Mini CaseDelivering Business Value with IT at Hefty Hardw.docx

Mini Case
Delivering Business Value with
IT at Hefty Hardware2
“IT is a pain in the neck,” groused Cheryl
O’Shea, VP of retail marketing, as she
slipped into a seat at the table in the Hefty Hardware executive
dining room, next to
her colleagues. “It’s all technical mumbo-jumbo when they talk
to you and I still don’t
know if they have any idea about what we’re trying to
accomplish with our Savvy Store
program. I keep explaining that we have to improve the
customer experience and that
we need IT’s help to do this, but they keep talking about
infrastructure and bandwidth
and technical architecture, which is all their internal stuff and
doesn’t relate to what
we’re trying to do at all! They have so many processes and
reviews that I’m not sure
we’ll ever get this project off the ground unless we go outside
the company.”
“You’ve got that right,” agreed Glen Vogel, the
COO. “I really like my IT account
manager, Jenny Henderson. She sits in on all our strategy
meetings and seems to really
understand our business, but that’s about as far as it goes. By
the time we get a project
going, my staff are all complaining that the IT people don’t
even know some of our
basic business functions, like how our warehouses operate. It

takes so long to deliver
any sort of technology to the field, and when it doesn’t work the
way we want it to, they
just shrug and tell us to add it to the list for the next release!
Are we really getting value
for all of the millions that we pour into IT?”
“Well, I don’t think it’s as bad as you both seem to believe,”
added Michelle
Wright, the CFO. “My EA singsthe praises of
the help desk and the new ERP system
we put in last year. We can now close the books at month-end in
24 hours. Before that,
it took days. And I’ve seen the benchmarking reports on our
computer operations. We
are in the top quartile for reliability and cost-effectiveness for
all our hardware and
systems. I don’t think we could get IT any cheaper outside the
company.”
“You are talking ‘apples and oranges’ here,” said Glen. “On one
hand, you’re
saying that we’re getting good, cheap, reliable computer
operations and value for the
money we’re spending here. On the other hand, we don’t feel IT
is contributing to
creating new business value for Hefty. They’re really two
different things.”
“Yes, they are,” agreed Cheryl. “I’d even agree with you that
they do a pretty
good job of keeping our systems functioning and preventing
viruses and things. At
least we’ve never lost any data like some of our competitors.
But I don’t see how they’re
contributing to executing our business strategy. And surely in

this day and age with
increased competition, new technologies coming out all over the
place, and so many
changes in our economy, we should be able to get them to help
us be more flexible, not
less, and deliver new products and services to our customers
quickly!”
2 Smith, H. A., and J. D. McKeen. “Delivering
Business Value with IT at Hefty Hardware.”
#1-L10-1-001,
Queen’s School of Business, May 2010. Reproduced by
permission of Queen’s University, School of Business,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
98
M06_MCKE0260_03_GE_C06.indd 98 12/3/14 8:38 PM
Delivering Business Value with IT at Hefty
Hardware 99
The conversation moved on then, but Glen was thoughtful as he
walked back to
his office after lunch. Truthfully, he only ever thought about IT
when it affected him and
his area. Like his other colleagues, he found most of his
communication with the depart-
ment, Jenny excepted, to be unintelligible, so he delegated it to
his subordinates, unless
it absolutely couldn’t be avoided. But Cheryl was right. IT was
becoming increasingly
important to how the company did its business. Although
Hefty’s success was built on

its excellent supply chain logistics and the assortment of
products in its stores, IT played
a huge role in this. And to implement Hefty’s new Savvy Store
strategy, IT would be
critical for ensuring that the products were there when a
customer wanted them and
that every store associate had the proper information to answer
customers’ questions.
In Europe, he knew from his travels, IT
was front and center in most cutting-
edge retail stores. It provided extensive self-service to improve
checkout; multichannel
access to information inside stores to enable customers to
browse an extended product
base and better support sales associates assisting customers; and
multimedia to engage
customers with extended product knowledge. Part of Hefty’s
new Savvy Store business
strategy was to copy some of these initiatives, hoping to become
the first retailer in
North America to completely integrate multimedia and digital
information into each of
its 1,000 stores. They’d spent months at the executive
committee meetings working out
this new strategic thrust—using information and multimedia to
improve the customer
experience in a variety of ways and to make it consistent in
each of their stores. Now,
they had to figure out exactly how to execute it, and IT was a
key player. The question
in Glen’s mind now was how could the business and IT work
together to deliver on this
vision, when IT was essentially operating in its own technical
world, which bore very
little relationship to the world of business?

Entering his office, with its panoramic view of
the downtowncore, Glen had an
idea. “Hefty’s stores operate in a different world than we do at
our head office. Wouldn’t
it be great to take some of our best IT folks out on the road so
they could see what it’s
really like in the field? What seems like a good idea here at
corporate doesn’t always
work out there, and we need to balance our corporate needs with
those of our store
operations.” He remembered going to one of Hefty’s smaller
stores in Moose River and
seeing how its managers had circumvented the company’s
stringent security protocols
by writing their passwords on Post-it notes stuck to the store’s
only computer terminal.
So, on his next trip to the field he decided he would take Jenny,
along with Cheryl
and the Marketing IT Relationship Manager, Paul Gutierez, and
maybe even invite the
CIO, Farzad Mohammed, and a couple of the IT architects. “It
would be good for them
to see what’s actually happening in the stores,” he reasoned.
“Maybe once they do, it
will help them understand what we’re trying to accomplish.”
A few days later, Glen’s e-mailed invitation had Farzad in a
quandary. “He wants
to take me and some of my top people—including you—on the
road two weeks from
now,” he complained to his chief architect, Sergei Grozny.
“Maybe I could spare Jenny
to go, since she’s Glen’s main contact, but we’re up to our
wazoos in alligators trying to

put together our strategic IT architecture so we can support
their Savvy Stores initiative
and half a dozen more ‘top priority’ projects. We’re supposed to
present our IT strategy
to the steering committee in three weeks!”
“And I need Paul to work with the architecture team over the
next couple of
weeks to review our plans and then to work with the master data
team to help them
outline their information strategy,” said Sergei. “If we don’t
have the infrastructure and
M06_MCKE0260_03_GE_C06.indd 99 12/3/14 8:38 PM
100 Section I • Delivering Value with IT
integrated information in place there aren’t going to be any
‘Savvy Stores’! You can’t
send Paul and my core architects off on some boondoggle for a
whole week! They’ve all
seen a Hefty store. It’s not like they’re going to see anything
different.”
“You’re right,” agreed Farzad. “Glen’s just going to have to
understand that I can’t
send five of our top people into the field right now. Maybe in
six months after we’ve
finished this planning and budget cycle. We’ve got too much
work to do now. I’ll send
Jenny and maybe that new intern, Joyce Li, who we’re thinking
of hiring. She could use
some exposure to the business, and she’s not working on
anything critical. I’ll e-mail

