Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)Organisation.docx

Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)
Criteria
Ratings
Points
Analyse and responding to project requirements
view longer description
2 to >1.58 pts
Advanced (HD) and Self Developing
In addition to possessing the level of competence, the work
shows evidence of highly original or insightful selection of
information. The work demonstrates curiousity in approach to
enquiry and critical analysis.
1.58 to >1.38 pts
Advanced (Dist)
Respond to questions/t asks required by & implicit in a closed
inquiry. Competence in choose from several provided structures
to clarify questions, terms, requirements, expectations & ECST
issues. Evidence of selection of information for relevance and
appropriateness to the task.
1.38 to >1.18 pts
Competent (CR)
Evidence of selection of information for the task but it is not
always relevant or fully discussed. Has understood and
addressed the task requirements. Able to work independently
from highly structured directions and modelling from educator
prompted researching,
1.18 to >0.98 pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Adequate response to the task, but is limited in expression of
ideas and selection of information. Shows some understanding

of the task but may not have addressed all requirements.
Demonstrates ability to improve after structured directions and
modelling from educator prompted researching,
0.98 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Inadequate response to the task, and limited in expression of
ideas and selection of information. Shows inadequate
understanding of the task and may not have addressed all
requirements. Unable to demonstrate ability to improve after
structured directions and modelling from educator prompted
researching, Neglecting to follow submission processes,
neglecting to submit final report or to Turnitin.
1 / 2 pts
Analyse context of problem and solutions
4 to >3.16 pts
In addition to possessing the level of competence, a wide
variety of source types has been selected to critically improve
the response to the task that demonstrates a critical awareness
of research concentrations and contributions.
3.16 to >2.76 pts
Advanced (Dist)
A wide variety of source types has been selected to critically
improve the response to the task. Developed competence in
collecting and recording appropriate research from self-selected
sources where information is not obvious. Reflects insightfully
on the research process. Illustrates clarity in the enquiry
approach.
2.76 to >2.36 pts
Competent (CR)
Locates and records data/information from more than the
prescribed number of sources. A variety of source types has
been selected to improve the response to the task. Demonstrates
a satisfactory ability to collect and records appropriate research
from self-selected sources. Satisfactory ability to reflect on the

research process.
2.36 to >1.96 pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Locates and records data/information from a prescribed number
of sources across a specified range. Able to demonstrate
satisfactory reflection on the research process.
1.96 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Fails to locate and record data/information from a prescribed
number of sources across a specified range. Unable to
demonstrate satisfactory original reflection on the research
process, including neglecting to submit final report or to
Turnitin.
2 / 4 pts
Identify contextual and solution themes
5 to >3.95 pts
Demonstrate an ability to reflect insightfully to improve own
processes used. Evidence of extremely solid, thorough,
comprehensive written work. High level of academic integrity.
Demonstrates the result of consistent hard work, use of sources
and/or independent scholarship. Provides evidence of
substantive self-determined criteria directly relevant to aims of
the task).
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Advanced (Dist)
Uses appropriate academic methodologies to search for and
select a range of reliable and credible sources. Critically
evaluates selected information/data according to specified
criteria. Evidence of self-determined criteria directly relevant to
aims of the task. Demonstrates a capacity to be discerning about
the way in which information is presented
3.45 to >2.95 pts
Competent (CR)
Uses mostly academic methodologies to search for and select a

range of sources. Some evidence of self-determined criteria in
addition to specified criteria.
2.95 to >2.45 pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Some use of academic methodologies to search for sources.
Credibility and reliability of selected material may be
inconsistent. Evaluates selected information/data using
specified criteria. Able to demonstrate satisfactory reflection on
the research process.
2.45 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Inability to demonstrate use of academic methodologies to
search for sources. Does not demonstrate satisfactory credibility
nor reliability of selected material. Does not evaluates selected
information/data using specified criteria. Unable to demonstrate
satisfactory reflection on the research process, including
2.5 / 5 pts
Develop and organise research structure and content
2 to >1.58 pts
The work is clearly structured and convincingly supported by
appropriate evidence, argument or illustration. The work
demonstrates a process to development that follow a transparent
pattern.
1.58 to >1.38 pts
Advanced (Dist)
Structure and organisation used to enhance comprehension and
conveys information coherently and logically. Alignment of the
key idea with the topic and all main ideas outlined logically and
clearly. Evidence of self-determination: negotiation, delegation,
cooperation.
1.38 to >1.18 pts
Competent (CR)
Structure and organisation appropriate to task requirements and

