I have uploaded an example of other lit reviews as well. No plagiarism please
Microsoft Word - INF30018 SP1 2019 Assessment Guidelines for Literature Review.docx Page | 1 Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Business & Law INF30018 Information Systems Management SP1, 2019 Assessment Guidelines for Literature Review Due Date: By 11:59pm Monday 18/03/2019 AEST Assessment Weighting: This assessment contributes 30% to your final grade Assessment Length: 2000 words (plus or minus 10%) Individual or Group: Individual Submission: Online through submission link inside Assignment 1 Folder. Word submission files accepted. Turnitin Used (Y/N): Yes. Also, please note that literature reviews and briefing papers submitted as assessment items in other Units of Study are checked for similarity. Assessment covers: This assessment covers the following unit learning objectives: 1. Articulate the characteristics and elements underpinning business and IS strategies and apply appropriate analytical tools and techniques to align business and IS planning and decision‐making strategies 2. Analyse and evaluate problems, opportunities and challenges in IS management and make recommendations based on sound IS management theory and practice Assessment Details The following is a list of the top 10 issues that keep CIOs awake at night according to a 2018 survey. Your task is to select One (1) topic and write a review of literature which highlights the reasons why the topic area may be of concern to senior IT managers. 1. Big data 2. Data mining 3. Business Intelligent tools and techniques 4. Social and Digital Commerce 5. Fog computing 6. The Internet of Things 7. Dark web 8. Mobile payments and the Cashless Society 9. Information and Data Preservation 10. Cloud and IT Governance In this assignment you will: Page | 2 Develop an appreciation of key issues facing IS Managers in contemporary organisations; Show familiarity with research in the IS management area; and Develop critical thinking skills through identifying, analysing, evaluating and developing arguments which illustrate thoughtful appreciation of aspects of IS management. The review should be structured with an introduction, body and conclusion and include in‐text citations. The review should be followed by a reference list constructed in Harvard referencing style which includes ONLY those references in your review. Please see the Harvard Quick Guide pdf in the Resources Folder in Canvas for further details on formatting expectations for Harvard and clarification on the difference between a reference list and a bibliography. What do we mean by a ‘literature review’? The literature review will provide a critical evaluation of relevant existing literature on the chosen topic. To review something implies that you should examine a subject critically. This means that you need to present a number of points relevant to the topic title, evaluate those points, compare and contrast different perspectives, give a range of information, evidence and informed opinion, and thus develop a well‐balanced, well‐informed argument that is supported by reference to the appropriate relevant, quality literature. You should identify common themes that appear in a number of articles, and also look for divergent viewpoint. You should use ten (10) sources of literature (articles) from quality sources such as peer‐reviewed academic journals, industry magazines and books. If you are unsure on what ‘quality sources’ means, please seek guidance from the INF30018 teaching team. Expectations Your marker will expect that you independently and actively search out information regarding the topic by utilising academic resources such as Swinburne Library’s online databases and Google Scholar, become familiar with the characteristic style of this type of assessment document (literature reviews are different in look and structure than other reports) and to seek guidance on any uncertainties you may have in completing this assessment item to the best of your ability. Refer to the Literature Review Marking Rubric, ‘Important information on Assessments’ folder under Assessments and Resources section on Canvas and clarify any issues with the INF30018 teaching team. Don’t forget to keep a backup of your submission. If your assessment goes astray, whether your fault or ours, you will be required to reproduce it. It is expected that all work submitted will have been edited for spelling, grammar and clarity. Extensions and Late Submission Page | 3 Please reread the section on Extensions and Late Submission that can be found in the Unit Outline. Late assignments may result in a lower grade for the assignment in terms of the University's Extensions and Late Penalties policies. Late submission of an assessment will result in a late penalty being applied as required by Swinburne University assessment guidelines. Unless an extension has been approved, a submission after the due date will be penalised 10% of the assessments worth for each calendar day the task is late up to a maximum of 5 days. After 5 days a zero result will be recorded. Any request for extension must be directed to the Unit Convener via email and must include appropriate supporting documentation such as a doctor's certificate or a letter from your employer. The contact details of the Unit Convenor are available by clicking on the ‘Contacts’ link inside the INF30018 Canvas. Plagiarism Please reread the section on plagiarism that can be found in the Unit Outline. Any evidence of plagiarism will result in a Fail. Collaborative discussion with other participants in the unit around concepts and additional examples is highly recommended, but don’t copy. Assessment Help If you have any queries or concerns you may discuss it with the convenor and/or tutor during the tutorials, by email or in the Canvas discussion board in the appropriate discussion forum. Technical Help Technical assistance can be obtained from the Swinburne Service Desk (03) 9214 5000. INF30018_Sem2_2018_Literature Review Marking Rubric.xlsx Criteria Unacceptable Low High Marks Obtained