Jenny and get her to set it up with Glen. She’s so great with
these business guys. I don’t
know how she does it, but she seems to really get them onside.”
Three hours later, Jenny Henderson arrived back from a
refreshing noontime
workout to find Farzad’s request in her priority
in-box. “Oh #*!#*@!” she swore. She
had a more finely nuanced understanding of the politics
involved in this situation, and
she was standing on a land mine for sure. Her business contacts
had all known about
the invitation, and she knew it was more than a simple request.
However, Farzad, hav-
ing been with the company for only eighteen months, might not
recognize the olive
branch that it represented, nor the problems that it would cause
if he turned down the
trip or if he sent a very junior staff member in his place. “I have
to speak with him about
this before I do anything,” she concluded, reaching for her
jacket.
But just as she swiveled around to go see Farzad, Paul Gutierez
appeared in her
doorway, looking furious. “Got a moment?” he asked and, not
waiting for her answer,
plunked himself down in her visitor’s chair. Jenny could almost
see the steam coming
out of his ears, and his face was beet red. Paul was a great
colleague, so mentally put-
ting the “pause” button on her own problems, Jenny replied,
“Sure, what’s up?”
“Well, I just got back from the new technology meeting between
marketing and

our R&Dguys, and it was just terrible!” he
moaned. I’ve been trying to get Cheryl and
her group to consider doing some experimentation with cell
phone promotions—you
know, using that new Japanese bar coding system. There are a
million things you can
do with mobile these days. So, she asked me to set up a
demonstration of the technol-
ogy and to have the R&Dguys explain what it might
do. At first, everyone was really
excited. They’d read about these things in magazines and
wanted to know more. But
our guys kept droning on about 3G and 4G technology and
different types of connec-
tivity and security and how the data move around and how we
have to model and
architect everything so it all fits together. They had the business
guys so confused we
never actually got talking about how the technology might be
used for marketing and
whether it was a good business idea. After about half an hour,
everyone just tuned out.
I tried to bring it back to the applications we could develop if
we just invested a little
in the mobile connectivity infrastructure, but by then we were
dead in the water. They
wouldn’t fund the project because they couldn’t see why
customers would want to use
mobile in our stores when we had perfectly good cash registers
and in-store kiosks!”
“I despair!” he said dramatically. “And you know what’s going
to happen don’t
you? In a year or so, when everyone else has got mobile apps,
they’re going to want
us to do something for them yesterday, and we’re going to have

to throw some sort of
stopgap technology in place to deal with it, and everyone’s
going to be complaining
that IT isn’t helping the business with what it needs!”
Jenny was sympathetic. “Been there, done that, and got the T-
shirt,” she laughed
wryly. “These tech guys are so brilliant, but they can’t ever
seem to connect what they
M06_MCKE0260_03_GE_C06.indd 100 12/3/14 8:38 PM
Delivering Business Value with IT at Hefty
Hardware 101
know to what the business thinks it needs. Sometimes, they’re
too farsighted and need
to just paint the next couple of steps of what could be done, not
the ‘flying around in
jetpacks vision.’ And sometimes I think they truly don’t
understand why the business
can’t see how these bits and bytes they’re talking about
translate into something that it
can use to make money.” She looked at her watch, and Paul got
the hint. He stood up.
“Thanks for letting me vent,” he said. “You’re a good listener.”
“I hope Farzad is,” she thought grimly as she headed down the
hall. “Or he’s
going to be out of here by Thanksgiving.” It was a sad truth that
CIOs seemed to turn
over every two years or so at Hefty. It
was almost predictable. A new CEO would
come

in, and the next thing you knew the CIO would be history. Or
the user satisfaction rate
would plummet, or there would be a major application crash, or
the executives would
complain about how much IT cost, or there would be an
expensive new system failure.
Whatever it was, IT would always get blamed, and the CIO
would be gone. “We have
some world-class people in IT,” she thought, “but everywhere
we go in the business, we
get a bad rap. And it’s not always our fault.”
She remembered the recent CIM project to produce a single
customer database for
all of Hefty’s divisions: hardware, clothing, sporting goods, and
credit. It had seemed
to be a straightforward project with lots of ROI, but the
infighting between the client
divisions had dragged the project (and the costs) out. No one
could agree about whose
version of the truth they should use, and the divisions had
assigned their most junior
people to it and insisted on numerous exceptions, workarounds,
and enhancements, all
of which had rendered the original business case useless. On top
of that, the company
had undergone a major restructuring in the middle of it, and a
lot of the major play-
ers had changed. “It would be a lot easier for us in IT if the
business would get its act
together about what it wants from IT,” she thought. But just as
quickly, she recognized
that this was probably an unrealistic goal. A more practical one
would be to find ways
for business and IT to work collaboratively at all levels. “We
each hold pieces of the

future picture of the business,” she mused. “We need to figure
out a better way to put
them together than simply trying to force them to fit.”
Knocking on Farzad’s door, she peeked into the window beside
it. He seemed
lost in thought but smiled when he saw her. “Jenny!” he
exclaimed. “I was just think-
ing about you and the e-mail I sent you. Have you done
anything about it yet?” When
she shook her head, he gave a sigh of relief. “I was just
rethinking my decision about
this trip, and I’d like your advice.” Jenny gave her own mental
sigh and stepped into
the office. “I think we have a problem with the business and we
need to fix it—fast,”
she said. “I’ve got some ideas, and what to do about the trip is
just part of them. Can
we talk?” Farzad nodded encouragingly and invited her to sit
down. “I agree with you,
and I’d like to hear what you have to say. We need to do things
differently around here,
and I think with your help we can. What did you have in mind?”
Discussion Questions
1. Overall, how effective is the partnership between IT and the
business at Hefty
Hardware? Identify the shortcomings of both IT and the
business.
2. Create a plan for how IT and the business can work
collaboratively to deliver the
Savvy Store program successfully.
M06_MCKE0260_03_GE_C06.indd 101 12/3/14 8:38 PM

