector Union challenged the proposed job reductions and raised concerns about AI automation and its impact on workers.

↓

AI and customer-service experience

The case raised questions about whether expected reductions in customer-service workload actually occurred.

↓

August 2025

CBA reversed the proposed redundancies and apologised to affected employees.

↓

Ethical question

Was the original decision ethically justified based on the information available at the time, and what responsibilities should an organisation have when implementing AI that may affect employees and customers?

Why Is the CBA Case an Ethical Issue?

The case involves a conflict between several legitimate interests.

From CBA's perspective, AI automation may potentially:

• improve operational efficiency;
• provide faster customer assistance;
• automate repetitive enquiries;
• allow employees to focus on complex customer needs;
• support technological innovation; and
• contribute to organisational productivity.

However, automation can also create potential harms and ethical concerns.

These include:

• employee job displacement;
• financial and professional uncertainty;
• fairness in redundancy decisions;
• transparency;
• consultation;
• customer-service quality;
• organisational accountability;
• human oversight;
• reliability of assumptions about AI performance; and
• the distribution of benefits and costs among stakeholders.

This means the ethical question is not simply:

“Is AI good or bad?”

A stronger question is:

“How should an organisation ethically implement AI when the technology may create benefits for some stakeholders while imposing significant risks or costs on others?”

That is the type of question BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 expects students to explore.

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 – What Does Each Task Require?

Task 1 – Ethical Issue Identification & Context Analysis

Approximately 700 words | 20 marks

Task 1 requires students to identify and analyse the central ethical dilemma.

The section should include:

1. Problem statement

Clearly explain the ethical dilemma.

For example, the analysis may frame the issue as a conflict between:

AI-enabled efficiency and customer-service improvement

versus

employee security, fairness, stakeholder responsibility and organisational accountability.

2. Organisational context

Explain:

• CBA's role as a major Australian bank;
• its technology and AI strategy;
• the customer-service environment;
• organisational decision-making;
• governance considerations; and
• the relevance of workforce transformation.

CBA's 2025 Annual Report describes technology and AI as part of its strategic priority of reimagining customer experiences and also discusses governance, risk management, stakeholders and workforce matters.

3. Technological context

Explain what AI automation means in this particular case.

Do not spend excessive space explaining how AI works technically.

The assessment is about ethical analysis, not programming.

4. Social context

Consider the effect of automation on:

• employees;
• customers;
• employment;
• skills;
• workplace relationships; and
• wider society.

5. Stakeholder analysis

The assignment specifically requires a stakeholder analysis table.

A useful structure is:

The final assignment should support these points with credible evidence.

6. Legal, regulatory and professional considerations

Because the events occurred in Australia, the legal and regulatory context should be Australian.

The assignment does not require an extensive legal memorandum.

Instead, students should identify relevant considerations and explain why they matter ethically.

7. Governance and organisational culture

Consider whether organisational governance, internal decision-making, consultation, risk assessment or technology implementation contributed to the ethical dilemma.

Task 2 – Application of Major Ethical Theories

Approximately 1,000 words | 30 marks

Students must select two theories from:

1. Utilitarianism
2. Deontology
3. Virtue Ethics

A particularly strong combination for this case is:

Utilitarianism + Deontology

This combination allows the student to compare consequences with duties, rights and fairness.

Applying Utilitarianism to the CBA Case

Utilitarianism generally evaluates an action according to its consequences and seeks the greatest overall benefit or least overall harm.

Applied to CBA, students could consider:

Potential benefits

• greater operational efficiency;
• faster handling of simple enquiries;
• employees focusing on complex customer needs;
• potential productivity gains;
• potential customer benefits.

Potential harms

• employee redundancy;
• financial insecurity;
• loss of workplace experience;
• possible deterioration in customer service;
• reputational damage;
• reduced trust;
• unexpected workload consequences.