Adherence to assignment requirements (Max: 3 Marks) Did not adhere to majority of submission guidelines (0‐1 Marks) Adhered to minimal submission requirements (1.1‐1.5 Marks) Adhered to all submission requirements. (2.6‐3 Marks) 3 Quality of expression, writing style and presentation. (Max: 6 Marks) Very limited or no evidence of quality of expression, writing style and presentation. (0‐1 Marks) It is hard to know what the writer is trying to express. Writing is convoluted. Misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and improper punctuation are evident. The correct style of language required for a literature review has not been followed. Layout shows no attempt or a basic attempt at professionalism. (1.1‐3 Marks) Writing is crisp, clear, and succinct. The writer incorporates the active voice when appropriate and supports ideas with examples. No spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made. The correct style of language required for a literature review has been followed. Highly Professional layout. (5.1‐6 Marks) 2 Critical appraisal and synthesis of literature (Max: 10 Marks) Major sections of pertinent content have been omitted or greatly run‐on. Sources have not been cited when specific statements are made. Major flaws evident. The topic is of little significance to the course. (0‐5 Marks) The appropriate content in consideration is covered in depth without being redundant. Sources are cited when specific statements are made. Significance to the course is unquestionable. (8.1‐10 Marks) 3 Clear, coherent, logical structure (Max: 6 Marks) Neither implicit nor explicit reference is made to the topic or purpose of the article. The summary appears to have no direction, with subtopics appearing disjointed. There is no indication the author tried to synthesise the information or make a conclusion based on the literature under review. (0‐3 Marks) The topic is introduced, and groundwork is laid as to the direction of the article.mary goes from general ideas to specific conclusions. Transitions tie sections together, as well as adjacent paragraphs. The author was able to make succint and precise conclusions based on the review. (5.1‐6 Marks) 5 Referencing (Comprehensiveness of literature coverage, Harvard style, relevance, accuracy) (Max: 5 Marks) Either did not provide an adequate list of references OR included a bibliography instead i.e. not all references were cited in the body of the report or vice versa. Failed to provide a bare minimum of 7 references. (0‐2.5 Marks) Evidence of wide and relevant readings provided. Provided more than 10 references from credible sources such as books, journal papers, conference papers etc. Well presented reference list. Adherence to Harvard guidelines done well No flaws evident. (4.1‐5 Marks) 5 Student ID and Name: Total (out of 30)= 18.0 No. of Days assignment was late= 0 Late Submission Penalty= 0% Adjusted Total= 18.0 Grade= C 0 0 F 50 15 P 60 18 C 70 21 D 80 24 HD Provided 7‐10 references from credible sources such as books, journal papers, conference papers etc. Well structured reference list. May not have strictly adhered to Harvard guidelines. Some flaws may be evident. (2.6‐4 Marks) Please refer to comments within the rubric for feedback comments and also look inside your submitted LR for additionalpersonalised comments.Please contact your tutor if you need further clarification INF30018 Information Systems Management Marking Rubric for Assignment 1 (Literature Review worth 30 marks) Medium Adhered to most of the submission requirements. (1.6‐2.5 Marks) Writing is generally clear, but unnecessary words are occasionally used. Meaning is sometimes hidden. Paragraph or sentence structure is too repetitive. Few spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made. The correct style of language required for a literature review has been followed inconsistently. Professional layout. (3.1‐5 Marks) All major sections of the pertinent content are included, but not covered in as much depth, or as explicit, as expected. Minor flaw in citing sources when specific statements are made. Significance to the course is evident. (5.1‐8 Marks) Readers are aware of the overall problem, challenge, or topic of the article. There is a basic flow from one section to the next, but not all sections or paragraphs follow in a natural or logical order.The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the conclusions, however, were not supported in the body of the report. 1 Human-Computer Interaction as a factor in Information Systems design Abstract In this paper, I will examine the two common themes found throughout the HCI literature that relate to User Experience (UX) in Information Systems. The first focuses on development tools that allow designers to focus on UX by adjusting the user interface and task logic to best suit the user's needs. The second theme examines studies into user attitudes towards UX and how it affects their ability to use the IS effectively and the likelihood that they will continue to use it. I find that additional research is required in order to combine these themes. Introduction Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has been an academic concept since the 1960s(Myers 1998). HCI deals not just with the user interface (UI) and input devices like the keyboard and mouse, but with how people understand and utilise technology. Along with the growing understanding that IS design should be a part of, not just beholden to, business strategy has been the idea that users are a critical factor in the success or failure of IS. The literature on HCI as it relates to IS falls into two main streams. The first attempts to create new protocols for designers and developers that allow them to anticipate the often-unexpected ways in which users are likely to interact with their system. The second stream examines HCI issues in existing systems through user surveys and formulates theories of user acceptance based on their attitudes and experiences. While a couple of papers attempt to bridge this theoretical divide, for the most part