Running Head: HUMAN FACTORS IN UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 1
HUMAN FACTORS IN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS 20
HUMAN FACTORS IN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Abstract
The evolution of technology has seen the development in the
aviation industry over the years. There has been tremendous
development where the aviation industry has welcomed the
Unmanned Aircraft Systems that have continued to be used for
various purposes by various functional groups that require
aircraft services. Human beings are at the center stage of
development of the systems hence human factors have
immensely contributed to the success and failures of the UAS.
Remote control culture and complacency have been highlighted
as the major causes of UAS failure –a case in point being an
unmanned aircraft vehicle that crashed near Nogales, Arizona in

2006. The project targets to explore human-related factors that
have affected the UAS positively and negatively in efforts to
make the UAS save for use. The project identified ignorance of
the security checks as the major concern of human factors that
face Unmanned Aircraft Systems since the systems are not used
to transport human beings. Lack of security checks results to
poor maintenance of the systems hence the system ends up to
malfunction whet he aircraft is on motion leading to various
damages when the malfunction Maintenance of the systems by
highly qualified and individuals who have experience in the
aviation industry should be made a priority so that the human
errors that lead to accidents can be avoided. The project
recommended the advancement of knowledge and skills of the
individuals who are tasked with maintenance of the Unmanned
Aircraft Systems. Advancing their knowledge will ensure
effective maintenance of the systems hence reducing the
damages caused by human factors. The project meets its
purpose by exploring various studies that were carried out in the
past on the same topic or any other related topic.
Summary
The automation of aviation has flourished over the last few
decades –a situation that has seen the invention of unmanned
aircraft systems (UAS). UAS are designed to operate
autonomously without the need to have a pilot on board. The
remotely located pilot uses radio data link to control unmanned
aircraft used to conduct various military operations including
security and surveillance tasks. Notably, human-system
interaction has greatly determined the success of UAS since
remote pilots require extensive knowledge and skills to
facilitate the effectiveness of unmanned aircraft in the national
airspace systems.
The successful transition of the aviation industry towards
automated aircraft depends highly on human factors. As UAS

become increasingly preferred due to their capabilities to handle
critical missions and low-cost attributes, the contribution of
human factors cannot be undermined. Basically, human control
from remote pilot ensures oversight –hence influencing the
effectiveness of military operations. However, there are several
maintenance-related human factors issues that have contributed
to the failure and ineffectiveness of UAS –leading to increased
accidents and other failure incidents. Even though unmanned
aircraft are normally intended to "keep humans out of harm's
way", human factor issues associated deficiency in individual
knowledge and skills have presented a major challenge to the
continued improvements and use of UAS.
This project seeks to explore the importance of human-related
factors in UAS –including challenges in human factors that have
negatively affected operations and maintenance of unmanned
aircrafts. Any individual shortfalls in crew coordination,
situation awareness, as well as remote pilot’s skills and
knowledge have caused failure involving Unmanned Aerial
System (UAS). Human factors have been linked to accidents
involving unmanned aircrafts hence presenting many issues that
need to be addressed to streamline operations and effectiveness
of unmanned aerospace systems. Remote control culture and
complacency have been highlighted as the major causes of UAS
failure –a case in point being an unmanned aircraft vehicle that
crashed near Nogales, Arizona in 2006. The report that was
presented from the crash investigation by the National
Transport and Safety Board indicated that the crash was caused
by human-related factors. The crush was a result of poor
coordination of the displays within the aircraft and the operators
on the ground. Through the Human Factor Analysis and
Classification Systems, errors were realized from the crush that
was not reported by the National Transport and Safety Board.
For instance, the Human Factor Analysis and Classification
Systems Approach identified that there were organizational
inadequacies in the management of the aircraft that resulted in
the crash. Unifying the finding by the National Transport and

Safety Board with those of the Human Factor Analysis and
Classification Systems approach will enable the operators of
Unmanned Aircraft Systems to correct their mistakes and make
the system safe for use.
The Arizona crash was among the many crashes involving UAS
that attracted the need to explore various human factors issues
that have contributed to accidents involving unmanned aircrafts.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, accidents involving
unmanned aircrafts have increased significantly compared to
manned aircraft. In this perspective, human factors of UAS
operations have resulted in general issues that have altered the
safety-critical systems. Thus, the project findings will play a
key role in the education and sensitization of remote pilots on
the need to adapt security and protection based factors required
to ensure the safety of unmanned aircraft. Consequently, this
will help to improve operations in avionics, ground-based
equipment, airframes, engines, education in skills,
compartmentalization of responsibilities, and personnel
monitoring.
Basically, this project is aimed at an overall evaluation of the
unmanned aerospace system in the bid to highlight various
loopholes that have presented a major challenge to the security
and protection of UAS. The issues related to human factors will
be identified and discussed in the bid to offer alternative actions
and recommendations necessary for streamlining UAS
operations and other improvements in the future. The project
will explore various studies related to the safety and
effectiveness of UAS to offer a comparative analysis of the
application of mainstream maintenance aspects in conventional
aircraft and UAS.
Introduction
Tremendous technological advancements witnessed over the
past few decades have seen improvements that have extended
across almost all economic sectors –among them the aviation
industry. Advances in electronic technology have led to aviation
automation –characterized by the introduction of automated

aircrafts with unparalleled capabilities. This scenario has
facilitated the invention of automated flight controls as well as
navigation systems that have resulted in the significant
transition from manned aircrafts to unmanned aircrafts.
According to Marshall et al. (2016), "unmanned aircraft (UA)
refers to any aircraft operating or designed to operate
autonomously or to be piloted remotely without a pilot on
board." GNSS navigation and satellite communications are used
by remotely placed controllers to operate unmanned aircrafts at
extremely long distances.
The invention of unmanned aircrafts has had a significant
positive impact in supporting a wide variety of reconnaissance
and surveillance operations –including monitoring of “forest
fires, oil spills, contaminant clouds, algae bloom, and border
security.” According to Prisacariu & Muraru (2016), unmanned
aircrafts have provided varying capabilities and functionalities
hence playing a pivotal role in helping the military to improve
security along the U.S. borders –a move that is essential in
securing the country from any external attacks. The automation
of aircrafts has helped to "keep humans out of harm's way" –as
a result of a reduction in human errors experienced in high-
stakes situations.
The combination of unmanned aircraft, the people, and
equipment used to control the aircraft remotely form the
unmanned aircraft system (UAS). UAS consists of various
components that form the entire Remotely Piloted Air Systems
(RPAS). Notably, unmanned aircraft is controlled by a pilot in a
remote location using a radio data link (Marshall et al., 2016).
This means UAS requires human control and oversight to
influence its operational effectiveness. Considerably, the 'pilot'
controlling unmanned aircraft remotely requires extensive
knowledge and skills to support the "growing class of complex
and safety-critical applications” of UAS.
Baldwin (2014) argues that there is a need to establishing
requirements for “interaction and processing from a human user
perspective is crucial to operate and make decisions, or simply

