Industry and Ethics Analysis (Individual report)
Analysis of contemporary issues, opportunities, trends, challenges or innovation in the ICT industry.
Analysis of contemporary issues, opportunities, trends, challenges or innovation within an ICT Company (a company compatible with the student’s 5-year plan career aspirations is suggested, though not mandatory, as the assignment may be of assistance as a sample of your work during a job interview). This will include considerations such as organisation/management structure, mission statement, company objectives, the market, ethics and business practices, ability to deliver on their business objectives through their people and processes, SWOT, dependencies, major projects, risks, issues and strategic forecasts. The Report will support exploration of business opportunities with the ICT Company. This work may assist the students in creating a plan (in Assignment 2) that will outline where they would like to be in five years.
Note that depth of analysis of organizational ethics and ethical consideration of engagement is an important component of this work. You will be assessed on the following:
- Relevance of the selected topic and submission to the Assignment specification
- Depth of analysis of topic related to ICT industry. This relates to depth and breadth of analyses of companies.
iii. Quality of writing and clarity of content’s structure
- Appropriate citation of sources
- Depth of analysis of organizational ethics and ethical consideration of engagement.
Team, this Assignment is an individual work and has been set up as a parallel to your individual Assignment 3 e-portfolio, to assist you with analysis of a company, perhaps one where you might like to be within five years.
In this context, you are to choose a company (Company-1) within an ICT industry of your choice. The ICT industry will be relevant to your future interests within the ICT profession. Company-1 may be national or international and need not necessarily be Australian.
The scenario is that you have either been contracted as a Consultant or Employee of Company-2.
Company-2 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is about to visit Company-1. She will visit Company-1 shortly after you hand in your report, in order to investigate the possibility of developing a business relationship. Moreover, she will rely only upon your report as her preparation for visiting Company-1. In this context, you need to both analyse Company-1 and provide a report to Company-2 CEO so she if fully prepared and informed when she visits Company-1. No surprises!
This also means you will need to briefly define the nature of Company-2 that you are working for, to establish the context for possible collaboration or involvement with Company-1. (i.e. what Company-2 does and anything else you need to define in order to investigate the viability of doing business with Company-1).
The deliverable will be a document in which you will analyse contemporary issues, opportunities, trends, challenges or innovation within the ICT Industry associated with Company-1. This may include considerations such as organisation/management structure, mission statement, company objectives, the market, ethics and business practices, ability to deliver on their business objectives through their people and processes, SWOT, dependencies, major projects, risks and issues and your strategic forecasts. Remember, although you are reviewing Company-1 in detail, the CEO of Company-2 will want to know the benefits (or disbenefits or drawbacks) for Company-2 in working with Company-1. For example, if you choose IBM as Company-1, it will not suffice to simply talk about all the great things IBM can do and why it is a great company. Rather, you need to analyse and review your findings in order to provide your CEO with recommendations as to which areas she should target so as to give benefit to her Company-2. It is also possible that your findings indicate it is unwise for her to seek a relationship with Company-1.
You must also consider what value or benefit Company-1would get from a relationship with Company-2 and advise your CEO accordingly. That is, what value or benefit can Company-2 offer Company-1?
Of particular interest to The CEO of Company-2 are the Ethical practices and conduct of Company-1 and its employees. You will need to include an analysis of how the company addresses ethics and sustainability. You may consider this in the context of market research on a competitor or as research pre-investment in that company.
This document will take the form of a 3000-word (+/-10%) 12-font single-spacing Document Report including a 1-page Executive Summary of your chosen company or corporation, inclusive of Citations (Harvard Style, in-text plus Bibliography/References- section). An additional 2 pages may be included as appendices, should you choose to include diagrams, charts, figures or tables, all of which should be captioned with appropriate references. Note it is up to you whether the 3000+/-10% word-limit includes or excludes the Executive Summary. The Executive Summary will be 1 to 1.5 pages in length with MS-word narrow sized margins. Uploads will be in pdf format.
NOTE. Emphasis of marking will be on an appropriately structured Executive Summary as a stand-alone document with the rest of the report serving as depth to justify findings and recommendations contained within the Executive Summary. (see next 2 pages).