there remains a disconnect between theory and practice. In this review, I will show that there is much work still to be done in this field before there is anything like an acceptable design model that allows users to be optimally happy and productive without compromising other core IS development priorities. Developing for the user The impression the research gives is that it's important to consider users when designing IS, but there are no clear answers as to just how a developer should go about doing this. There are, however, a number of models that vary between theoretical and technical. The theory of User-Centred Design (UCD) is common in the HCI literature. Courage (2004) defines it as: "...a product development approach that focuses on the users of a product. The philosophy is that the product should suit the user rather than making the user suit the product. This is accomplished by employing techniques, processes, and methods throughout the product lifecycle that focus on the user"(p.3). 2 User participation Damodaran (1998) documents the process of a medium-sized company that incorporated a user- centred approach into its overall IS strategy. The Board decided on a simultaneous "top-down" and "bottom-up" approach whereby both senior management and end-users were interviewed to ascertain their thoughts on the company, its IS and where they thought it was all headed. Damodaran concludes that it is an important and worthwhile process and that reporting the findings widely throughout the company is of great benefit to everyone (ibid. p.133), but there is no metric for success. There is essentially no way to prove the efficacy of this approach. Sweany & Gómez (2007), on the other hand, use a more robust method in reporting on Intel's corporate strategy of replacing custom-built applications with off-the-shelf software. They recognise the potential danger in this activity because "[t]raditionally, IT departments have under emphasized the importance of User Experience (UX) considerations when deploying third-party systems"(ibid. p.45). On the other hand, simply asking users which features they would most like customised in their software carries its own hazard as "recent usage data from Intel IT indicates that employees had never used over 40% of post-purchase modifications on a large third-party solution"(ibid. p.47). Sweany & Gómez found that the best approach was to conduct qualitative surveys of users throughout the different stages of the Systems Development Lifecycle (SDLC) to look at what they were trying to accomplish in their tasks and why, rather than simply how. End-users aren't always best equipped to know what they want, so it often takes pioneering market research techniques, such as those of Ulwick (2002) to find out what they need so that the designer can use their innovation skills to achieve the optimal outcomes. Technical development tools While the evidence so far suggests that User Interface (UI) is subordinate to overall User Experience (UX), a functional and pleasing UI is still critical to overall user acceptance. Creating a simple, intuitive interface can be a complex, costly task for developers and with their intimate knowledge of the application's inner workings, they may not appreciate that the logical steps they think necessary and sufficient to complete a task may differ from those of the user. One solution is to create an abstract tool to represent a user's thought processes, such as Ryu & Monk's (2009) Interaction Unit Analysis or Blandford & Young's (1996) Instruction Language. Breaking down a user's task into a step-by-step abstraction should allow the developer to spot a potential sequence priority error such as withdrawing cash from an ATM while leaving the access card behind (Ryu & Monk 2009, p.386). Another example is that of operating system GUI inconsistency where dragging a file between directories on the same physical drive will move the file, but performing the same action between different physical drives will copy it (Blandford & Young 1996, p.325). Creating these abstractions is time-consuming, but as these real-world examples show, when one's user base is in the millions, designers should have sufficient incentive to devote the resources. Other factors There are, however, some UX factors that are out of the hands of developers, and often not taken into account by IS designers. In a worldwide business environment where everything is connected, network performance is often crucial to overall system performance. This is particularly the case in 3 thin-client environments where the user's desktop session exists remotely on a server and is rendered over the network to a terminal. Tolia, Andersen & Satyanarayanan (2006) found that even slight delays of 150 milliseconds between key press or mouse click and system response is noticeable to the user. Delays of more than a second can be detrimental to UX to the point that the system becomes unusable. Similar effects can be felt when servers become overloaded and requests are queued. The trouble is that system administrators often only become aware of problems when they manifest as failure. "[N]etwork managers don't necessarily oversee other IT groups such as applications, security storage and systems, but they must have links into all that management data"(Dubie 2006, p.44). IS designers should ensure that IT departments play an integral part in their planning. They must also have the necessary monitoring tools and know the required performance thresholds to ensure that the system is not just working from a technical perspective but from a UX perspective as well. Post-adoption acceptance Much of the HCI theory in user research stems from the work outlined in Davis (1989). In that paper, he expands upon the concept of user acceptance and tries to introduce the variables of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness to create a robust statistical model. User acceptance is critical in IS because the best-intentioned, best-designed, most efficient system in the world has no value at all if it never gets used