put, to define the need for interaction with an automated
system.” Optimal automation of unmanned aircrafts is
determined by proper and effective human interaction. The
rapid growth and increased reliance on unmanned and
autonomous aviation operations have raised a major concern
regarding the aspect of human-system interaction. As the
aviation industry moves towards UAS, there is a need to focus
on "unique maintenance-related human factors issues" which
have resulted in major negative incidents involving unmanned
aircrafts.
Notably, there are several problems that are associated with
UAS human factors –hence presenting a major obstacle to the
anticipated future growth and improvement in the safety of
unmanned aircraft systems. The project will discuss the concept
of human-system interactions and how shortcomings in human
knowledge and skills have led to the failure of the unmanned
aerial system (UAS). The scope of this paper will involve the
statement of the problem, the significance of the problem,
alternative actions, as well as recommendations that are
necessary for improving the security and safety of the
unmanned aerospace system.
Problem Statement
The tremendous technological advancements witnessed over the
last few decades have led to widespread development among
them being the automation of aviation. The flourishing aviation
automation has seen a transition from manned aircraft to
unmanned aircrafts that are designed to “operate autonomously
or be piloted remotely without a pilot on board.” Unmanned
aircrafts have been used to support numerous reconnaissance
and surveillance operations by the military. However, in the
21st century, numerous cases of unmanned aircraft crashes have
been reported –among them the UAS that crashed near Nogales,
Arizona in 2006. This marked the beginning of an extensive
study that sought to explore various factors that have
contributed to the failure of UAS. Apart from mechanical

failures, “the increased reliance on autonomous and unmanned
operations is increasing the aspects of human-system
interaction”(Terwilliger et al. (2015).Lack of adequate skills
and expertise continues to be the major cause of crashes
involving unmanned aircrafts. This scenario presents a major
challenge that requires comprehensive analysis to find out
various ways in which human factors have contributed to the
failure of UAS.
Human contributions determine the success or failure of
unmanned aircraft operations. Human factors are linked with
monitoring and control of UAS from a remote location.
However, a lack of system knowledge and proper training may
result in the ineffectiveness of UAS. Interaction between the
human user and the system must meet certain requirements to
realize the optimal automation of aviation(Hobbs & Lyall,
2015). However, as the aviation industry continues to move
towards the automation direction, numerous human factors
issues continue to front a major challenge as far as the future of
UAS is concerned. The anticipated future growth of the aviation
industry is at limbo due to increased complications in the safety
of UAS –something that has been linked to a myriad of crashes
involving unmanned aircraft.
Growth in remote-control culture and complacency are among
the major human factors issues which have had a negative
consequence on UAS. Key stakeholders in the aviation industry
are yet to take some of these issues seriously –meaning that
they will continue to front a serious barrier towards the smooth
transition to unmanned aircraft. Aviation automation has
allowed people who are "unfamiliar with the ethics and standard
practices of aircraft maintenance, and the legislative framework
within which maintenance occurs" to work as remote pilots
(Cardosi & Lennertz, 2017). Generally, people who control
unmanned aircrafts remotely may sometimes lack basic aviation
knowledge and background –hence increasing chances of UAS
failure. Moreover, since unmanned aircraft do not carry people,
there is a common assumption that human exposure to risks is

not there. Hence, technicians do not necessarily carry out
comprehensive pre-checks of security issues. This poses a huge
threat that could lead to accidents since UAS might be
experiencing a lot of unidentified technical problems due to
insufficient security checks conducted on the system state of
UAS. Since there is no human being in the aircrafts, the
technicians are always reluctant in carrying out scheduled
security checks and maintenance practice which would
otherwise improve the functionality of the aircrafts. The
technicians trusted with the maintenance of the Unmanned
Aircraft Systems should be compelled to conduct the security
checks and maintenance to reduce the human factors that put the
Unmanned Aircraft System at a risk.
Significance of the Problem
The fact that no one boards the unmanned aircraft does not
mean that its crash cannot result in negative consequences.
Accidents involving unmanned aircrafts expose people on the
ground and those in other manned aircrafts to grave risks.
According to Kuffner et al. (2016), “in unmanned flight, the
risks are borne by others who did not agree to be exposed to
that risk.” This can lead to adverse effects including injuries
and deaths that must be avoided at all costs. The risks caused by
human factors issues are mainly centered on the safety of the
public and other aircraft operating with the airspace. If the
remote pilot does not control unmanned aircraft carefully, UAS
might end up in a controlled airspace which is above 500 feet.
This can lead to a collision between manned aircraft and UAS –
something that could lead to fatalities. Moreover, when an
accident occurs, an unmanned aircraft can land into a populated
residential area or even town –hence causing injuries to
innocent people. For instance, the unmanned aircraft crash that
occurred near Nogales, Arizona in 2006 landed in a “sparsely
populated area –causing injuries and damages to the property of
people in the area."Thus, the issue of complacency and remote-
control culture might expose innocent people to risks thus the
need to operate with formal procedures and checklists to avoid

such risks. From this description, it is pretty clear that human
factors issues present a very serious problem that needs to
addressed in order ensure improvements in UAS –a decision
that will be key in ensuring that the safety of people and
properties is guaranteed.
Problem Analysis
The unmanned aerospace system consists of three major
components including:
· Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
· The autonomous or human-run control system
· “Communication, command, and control system”
The above-mentioned components form the broader “Remotely
Piloted Air Systems (RPAS)”. A 'pilot' in a remote location uses
a radio data link to control the UAV. This means that the human
factor still plays a pivotal role in the operation of unmanned
aircraft. According to Barmpounakis et al. (2016), "human
interactions with automated systems determine the success or
failure of UAS." Pilots who control unmanned aircraft remotely
must be equipped with skills and knowledge that enable them to
use automated systems to influence the effectiveness of
automated aircraft.
However, human operators and automated controls involve
making decisions that determine the safety and security of
unmanned aircraft in the airspace. The two issues presented in
this paper are as discussed in details below:
Complacency
Since no human beings are transported using unmanned aircraft,
technicians may tend to ignore security checks that could
instead identify various issues that affect the proper functioning
of the aircraft. This presents a major UAS maintenance concern.
According to Franke (2014), “there is the potential for
technicians to be of the mindset that their work is less critical
because there isn’t a human being transported on the system.”
Consequently, technicians and other aviation operators fail to
conduct sufficient checks of the unmanned aircraft hence
assuming dangerous conditions that could develop into