The important point is that a utilitarian analysis should not assume that reducing 45 jobs automatically creates a net benefit.

The student must consider all relevant consequences for all significant stakeholders.

Applying Deontology to the CBA Case

Deontological ethics focuses more heavily on duties, rights, principles and the inherent ethical status of actions rather than simply calculating outcomes.

A deontological analysis might therefore ask:

• Were employees treated fairly?
• Were they respected as stakeholders?
• Was the decision sufficiently transparent?
• Were employees treated merely as a means of achieving efficiency?
• Did CBA have a duty to adequately assess the consequences before proposing redundancies?
• Were affected employees given meaningful opportunities for consultation, redeployment or reskilling?

This can produce a significantly different perspective from utilitarianism.

Ethical Theory Comparison Table

The assignment requires a comparison table.

A useful structure is:

The student must then reach a justified conclusion about which theory provides the more ethically robust solution.

Simply saying "Deontology is better because employees have rights" is not enough.

The conclusion should explain why the theory provides stronger ethical reasoning for this particular case.

Task 3 – Markkula Ethical Decision-Making Framework

Approximately 900 words | 25 marks

Task 3 is one of the most important sections of the assignment.

Students should not merely define the Markkula Framework.

They must apply it to the CBA case.

The official Markkula Center describes the framework as a process designed to help people identify a broader range of ethical issues and make more carefully considered decisions. Importantly, the framework does not itself provide a single predetermined "correct" answer; the decision-maker must exercise judgement.

The 5 Stages of the Markkula Framework

Stage 1 – Identify the Ethical Issues

Ask:

• Who could be harmed?
• Who could benefit?
• Is this more than a question of efficiency or legality?
• What values are in conflict?

For CBA, the issue is not simply whether AI can automate customer enquiries.

The ethical issue involves the relationship between:

technology + efficiency + customer service + employment + fairness + organisational responsibility.

Stage 2 – Get the Facts

Students should distinguish between:

Known facts

For example:

• 45 roles were proposed for redundancy;
• an AI voice-bot had been introduced;
• the Finance Sector Union challenged the decision;
• CBA subsequently reversed the redundancies;
• CBA acknowledged shortcomings in its original assessment.

ABC News provides evidence for the July and August developments.

Unknown or uncertain facts

Students should also identify what was not known at the original decision point.

For example:

• How accurately could future call volumes be predicted?
• How effective would the AI system be?
• What would happen to customer-service workloads?
• What alternatives to redundancy were realistically available?
• How much retraining could affected employees receive?

Recognising uncertainty is an important part of ethical decision-making.

Stage 3 – Evaluate Alternative Actions

Do not assume the only choices were:

Cut jobs OR don't use AI.

A stronger analysis could consider several alternatives:

Option A

Proceed with the proposed redundancies.

Option B

Pause redundancies and gather additional operational evidence.

Option C

Introduce AI while redeploying and reskilling affected employees.

Option D

Use a phased AI implementation with workforce consultation and review points.

This is where the assignment can demonstrate genuine ethical reasoning.

Apply the Six Markkula Ethical Lenses

The official Markkula framework asks decision-makers to evaluate alternatives through six complementary ethical lenses: rights, justice, utilitarian, common good, virtue and care ethics.

Rights Lens

Which option best respects the rights of employees, customers and other stakeholders?

Justice Lens

Which option treats stakeholders fairly?

Utilitarian Lens

Which option produces the most benefit and least harm overall?

Common Good Lens

Which option contributes to the wellbeing of the wider community?

Virtue Lens

Which option reflects the qualities of a responsible and trustworthy organisation?

Care Ethics Lens

Which option appropriately considers relationships, concerns and feelings of stakeholders?

The official framework explicitly instructs users to consider these lenses rather than relying on a single ethical perspective.

Stage 4 – Choose an Option and Test It

After applying the ethical lenses, the student should select the preferred course of action.