Hint. You must be a critical thinker, state your assumptions and justify your assertions and statements of “fact”. Note that Wikipedia is not acceptable as a primary reference.
|Assessment 1.2 Criteria||Weight||F
75 – 84
|Relevance and alignment of submission to the Assignment specification, including emphasis on an appropriately structured Executive Summary
as a stand-alone document.
|Depth of analysis of topic related to ICT industry. This relates to depth and breadth of evidence-based analyses of companies, including critical thinking.||5|
|Quality of writing and clarity of content’s structure.||2.5|
|Appropriate citation of sources, Harvard Style in-text and Bibliography (Wikipedia is not an acceptable primary source for reference)||2.5|
|Depth of analysis of organizational ethics and ethical consideration of engagement||5|
|Total mark (without penalty)||
Student to contact tutor
Yes ☐ No ☒
|Number of days late|
|Late penalty (5% times number of days or part thereof)|
|Overall Mark (Total minus late penalty, rounded up to the nearest whole mark) [/25]|
This table exemplifies my approach to several of the marking criteria
|Attribute||No attempt||Very poor||Pass||C||D||HD||Perfect|
|Relevance and alignment of Report to the assignment brief. Note relevance of Executive Summary.||Missing/No Attempt
|Assignment presented but Assignment Brief has not been adhered to or Executive Summary is absent. Not worthy of presentation for marking.
|Assignment Brief has been somewhat considered and adhered to. Significant content or depth of analysis lacking. Equivalent to a draft.
|Assignment Brief has been considered and largely adhered to, but some content is lacking. Evidence-based critical analysis, evaluation and recommendation are included but somewhat lacking. Executive Summary contains most essential ingredients.
|Assignment Brief has been considered but deviates slightly from the required Brief parameters. Evidence-based critical analysis, evaluation and recommendation are included. Executive Summary contains most essential ingredients. (4points)||Work has been submitted within prescribed parameters. Purpose of the assignment has been addressed comprehensively with appropriate levels of evidence-based critical analysis, evaluation and recommendation. Executive Summary contains all essential ingredients.
|Perfect Work – Could not be further improved. Worthy of Publication. (5points) The Executive Summary is near faultless.
|Quality of writing and clarity of content’s structure
(incl. accuracy, spelling, grammar, punctuation)
|Meaning unclear and/or grammar and/or spelling contain frequent errors. Unsubstantiated/invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all. (2points)||Meaning apparent but language not always fluent. Grammar and/or spelling contain errors. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature. (3points)||Language mainly fluent Grammar and spelling mainly accurate. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature. (3.5points)||Language fluent. Grammar and Spelling accurate. Good development shown in summary of arguments based in theory/literature.
|Fluent writing style appropriate to document. Grammar and spelling accurate. Analytical and clear conclusions well-grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts. (4.5points)||Perfect Work – Could not be further improved. Worthy of Publication. (5points)|
|Depth of analysis of organizational ethics & ethical consideration of engagement||Missing/No Attempt
|Fails to address the task set. Is disorganised and incoherent. (2points).||Aspects of the work relate to the aim and themes. Have attempted to organise in a logical manner. (3points)||Addresses main purpose of the task and demonstrates organisation and coherence. (3.5points)||Deviates slightly from the required parameters. Addressed the purpose of the task coherently and with critical thinking and evidence-based analysis.
|Work has been submitted within prescribed parameters. Addressed the purpose of the task comprehensively. Shows a polished approach to the topic with considerable depth of critical thinking and evidence-based analysis.
|Perfect Work – Could not be further improved. Worthy of Publication. (5points)|
|Depth of analysis of topic related to ICT industry.
|Lacks evidence of knowledge relevant to the topic and/or significantly misuses terminology Fails to provide any
evidence of critical thinking. (2points).
|Evidence of Limited knowledge of topic and some use of appropriate terminology. Inaccurate or Inappropriate choice of theory. Provides limited evidence of critical thinking. (3points)||Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge base and appropriate terminology.
Selection of material is appropriate, but some aspects have been missed or misconstrued. Provides some evidence that critical thinking has been undertaken.
|Reasonable knowledge of topic and an awareness of a variety of ideas/contexts/frameworks. Insightful and appropriate selection of theory in key areas. Most key theories are included in the work in an appropriate straight forward manner. Provides solid evidence that critical thinking has been undertaken.
|Comprehensive/detailed knowledge of topic. Demonstrates in-depth knowledge of area of specialisation and shows awareness of provisional nature of knowledge. Assignment demonstrates integration and innovation in the selection and handling of information and theory. Provides clear and robust evidence that critical thinking has been undertaken.
|Perfect Work – Could not be further improved. Worthy of Publication. (5points)|
|Missing/No Attempt (0points).||Perfunctory attempt at
Referencing and systemic errors (2points).
|Systemic errors, though has attempted referencing (3points).||Contains some referencing errors. (3.5points).||Minimal errors. (4points)||No errors in referencing but perhaps more
references would have been appropriate. (4.5points).
|Perfect Work – could not be further improved. Worthy of Publication. (5points)|