accidents. For the safety of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems, the
technicians have to conduct security checks to ensure that the
aircrafts are safe to fly. The checks that should be done include;
· Powers sources of the flight are fully charged,
· Proper mounting of the propellers,
· Damping absorbers should be in great condition,
· The motors of the aircraft should be functioning properly,
· Removal of the camera lens cap,
· Connection of the UAS application to the camera on the
aircraft,
· Normal functioning of the Gimbals,
· Any other security measure that is necessary such as sd-card
proper mounting.
The technicians should make sure that they check the above
security features on the aircraft before allowing them to take
off.
Automation complacency has reduced the level of aircraft
monitoring meant to establish system performance. The negative
consequence of this assumption results in "system malfunction,
anomalous condition, or out-right failure" –resulting in
accidents that could lead to fatalities. Johry & Kapoor (2016)
notes that "technician and complacency have long been
implicated as a major contributing factor in aviation accidents."
Generally, complacency is associated with failure to monitor the
performance of unmanned aircrafts adequately as well as failure
to “quickly correct automation failures” –something that
contributes to increasing cases of accidents.
Remote–control culture
Personnel tasked with remote control of unmanned aircrafts are
required to have vast experience, skills, and knowledge
regarding piloting and the overall aviation industry. This will
help them to effectively control aircraft from a remote location
using a radio data link. According to Low, Gan & Mao (2014),
personnel controlling unmanned aircrafts remotely face
“shortfalls in individual’s skill and knowledge including
checklist error, task mis-prioritization, lack of training for

training for task attempted, and inadequate system knowledge.”
Most of the remote ‘pilots’ are found to have little or no
mainstream aviation background. They tend to lack formal
checklists and procedures that are necessary for remote-control
hobbyists. Moreover, remote pilots tasked with controlling
unmanned aircrafts “may be unfamiliar with the ethics and
standard practices of aircraft maintenance, and legislative
framework within which maintenance occurs.” For instance,
unmanned aircrafts are required to operate within the
uncontrolled airspace which is between 400-500 feet. However,
lack of this knowledge may have the UAVs entering controlled
airspace –something that would lead to a collision between
UAVs and manned aircrafts. This results in fatalities including
injuries and death.
Alternative Actions
The purpose of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems can be met
using another form of technology. With the advancement of
technology, most countries are striving to develop and use
“independent satellite navigation systems (ISNS)” which are
more accurate and reliable than UASs. The Independent
Satellite Navigation Systems are able to provide civilian
surveillance just like the Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The
Independent Satellite Navigation Systems are better and safer
than the Unmanned Aircraft Systems since they rely on already
position and established satellites. The Satellite Navigation
Systems allows the concerned people to receive radio waves
through small electronic devices. The satellite Navigation
Systems allows people to receive information about the position
or tracking the position of a device fitted with the satellite
receivers. The satellite systems also allow people to calculate
the time in their local area hence enabling time synchronization.
The Satellite Navigation System does not do not require
frequent security checking, unlike the Unmanned Aircraft
System. They are used for various reconnaissance and
surveillance purposes –just like UAS. ISNS can be used as a

better alternative to replace UAS since the former operates in
the orbit hence reducing any chances of a collision or fatal
crashes. Countries should work their way to set up the Satellite
Navigation Systems since they do not require frequent security
checks hence translating to be safer than Unmanned Aircraft
Systems.
Recommendations
The human factors issues associated with the ineffectiveness of
UAS can be addressed to avoid accidents involving unmanned
aircrafts –thus improving the efficiency and safety of automated
aircraft. Training and education are required to instill skills and
knowledge among remote pilots who control civil UAVs. RPAS
operators require knowledge and experience of a qualified pilot
of a manned aircraft. Training will equip them with technical
capabilities to enable them in addressing the performance UAVs
and their ability to execute the required operations. Moreover,
education and sensitization enable remote pilots and technicians
with vast knowledge regarding regulations and ethical standards
governing the aviation industry. For instance, they require skills
and expertise to assess the performance of UAVs as well as
controlled and uncontrolled airspace to avoid collisions that
might result in injuries and deaths.
In conclusion, human factors have been present and have
continued to affect the development of the Unmanned Aircraft
Systems within the Aviation Industry. Such has been facilitated
by the reluctance of the technicians involved in the maintenance
of the aircrafts. The aviation industry has a well-established
checklist on the security measures that must be checked before
the aircrafts are allowed to take off. Ignorance of any item on
the checklist by the relevant individuals can lead to fatal
accidents which result in costly losses. The fact that the
Unmanned Aircraft Systems do not transport human beings
should not be a basis of not conducting proper security checks
on the Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The technicians should
develop a habit of conducting security checks before any of the
aircraft takes off. The human factors that result from ignorance

have largely contributed to the failures that have been witnessed
in regard to the Unmanned Aircraft Systems. Despite the
continued use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems, countries should
now focus on investing in the Satellite Navigation Systems. The
Satellite Navigation Systems are safer than the Unmanned
Aircraft Systems since they are not subjected to compulsory
frequent security checks.
References
Baldwin, H. (2014). Human Factors in Unmanned Aircraft
Operations/UAV operations pose new MRO challenges.
Aviation Week & Space Technology. Sep, 8.
Barmpounakis, E. N., Vlahogianni, E. I., & Golias, J. C. (2016).
Unmanned Aerial Aircraft Systems for transportation
engineering: Current practice and future challenges.
International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology,
5(3), 111-122.
Cardosi, K., & Lennertz, T. (2017). Human factors
considerations for the integration of unmanned aerial vehicles
in the National Airspace System: an analysis of reports
submitted to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) (No.
DOT/FAA/TC-17/25). John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (US).
Franke, U. E. (2014). Drones, drone strikes, and US policy: The
politics of unmanned aerial vehicles. Parameters, 44(1), 121.
Hobbs, A., & Lyall, B. (2015). Human factors guidelines for
unmanned aircraft system ground control stations. NASA,
September.
Johry, A., & Kapoor, M. (2016). Unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV): fault-tolerant design. International Journal of
Engineering Technology Science and Research, 3(6), 1-7.
Kuffner, M., Guendel, R. E., & Darrah, S. (2016, June).
Investigating traffic avoidance maneuver decisions of unmanned