A defensible recommendation might be a phased AI implementation combined with workforce consultation, reskilling/redeployment opportunities and evidence-based review before permanent redundancies.

However, students should develop their own evidence-based recommendation.

The important issue is to explain:

Why is this option ethically preferable?

The Markkula framework also asks whether the decision could withstand explanation to someone the decision-maker respects or to the public.

That provides an excellent opportunity to discuss transparency and accountability.

Stage 5 – Implement the Decision and Reflect

The final stage asks what happens after the decision.

Students should consider:

• implementation;
• monitoring;
• stakeholder feedback;
• employee outcomes;
• customer-service outcomes;
• AI performance;
• unintended consequences; and
• corrective action.

This is particularly relevant to the CBA case because the subsequent reversal demonstrates why ethical technology decisions should include mechanisms for review and learning.

The Markkula Center also notes that its process is not necessarily linear; new information can require decision-makers to return to earlier steps.

Professional Code of Ethics: ACS

Task 3 also requires integration of at least one recognised professional code of ethics relevant to Information Systems practice.

The Australian Computer Society (ACS) Code of Professional Ethics is one possible choice.

ACS states that its Code is designed to guide ethical and professional member behaviour and decision-making in rapidly changing technology environments. Its core values include honesty, trustworthiness and respect.

For this case, students could connect these principles to:

• transparency about AI capabilities;
• responsible decision-making;
• accountability for organisational outcomes;
• respect for affected employees;
• honest communication; and
• professional responsibility when implementing technology.

Do not simply mention the ACS Code.

Apply it to the CBA decision.

Task 4 – Ethical Decision Defence

Approximately 200–250 words | 5 marks

Task 4 is short but highly important.

The student needs to identify the strongest argument against their own recommendation.

For example, if the final recommendation supports delaying redundancies and using a phased AI implementation, a counterargument could be:

CBA has a legitimate responsibility to improve productivity and remain competitive, and delaying workforce restructuring could prevent the organisation from obtaining the full benefits of AI.

The student should then identify case-specific evidence supporting that position.

Finally, they must explain why they still support their recommendation—or modify it after considering the counterargument.

This demonstrates professional judgement and intellectual balance.

What Should the Final BBIS 6101 Report Look Like?

The updated submission requirements specify a structured report.

The recommended structure is:

Title Page

Include:

• paper code and name;
• assignment number and name;
• student's full name;
• student ID.

Declaration Page

Include the required academic declaration.

Table of Contents / Figures

Use automatic Word-generated contents where appropriate.

Task 1 – Ethical Issue Identification & Context Analysis

Approximately 700 words.

Task 2 – Application of Major Ethical Theories

Approximately 1,000 words.

Task 3 – Ethical Decision-Making Framework

Approximately 900 words.

Task 4 – Ethical Decision Defence

Approximately 200–250 words.

References

Use APA 7 consistently.

Formatting

The assignment requires:

• DOCX format;
• clear headings;
• formal academic tone;
• 11–12 point font;
• 1.15–1.5 line spacing;
• consistent layout;
• page numbers in the footer;
• required tables in the main report.

The total word count is 2,800–3,200 words, excluding the title page, table of contents, references and appendices.

How Many Sources Are Required for BBIS 6101?

Students need a minimum of:

12 credible sources

including:

5–6 peer-reviewed academic sources.

A strong source strategy should combine several categories.

1. Primary Case Sources

Use sources such as:

• ABC News reports on the July and August CBA developments;
• Commonwealth Bank annual reports and official material.

The CBA 2025 Annual Report provides official information about the bank's strategy, governance, risk management, stakeholders, workforce and technology priorities.

2. Academic Research

Search Google Scholar and academic databases for research on:

• AI and employment;
• automation;
• technological unemployment;
• AI ethics;
• workplace transformation;
• algorithmic decision-making;
• employee displacement;
• responsible AI;
• organisational ethics.