aircraft pilots. In Proceedings of the 16th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference,
Washington, DC, USA (pp. 13-17).
Low, K. H., Gan, L., & Mao, S. (2014). A Preliminary Study in
Managing Safe and Efficient Low-Altitude Unmanned Aircraft
System Operations in a Densely Built-up Urban Environment.
Air Traffic Management Research Institute, School of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Nanyang Technological
University.
Marshall, D. M., Barnhart, R. K., Hottman, S. B., Shappee, E.,
& Most, M. T. (2016). Introduction to unmanned aircraft
systems. Crc Press.
Prisacariu, V., & Muraru, A. (2016). Unmanned aerial system
(UAS) in the context of modern warfare. Scientific Research
and Education in the Air Force-AFASES.
Terwilliger, B., Vincenzi, D., Ison, D., Witcher, K., Thirtyacre,
D., & Khalid, A. (2015). Influencing factors for use of
unmanned aerial systems in support of aviation accidents and
emergency response. Journal of Automation and Control
Engineering, 3(3), 246.
Running head: RESEARCH PROJECT: ROUGH DRAFT 1
RESEARCH PROJECT: ROUGH DRAFT 9

Research Project: Rough Draft
Student
ASCI 638: Human Factors in Unmanned Aerospace Systems
Embro-Riddle Aeronautical University-Worldwide
December 21, 2019
Summary
The automation of aviation has flourished over the last few
decades –a situation that has seen the invention of unmanned
aircraft vehicles (UAVs). UAVs are designed to operate
autonomously without the need to have a pilot on board. The
remotely located pilot uses radio data link to control unmanned
aircraft used to conduct various military operations including
security and surveillance tasks. Notably, human-system
interaction has greatly determined the success of UAS since
remote pilots require extensive knowledge and skills to
facilitate the effectiveness of unmanned aircraft in the national
airspace systems.
The successful transition of the aviation industry towards the
automated aircraft depends highly on human factors. As UAVs
become increasingly preferred due to their capabilities to handle
critical missions and low-cost attributes, the contribution of
human factors cannot be undermined. Basically, human control
from remote pilot ensures oversight –hence influencing the
effectiveness of military operations. However, there are several
maintenance-related human factors issues which have
contributed to failure and ineffectiveness of UAS –leading to
increased accidents and other failure incidents. Even though
unmanned aircraft are normally intended to "keep humans out of
harm's way", human factor issues associated deficiency in
individual knowledge and skills have presented a major
challenge to the continued improvements and use of UAS.
This project seeks to explore the importance of human-related
factors in UAS –including challenges in human factors that have

negatively affected operations and maintenance of unmanned
aircrafts. Any individual shortfalls in crew coordination,
situation awareness, as well as remote pilot’s skills and
knowledge have caused failure involving Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs). Human factors have been linked to accidents
involving unmanned aircrafts hence presenting many issues that
need to be addressed to streamline operations and effectiveness
of unmanned aerospace systems. Remote control culture and
complacency have been highlighted as the major causes of UAS
failure –a case in point being an unmanned aircraft vehicle that
crashed near Nogales, Arizona in 2006.
The Arizona crash was among the many crashes involving UAS
that attracted the need to explore various human factors issues
that have contributed to accidents involving unmanned aircrafts.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, accidents involving
unmanned aircrafts have increased significantly compared to
manned aircraft. In this perspective, human factors of UAS
operations have resulted in general issues that have altered the
safety-critical systems. Thus, the project findings will play a
key role in the education and sensitization of remote pilots on
the need to adapt security and protection based factors required
to ensure the safety of unmanned aircraft. Consequently, this
will help to improve operations in avionics, ground-based
equipment, airframes, engines, education in skills,
compartmentalization of responsibilities, and personnel
monitoring.
Basically, this project is aimed at an overall evaluation of the
unmanned aerospace system in the bid to highlight various
loopholes that have presented a major challenge to the security
and protection of UAS. The issues related to human factors will
be identified and discussed in the bid to offer alternative actions
and recommendations necessary for streamlining UAS
operations and other improvements in the future. The project
will explore various studies related to the safety and
effectiveness of UAS to offer a comparative analysis of the
application of mainstream maintenance aspects in conventional

aircraft and UAS.
Introduction
Tremendous technological advancements witnessed over the
past few decades have seen improvements that have extended
across almost all economic sectors –among them the aviation
industry. Advances in electronic technology have led to aviation
automation –characterized by the introduction of automated
aircrafts with unparalleled capabilities. This scenario has
facilitated the invention of automated flight controls as well as
navigation systems that have resulted in the significant
transition from manned aircrafts to unmanned aircrafts.
According to Marshall et al. (2016), "unmanned aircraft (UA)
refers to any aircraft operating or designed to operate
autonomously or to be piloted remotely without a pilot on
board." GNSS navigation and satellite communications are used
by remotely placed controllers to operate unmanned aircrafts at
extremely long distances.
The invention of unmanned aircrafts has had a significant
positive impact in supporting a wide variety of reconnaissance
and surveillance operations –including monitoring of “forest
fires, oil spills, contaminant clouds, algae bloom, and border
security.” According to Prisacariu & Muraru (2016), unmanned
aircrafts have provided varying capabilities and functionalities
hence playing a pivotal role in helping the military to improve
security along the U.S. borders –a move that is essential in
securing the country from any external attacks. The automation
of aircrafts has helped to "keep humans out of harm's way" –as
a result of a reduction in human errors experienced in high-
stakes situations.
The combination of unmanned aircraft, the people, and
equipment used to control the aircraft remotely form the
unmanned aircraft system (UAS). UAS consists of various
components that form the entire Remotely Piloted Air Systems
(RPAS). Notably, unmanned aircraft is controlled by a pilot in a
remote location using a radio data link (Marshall et al., 2016).