3. Professional Ethics

Use recognised professional organisations such as:

• ACS;
• ACM;
• IEEE.

4. Ethical Theory Sources

Use credible academic books, journal articles and university resources to explain:

• Utilitarianism;
• Deontology;
• Virtue Ethics.

5. Markkula Framework

Use the official Santa Clara University Markkula Center source rather than relying on an assignment-help website's explanation.

The official framework is available from the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University.

Recommended Sources for BBIS 6101 Assignment 1

Students researching the assignment should begin with authoritative sources.

CBA Case

ABC News – July 2025: Commonwealth Bank replaces dozens of call centre jobs with AI chatbot.

ABC News – August 2025: Commonwealth Bank backtracks on AI job cuts and apologises.

Commonwealth Bank 2025 Annual Report: Official information about CBA's strategy, governance, risk management and stakeholders.

Ethical Decision-Making

Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics – A Framework for Ethical Decision Making.

Markkula Center – Introduction to the Framework.

Professional Ethics

Australian Computer Society – Code of Professional Ethics.

These sources should be supplemented with appropriate peer-reviewed academic literature.

Australian or New Zealand Law: Which Should You Use?

This is an important point for BBIS 6101.

The CBA events described in the case occurred in Australia.

Therefore, when discussing legal, employment or regulatory considerations connected directly with the case, students should use the Australian context.

The existence of CBA's New Zealand subsidiary, ASB Bank, does not turn the case into a New Zealand case.

Students should therefore avoid applying New Zealand employment law simply because BBIS students may be studying in New Zealand.

The case jurisdiction and the student's university location are two different issues.

BBIS 6101 Assignment and NZ Assignment Help

Students searching for NZ assignment help, New Zealand assignment help or ICL assignment help may encounter BBIS 6101 as part of their Business Information Systems studies.

Because BBIS 6101 is associated with the ICL Graduate Business School programme in New Zealand, students may need support with topics such as:

• Information Systems ethics;
• business ethics;
• AI ethics;
• ethical decision-making;
• technology governance;
• business case analysis;
• academic research;
• APA 7 referencing; and
• structured report writing.

However, the CBA case itself remains an Australian case, and its legal and regulatory analysis should be treated accordingly.

Common BBIS 6101 Assignment Mistakes

Mistake 1 – Changing the Case

The assessment specifically requires the CBA case.

Do not replace CBA with another bank or another AI case.

Mistake 2 – Treating the Reversal as Proof of Wrongdoing

The August reversal is important evidence, but it does not automatically establish that the July decision was unethical.

Analyse the original decision using the information available at the relevant time.

Mistake 3 – Describing Instead of Analysing

A chronological summary of the CBA story is not enough.

The assignment requires ethical reasoning.

Always ask:

Why does this matter ethically?

Mistake 4 – Defining Ethical Theories Without Applying Them

Do not spend most of Task 2 explaining textbook definitions.

Apply each theory directly to CBA.

Mistake 5 – Ignoring Stakeholders

Employees are important, but they are not the only stakeholders.

Consider:

• employees;
• customers;
• management;
• shareholders;
• the Finance Sector Union;
• regulators;
• technology professionals; and
• wider society.

Mistake 6 – Using Only News Articles

News articles are valuable for establishing case facts, but the assignment specifically requires 5–6 peer-reviewed academic sources.

Mistake 7 – Forgetting the Professional Code

Task 3 requires a recognised professional code.

Do not simply add ACS or ACM to the reference list.

Explain how its principles apply to the case.

Mistake 8 – Putting Required Tables in the Appendix

The assignment requires relevant tables to appear in the main report.

Mistake 9 – Misrepresenting the Markkula Framework

The Markkula Framework is not a formula that automatically generates the morally correct answer.

The official Markkula Center explains that the framework guides ethical reasoning while the decision-maker remains responsible for judgement.

How to Get Better Marks in BBIS 6101 Assignment 1

A high-quality report should demonstrate analysis rather than description.

A useful test is:

Weak approach

CBA introduced AI and 45 employees were affected.

Stronger approach

The introduction of AI creates a conflict between operational efficiency and the organisation's responsibilities toward employees and customers. The ethical significance depends not only on whether automation generates efficiency benefits, but also on whether the decision-making process adequately considered foreseeable harms, stakeholder interests, uncertainty and alternative methods of implementing the technology.

The second approach demonstrates ethical reasoning.

A Strong Research Strategy for the Assignment

Before writing, divide your research into five folders:

Folder 1 – Case Evidence

Collect reliable sources establishing:

• what CBA announced;
• when it happened;
• what the AI technology was intended to do;
• what the union argued;
• what CBA said;
• what happened after the decision.

Folder 2 – Ethical Theories

Collect academic sources on:

• Utilitarianism;
• Deontology;
• Virtue Ethics.

Folder 3 – AI and Employment

Research:

• automation;
• employment displacement;
• reskilling;
• human-AI collaboration;
• workplace ethics.

Folder 4 – Professional Ethics

Research:

• ACS;
• ACM;
• IEEE;
• technology-professional responsibilities.

Folder 5 – Markkula Framework

Use the official Santa Clara University material and understand every stage before applying it.

This approach will make the final report much more coherent.

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1: Quick Questions Students Search For

What is the BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 case study?

The assigned case study is Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) – AI Automation and Customer-Service Job Cuts. The case examines the ethical implications of using AI in customer service while making workforce decisions that may affect employees, customers and other stakeholders.

Where can I find a BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 solution?

This page provides a condensed solution and analysis preview, followed by a task-by-task guide covering the ethical issue, stakeholder analysis, two ethical theories, the Markkula Framework, professional ethics and the ethical decision defence. It is intended as a study resource, not a submission-ready assignment.

How do I apply the Markkula Framework to the CBA case?

Apply the five broad stages in sequence: identify the ethical issues, get the facts, evaluate alternatives, choose and test an option, and implement and reflect. Then use the six ethical lenses—rights, justice, utilitarian, common good, virtue and care—to compare the alternatives. The framework supports judgement; it does not automatically produce one correct answer.

Which ethical theories should I use for BBIS 6101 Assignment 1?

The assessment allows two theories from Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics. Utilitarianism and Deontology are a particularly useful combination for the CBA case because they contrast consequences with duties, rights and fairness.

How should I structure a BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 report?

Use the required four-task structure: Task 1 – Ethical Issue Identification & Context Analysis; Task 2 – Application of Major Ethical Theories; Task 3 – Ethical Decision-Making Framework; Task 4 – Ethical Decision Defence, followed by the required references and other front matter specified by the assessment brief.

What sources should I use for BBIS 6101 Assignment 1?

Use a combination of primary case evidence, peer-reviewed academic research, professional ethics sources and the official Markkula Framework. The assessment requires at least 12 credible sources, including 5–6 peer-reviewed academic sources.

Frequently Asked Questions About BBIS 6101 Assignment 1

What is BBIS 6101?

BBIS 6101 is Ethics for the Information Systems Professional, a Level 6 paper within the Bachelor of Business Information Systems programme at ICL Graduate Business School.

What is BBIS 6101 Assignment 1?

Assignment 1 is titled Ethical Theories & Decision-Making and requires students to analyse the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's AI automation and customer-service job-cuts case.

Which company is used in the assignment?

The required organisation is Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

Students should not substitute another organisation.

Which country applies to the case?

The events occurred in Australia, so Australian legal and regulatory considerations should be used.

How many words are required?

The report requires 2,800–3,200 words, excluding the title page, table of contents, references and appendices.

How many sources are required?

At least 12 credible sources, including 5–6 peer-reviewed academic references.

Which ethical theories can be selected?

Students must select two from:

• Utilitarianism;
• Deontology; and
• Virtue Ethics.