This means UAS requires human control and oversight to
influence its operational effectiveness. Considerably, the 'pilot'
controlling unmanned aircraft remotely requires extensive
knowledge and skills to support the "growing class of complex
and safety-critical applications” of UAS.
Baldwin (2014) argues that there is a need to establishing
requirements for “interaction and processing from a human user
perspective is crucial to operate and make decisions, or simply
put, to define the need for interaction with an automated
system.” Optimal automation of unmanned aircrafts is
determined by proper and effective human interaction. The
rapid growth and increased reliance on unmanned and
autonomous aviation operations have raised a major concern
regarding the aspect of human-system interaction. As the
aviation industry moves towards UAS, there is a need to focus
on "unique maintenance-related human factors issues" which
have resulted in major negative incidents involving unmanned
aircrafts.
Notably, there are several problems that are associated with
UAS human factors –hence presenting a major obstacle to the
anticipated future growth and improvement in the safety of
unmanned aircraft systems. The project will discuss the concept
of human-system interactions and how shortcomings in human
knowledge and skills have led to the failure of unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs). The scope of this paper will involve the
statement of the problem, the significance of the problem,
alternative actions, as well as recommendations that are
necessary in improving the security and safety of the unmanned
aerospace system.
Problem Statement
The tremendous technological advancements witnessed over the
last few decades have led to widespread development among
them being the automation of aviation. The flourishing aviation
automation has seen a transition from manned aircraft to
unmanned aircrafts that are designed to “operate autonomously
or be piloted remotely without a pilot on board.” Unmanned

aircrafts have been used to support numerous reconnaissance
and surveillance operations by the military. However, in the
21st century, numerous cases of unmanned aircraft crashes have
been reported –among them the UAV that crashed near Nogales,
Arizona in 2006. This marked the beginning of an extensive
study that sought to explore various factors that have
contributed to the failure of UAVs. Apart from mechanical
failures, “the increased reliance on autonomous and unmanned
operations is increasing the aspects of human-system
interaction” (Terwilliger et al. (2015). Lack of adequate skills
and expertise continues to be the major cause of crashes
involving unmanned aircrafts. This scenario presents a major
challenge that requires comprehensive analysis to find out
various ways in which human factors have contributed to the
failure of UAS.
Human contributions determine the success or failure of
unmanned aircraft operations. Human factors are linked with
monitoring and control of UAVs from a remote location.
However, a lack of system knowledge and proper training may
result in the ineffectiveness of UAS. Interaction between the
human user and the system must meet certain requirements to
realize the optimal automation of aviation (Hobbs & Lyall,
2015). However, as the aviation industry continues to move
towards the automation direction, numerous human factors
issues continue to front a major challenge as far as the future of
UAS is concerned. The anticipated future growth of the aviation
industry is at limbo due to increased complications in the safety
of UAVs –something that has been linked to a myriad of crashes
involving unmanned aircraft.
Growth in remote-control culture and complacency are among
the major human factors issues which have had a negative
consequence towards UAS. Key stakeholders in the aviation
industry are yet to take some of these issues seriously –meaning
that they will continue to front a serious barrier towards the
smooth transition to unmanned aircraft. Aviation automation has
allowed people who are “unfamiliar with the ethics and standard

practices of aircraft maintenance, and the legislative framework
within which maintenance occurs” to work as remote pilots
(Cardosi & Lennertz, 2017). Generally, people who control
unmanned aircrafts remotely may sometimes lack basic aviation
knowledge and background –hence increasing chances of UAS
failure. Moreover, since unmanned aircraft do not carry people,
there is a common assumption that human exposure to risks is
not there. Hence, technicians do not necessarily carry out
comprehensive pre-checks of security issues. This poses a huge
threat that could lead to accidents since UAVs might be
experiencing a lot of unidentified technical problems due to
insufficient security checks conducted on the system state of
UAS. These two human factors issues present a major challenge
to UAVs since they expose unmanned aircrafts to safety risks
and other negative consequences that continue to derail the
success of UAS.
Significance of the Problem
The fact that no one boards the unmanned aircraft, does not
mean that its crash cannot result in negative consequences.
Accidents involving unmanned aircrafts expose people on the
ground and those in other manned aircrafts to grave risks.
According to Kuffner et al. (2016), “in unmanned flight, the
risks are borne by others who did not agree to be exposed to
that risk.” This can lead to adverse effects including injuries
and deaths that must be avoided at all costs. The risks caused by
human factors issues are mainly centered on the safety of the
public and other aircraft operating with the airspace. If the
remote pilot does not control unmanned aircraft carefully,
UAVs might end up in controlled airspace which is above 500
feet. This can lead to a collision between manned aircraft and
UAVs –something that could lead to fatalities. Moreover, when
an accident occurs, an unmanned aircraft can land into a
populated residential area or even town –hence causing injuries
to innocent people. For instance, the unmanned aircraft crash
that occurred near Nogales, Arizona in 2006 landed in a
“sparsely populated area –causing injuries and damages to the

property of people in the area." Thus, the issue of complacency
and remote-control culture might expose innocent people to
risks thus the need to operate with formal procedures and
checklists to avoid such risks. From this description, it is pretty
clear that human factors issues present a very serious problem
that needs to addressed in order ensure improvements in UAS –a
decision that will be key in ensuring that the safety of people
and properties is guaranteed.
Problem Analysis
The unmanned aerospace system consists of three major
components including:
· Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
· The autonomous or human-run control system
· “Communication, command, and control system”
The above-mentioned components form the broader “Remotely
Piloted Air Systems (RPAS)”. A 'pilot' in a remote location uses
a radio data link to control the UAV. This means that the human
factor still plays a pivotal role in the operation of unmanned
aircraft. According to Barmpounakis et al. (2016), "human
interactions with automated systems determine the success or
failure of UAS." Pilots who control unmanned aircraft remotely
must be equipped with skills and knowledge that enable them to
use automated systems to influence the effectiveness of
automated aircraft.
However, human operators and automated controls involve
making decisions that determine the safety and security of
unmanned aircraft in the airspace. The two issues presented in
this paper are as discussed in details below:
Complacency
Since no human beings are transported using unmanned aircraft,
technicians may tend to ignore security checks that could
instead identify various issues that affect the proper functioning
of the aircraft. This presents a major UAS maintenance concern.
According to Franke (2014), “there is the potential for
technicians to be of the mindset that their work is less critical
because there isn’t a human being transported on the system.”