Which two theories are best for the CBA case?

Utilitarianism and Deontology can provide a particularly strong comparison because they allow students to examine both consequences and duties, rights and fairness.

However, students should select theories that they can apply effectively.

Is the Markkula Framework compulsory?

Yes. Task 3 specifically requires students to apply the Markkula Center Framework for Ethical Decision Making.

How many stages does the Markkula Framework have?

The framework is commonly presented through five broad stages and ten questions, covering identification of ethical issues, gathering facts, evaluating alternatives, choosing and testing an option, and implementing/reflection.

What ethical lenses are used by the Markkula Framework?

The framework asks decision-makers to consider six lenses:

• Rights;
• Justice;
• Utilitarian;
• Common Good;
• Virtue; and
• Care Ethics.

Do I need a professional code of ethics?

Yes.

The assignment requires at least one recognised professional code relevant to Information Systems practice.

ACS is one possible choice. Its Code of Professional Ethics emphasises values including honesty, trustworthiness and respect.

Should I use Australian or New Zealand law?

For the CBA case, use Australian law and regulatory context, because the events occurred in Australia.

Does CBA's August reversal prove that its July decision was unethical?

No.

The reversal is an important later development that should be analysed, but students should not use hindsight as automatic proof that the original decision was unethical.

Can I use the CBA Annual Report?

Yes.

The Commonwealth Bank 2025 Annual Report is an appropriate primary source for organisational strategy, governance, risk, stakeholders and other relevant background.

Can NZ students get BBIS 6101 assignment help?

Yes. Students studying in New Zealand may seek academic support with research, structure, referencing, proofreading and understanding the requirements of their Information Systems assessments.

Need BBIS 6101 Assignment Help?

Understanding an assignment brief is often the first step, but completing a high-quality report requires much more than summarising the case.

Students may need support with:

• interpreting the assessment requirements;
• developing an ethical argument;
• finding peer-reviewed sources;
• applying Utilitarianism, Deontology or Virtue Ethics;
• applying the Markkula Framework;
• constructing stakeholder and comparison tables;
• using ACS, ACM or IEEE professional ethics;
• APA 7 referencing;
• proofreading and editing; and
• improving academic structure and clarity.

Punjab Assignment Help provides academic support for students working on business, Information Systems, ethics, research and other university assessments.

If you need help with BBIS 6101, send your assignment brief, marking rubric and lecturer-provided resources for a personalised assessment review.

Get Assignment Support

Website: PunjabAssignmentHelp.com
Email: punjabassignmenthelp@gmail.com
Phone: +91 89509 42422

Whether you are searching for BBIS 6101 assignment help, ICL assignment help, NZ assignment help, New Zealand assignment help, Australian university assignment help or Information Systems assignment help, make sure your final work follows your university's academic-integrity requirements and uses credible, verifiable sources.

Official and Recommended Resources

Use authoritative sources to verify the assessment context, case facts and ethical frameworks. These links also make this guide more useful for students who want to check the original material.

ICL Graduate Business School

For the programme and paper context, use the official ICL Graduate Business School website and current programme information.

ICL Graduate Business School: https://icl.ac.nz/

ICL 2026 Prospectus: https://icl.ac.nz/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/ICL-Prospectus-2026-v3_c.pdf

Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Use CBA's official corporate reporting for organisational strategy, governance, risk, stakeholders and technology context.

Commonwealth Bank: https://www.commbank.com.au/

ABC News – July 2025 CBA AI Job Cuts

Use the July 2025 ABC report to verify the initial announcement concerning customer-service roles and the positions of CBA and the Finance Sector Union.

ABC News – Commonwealth Bank AI/job cuts: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/commonwealth-bank-says-ai-behind-dozens-of-job-cuts/105586312

ABC News – August 2025 CBA Reversal

Use the August 2025 ABC report to verify the subsequent reversal, apology and CBA's explanation of the decision.

ABC News – CBA reverses proposed AI job cuts: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-08/commonwealth-bank-reverses-ai-job-cuts/105645620

Santa Clara University Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Use the official Markkula Framework when describing the five broad stages, ten questions and six ethical lenses.

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

Introduction to the Framework: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/introduction-to-a-framework-for-ethical-decision-making/

Australian Computer Society

Use the ACS Code of Professional Ethics when integrating professional responsibilities into Task 3.

ACS Professional Ethics and Conduct: https://www.acs.org.au/membership/professional-ethics-conduct-and-complaints.html

These primary sources should be supplemented with appropriate peer-reviewed academic literature rather than used as a substitute for the required academic research.

Recommended Internal Links for This Article

For stronger site architecture, link naturally from this article to relevant Punjab Assignment Help pages. Avoid adding links merely for keyword density.

Recommended anchors include:

• ICL assignment help → your ICL-specific assignment-help page
• NZ assignment help → your New Zealand assignment-help page
• Information Systems assignment help → your Computer/IT or Information Systems service page
• APA 7 referencing → your APA citation/reference resource
• Assignment Brief Analyzer → your Assignment Brief Analyzer tool
• University assignment help → your relevant university assignment-help hub

Aim for approximately 5–8 genuinely relevant internal links across the article. Use the exact live URLs from your CMS when publishing.

Final Takeaway

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 is fundamentally an exercise in ethical reasoning.

The strongest report will not simply explain what happened at Commonwealth Bank.

It will:

Identify the ethical dilemma → establish the facts → analyse stakeholders → apply two ethical theories → apply every relevant stage of the Markkula Framework → integrate professional ethics → evaluate alternatives → defend a recommendation.

Most importantly, students should distinguish between the July 2025 decision and the August 2025 reversal and avoid using hindsight as the sole basis for ethical judgement.

If you approach the assignment as an evidence-based ethical decision rather than a simple case summary, you will be much better positioned to satisfy the assessment criteria.

Need help with your BBIS 6101 assignment?

Send your assessment brief and marking rubric to Punjab Assignment Help for personalised academic support.

Punjab Assignment Help
Phone: +91 89509 42422
Email: punjabassignmenthelp@gmail.com
Website: punjabassignmenthelp.com

BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 Solution – One-Page Analysis Preview

Commonwealth Bank of Australia – AI Automation and Customer-Service Job Cuts

Looking for a BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 solution?
Below is a concise one-page academic analysis of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) AI automation and customer-service job-cuts case. This preview demonstrates how the ethical dilemma can be analysed using stakeholder analysis, ethical theories and the Markkula Ethical Decision-Making Framework.

Important: This is a condensed solution preview, not the complete 2,800–3,200 word assignment. Students should develop their own analysis using credible academic sources and follow their university's academic-integrity requirements.

1. Ethical Issue – What Is the Problem?

The central ethical dilemma concerns the balance between technological innovation and organisational responsibility toward employees and customers.

CBA's introduction of an AI-powered voice bot was intended to automate simpler customer enquiries and potentially allow employees to focus on more complex customer needs. However, the proposed redundancy of 45 customer-service roles created concerns about employee displacement, fairness, transparency, stakeholder consultation and whether the expected operational benefits had been adequately established.

The ethical issue is therefore not simply whether CBA should use AI. Rather, the key question is whether CBA's approach to implementing AI and proposing workforce reductions appropriately balanced efficiency, customer interests, employee welfare, fairness and organisational accountability.

2. Key Stakeholders

A strong ethical analysis should recognise that the benefits and costs of AI automation may not be distributed equally among stakeholders.

3. Ethical Theory Analysis

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian analysis evaluates the decision according to its overall consequences.

From this perspective, CBA could ethically justify automation if AI creates greater overall benefits through improved customer service, efficiency and productivity than the harms created by employee displacement.