Consequently, technicians and other aviation operators fail to
conduct sufficient checks of the unmanned aircraft hence
assuming dangerous conditions that could develop into
accidents. Automation complacency has reduced the level of
aircraft monitoring meant to establish the system performance.
The negative consequence of this assumption results in "system
malfunction, anomalous condition, or out-right failure” –
resulting in accidents which could lead to fatalities. Johry &
Kapoor (2016) notes that “technician and complacency has long
been implicated as a major contributing factor in aviation
accidents.” Generally, complacency is associated with failure to
monitor the performance of unmanned aircrafts adequately as
well as failure to “quickly correct automation failures” –
something that contributes to increasing cases of accidents.
Remote–control culture
Personnel tasked with remote control of unmanned aircrafts are
required to have vast experience, skills, and knowledge
regarding piloting and the overall aviation industry. This will
help them to effectively control aircraft from a remote location
using a radio data link. According to Low, Gan & Mao (2014),
personnel controlling unmanned aircrafts remotely face
“shortfalls in individual’s skill and knowledge including
checklist error, task mis-prioritization, lack of training for
training for task attempted, and inadequate system knowledge.”
Most of the remote ‘pilots’ are found to have little or no
mainstream aviation background. They tend to lack formal
checklists and procedures that are necessary for remote-control
hobbyists. Moreover, remote pilots tasked with controlling
unmanned aircrafts “may be unfamiliar with the ethics and
standard practices of aircraft maintenance, and legislative
framework within which maintenance occurs.” For instance,
unmanned aircrafts are required to operate within the
uncontrolled airspace which is between 400-500 feet. However,
lack of this knowledge may have the UAVs entering controlled
airspace –something that would lead to a collision between
UAVs and manned aircrafts. This results in fatalities including

injuries and death.
Alternative Actions
Currently, most countries are striving to develop and use
“independent satellite navigation systems (ISNS)” which are
more accurate and reliable than UAVs. They are used for
various reconnaissance and surveillance purposes –just like
UAVs. ISNS can be used as a better alternative to replace UAS
since the former operates in the orbit hence reducing any
chances of a collision or fatal crashes.
Recommendations
The human factors issues associated with the ineffectiveness of
UAS can be addressed to avoid accidents involving unmanned
aircrafts –thus improving the efficiency and safety of automated
aircraft. Training and education is required to instill skills and
knowledge among remote pilots who control civil UAVs. RPAS
operators require knowledge and experience of a qualified pilot
of a manned aircraft. Training will equip them with technical
capabilities to enable them in addressing the performance UAVs
and their ability to execute the required operations. Moreover,
education and sensitization enables remote pilots and
technicians with vast knowledge regarding regulations and
ethical standards governing the aviation industry. For instance,
they require skills and expertise to assess the performance of
UAVs as well as controlled and uncontrolled airspace to avoid
collisions that might result into injuries and deaths.

References
Baldwin, H. (2014). Human Factors in Unmanned Aircraft
Operations/UAV operations pose new MRO challenges.
Aviation Week & Space Technology. Sep, 8.
Barmpounakis, E. N., Vlahogianni, E. I., & Golias, J. C. (2016).
Unmanned Aerial Aircraft Systems for transportation
engineering: Current practice and future challenges.
International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology,
5(3), 111-122.
Cardosi, K., & Lennertz, T. (2017). Human factors
considerations for the integration of unmanned aerial vehicles
in the National Airspace System: an analysis of reports
submitted to the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) (No.
DOT/FAA/TC-17/25). John A. Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (US).
Franke, U. E. (2014). Drones, drone strikes, and US policy: The
politics of unmanned aerial vehicles. Parameters, 44(1), 121.
Hobbs, A., & Lyall, B. (2015). Human factors guidelines for
unmanned aircraft system ground control stations. NASA,
September.
Johry, A., & Kapoor, M. (2016). Unmanned aerial vehicle
(UAV): fault-tolerant design. International Journal of
Engineering Technology Science and Research, 3(6), 1-7.
Kuffner, M., Guendel, R. E., & Darrah, S. (2016, June).
Investigating traffic avoidance maneuver decisions of unmanned
aircraft pilots. In Proceedings of the 16th AIAA Aviation
Technology, Integration, and Operations Conference,
Washington, DC, USA (pp. 13-17).
Low, K. H., Gan, L., & Mao, S. (2014). A Preliminary Study in
Managing Safe and Efficient Low-Altitude Unmanned Aircraft
System Operations in a Densely Built-up Urban Environment.
Air Traffic Management Research Institute, School of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Nanyang Technological
University.

Marshall, D. M., Barnhart, R. K., Hottman, S. B., Shappee, E.,
& Most, M. T. (2016). Introduction to unmanned aircraft
systems. Crc Press.
Prisacariu, V., & Muraru, A. (2016). Unmanned aerial system
(UAS) in the context of modern warfare. Scientific Research
and Education in the Air Force-AFASES.
Terwilliger, B., Vincenzi, D., Ison, D., Witcher, K., Thirtyacre,
D., & Khalid, A. (2015). Influencing factors for use of
unmanned aerial systems in support of aviation accidents and
emergency response. Journal of Automation and Control
Engineering, 3(3), 246.
Research Project Final Paper Submission
For this assignment, submit the finished product (for 25% of
your course grade), containing the detailed information that is
aligned with the parameters of the assignment (as identified in
the rubric). You should consult instructors and ensure they have
covered all of the requisite information.
With the revisable nature of this process, from the
beginning, you should have applied changes or updates
progressively through the process of this case analysis.
Save your assignment using a naming convention that includes
your first and last name and the activity number (or
description). Do not add punctuation or special characters.
Submit by the seventh day of the module week.

Your paper will automatically be evaluated through Turnitin
when you submit your assignment in this activity. Turnitin is a
service that checks your work for improper citation or potential
plagiarism by comparing it against a database of web pages,
student papers, and articles from academic books and
publications. Ensure that your work is entirely your own and
that you have not plagiarized any material!
Paper Criteria (in addition to rubric)
· Provide a paper of 15 pages double spaced.
· APA formatted introduction.
· Reference page.
· At least fifteen credible citations.
· Submit by the seventh day of the module week.

Mini CaseDelivering Business Value with IT at Hefty Hardw.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Mini CaseDelivering Business Value with IT at Hefty Hardw.docx

Similar to Mini CaseDelivering Business Value with IT at Hefty Hardw.docx (20)

More from altheaboyer

More from altheaboyer (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mini CaseDelivering Business Value with IT at Hefty Hardw.docx