However, the analysis must consider all significant consequences. If AI does not produce the expected reduction in customer-service demand, while employees experience significant harm from redundancy, the overall utility of immediate job reductions becomes less convincing.

Therefore, a utilitarian approach could favour phased implementation and evidence-based workforce decisions rather than immediate permanent redundancies.

Deontology

A deontological analysis focuses on duties, rights and principles rather than consequences alone.

From this perspective, CBA has responsibilities toward employees and customers that should not be overridden simply because automation may increase efficiency.

Important questions include:

• Were employees treated fairly?
• Was the decision sufficiently transparent?
• Were affected workers appropriately consulted?
• Were reasonable alternatives considered?
• Were employees treated as stakeholders with inherent value rather than merely as a cost-saving mechanism?

A deontological approach therefore provides a strong argument for fair treatment, transparency, consultation and respect for employee rights during AI implementation.

4. Markkula Framework Application

The Markkula Center Framework provides a structured process for ethical decision-making.

Applied to the CBA case, the process begins by identifying the ethical issue and gathering the relevant facts.

The organisation should then consider alternative courses of action rather than assuming that immediate redundancy is the only option.

Possible alternatives include:

A. Proceed immediately with the proposed redundancies.

B. Delay redundancies while gathering additional operational evidence.

C. Introduce AI while offering affected employees reskilling or redeployment.

D. Use a phased AI implementation with workforce consultation and formal review points.

These alternatives can then be evaluated through the Markkula ethical lenses of rights, justice, utilitarianism, common good, virtue and care ethics.

A particularly defensible approach would be a phased AI implementation combined with workforce consultation, redeployment/reskilling opportunities and measurable review points before permanent redundancies are implemented.

This approach does not reject technological innovation. Instead, it seeks to ensure that innovation is introduced responsibly.

5. Ethical Recommendation

The strongest ethical recommendation is not necessarily to reject AI automation.

A more balanced approach would be to:

Implement AI progressively while retaining appropriate human oversight, consulting affected employees, providing reasonable reskilling or redeployment opportunities, monitoring customer-service outcomes and using reliable operational evidence before making permanent workforce reductions.

This approach recognises CBA's legitimate interest in technological innovation while reducing avoidable harm to employees and customers.

The subsequent August 2025 reversal is relevant because CBA acknowledged shortcomings in its original assessment. However, the reversal should not automatically be treated as proof that the July decision was unethical. Instead, it provides evidence that decision-making under technological uncertainty should incorporate review mechanisms and the possibility of corrective action.

6. Strongest Counterargument

The strongest argument against this recommendation is that organisations have legitimate responsibilities to improve efficiency and remain competitive.

If AI can perform certain customer-service functions more efficiently, requiring CBA to maintain roles that technology can replace could impose unnecessary costs and potentially reduce the benefits available to customers and shareholders.

However, this argument does not necessarily justify immediate permanent redundancies. Where the performance and operational consequences of new AI technology remain uncertain, a phased and evidence-based implementation can preserve the benefits of innovation while reducing unnecessary stakeholder harm.

Want the Complete BBIS 6101 Assignment 1 Solution?

This one-page analysis is only a condensed preview.

The complete assignment requires a 2,800–3,200 word structured report covering all four assessment tasks, including:

• detailed ethical issue and context analysis;
• stakeholder analysis;
• application of two ethical theories;
• ethical theory comparison table;
• all stages of the Markkula Framework;
• professional code of ethics;
• framework strengths and limitations;
• ethical decision defence;
• 12+ credible sources;
• 5–6 peer-reviewed academic sources;
• APA 7 referencing; and
• the required report structure.

Need help with the complete assignment?

Send your BBIS 6101 assignment brief and marking rubric to Punjab Assignment Help for personalised academic support.

Phone: +91 89509 42422
Email: punjabassignmenthelp@gmail.com
Website: punjabassignmenthelp.com