information mostly integrated and relevant.
1.18 to >0.98 pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Structure and organisation largely appropriate and information
is coherent and integrated. Alignment of the key idea with the
topic and main ideas generally outlined clearly.
0.98 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Inappropriate structure and organisation and information not
always coherent nor integrated. Alignment of the key idea with
the topic and main ideas not outlined clearly. Unable to follow
final submission processes, including neglecting to submit final
report or to Turnitin.
1 / 2 pts
Make the case for the solution. Justification and identify
advantages and disadvantages
5 to >3.95 pts
Advanced ability to ask emergent, relevant & researchable
questions. Material is deployed in a disciplined way and
demonstrates a sophisticated comprehension of key issues of
debate and is advanced in ability to critically review, analyse,
synthesise and apply theoretical and technical body knowledge
in a broad and creative way to a range of areas and diverse
contexts.
3.95 to >3.45 pts
Advanced (Dist)
Competent in interpreting several sources of information/ data
& synthesise to integrate knowledge into standard formats.
Demonstrates a high level of critical analysis and synthesis
through the selection, interpretation and integration of multiple
sources of information/data.
3.45 to >2.95 pts
Competent (CR)
Demonstrates critical analysis and synthesis through the

selection and integration of a range of information/data.
Competent use of theory and generally credible evidence to
support arguments and demonstrate individual understanding.
Uses conceptual skills to express ideas and offer some
perspectives.
2.95 to >2.45 pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Attempts analysis and limited synthesis through the selection
sources of information/data. Able to uses given theory and
evidence to demonstrate individual understanding. Able to use
some conceptual skills to express ideas and offer limited
perspectives.
2.45 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Unsatisfactory attempts at analysis and limited synthesis
through the selection sources of information/data. Unable to use
given theory and evidence to demonstrate individual
understanding. Unsatisfactory attempt to use some conceptual
skills to express ideas and offer limited perspectives. Inability
to demonstrate original justification of solution, including
1.5 / 5 pts
Present the solution
2 to >1.58 pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student uses discipline specific language & prescribed genre to
demonstrate understanding from a stated perspective & for a
specified audience. Apply to several similar contexts the
knowledge developed & specifies ECST issues. The work
demonstrates a constructive approach to feedback.
1.58 to >1.38 pts
Demonstrated knowledge and understanding of key discipline-
specific language and scholarly application. Students use
prescribed genre to develop & demonstrate understanding to a

pre-specified audience. Provide constructive and supportive
discussions with peers and educator to account for ethical,
social, cultural and team issues (ESCT).
1.38 to >1.18 pts
Competent (CR)
Students communicate with each other and relate their
understanding throughout set task. Use prescribed genre to
develop and demonstrate understanding to a prescribed
audience. Demonstrated knowledge of discipline-specific
language evident, but not fully utilised to support scholarly
discussion. Provide supportive feedback to peers and educator
to account for ethical, social, cultural and team issues (ESCT).
1.18 to >0.98 pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Mostly general vocabulary with ability to use discipline-specific
and academic language although with an acceptable level of
errors. Able to act as an active participant in learning: able to
discuss, listen and perform satisfactorily. Satisfactory ability to
provide feedback to peers and educator with attempts to account
for ethical, social, cultural and team issues (ESCT).
0.98 to >0 pts
Unsatisfactory (NN)
Mostly general vocabulary with an inability to use discipline-
specific and academic language although with some errors.
Unable to act as a team member: unsatisfactory attempts to
discuss, listen and perform. Unable to act as an active learner
with peers and educator, with unsatisfactory attempts to account
for ethical, social, cultural and team issues (ESCT). Inability to
demonstrate the originality of the solution, including neglecting
to submit the final report to Turnitin.
1 / 2 pts
Total points: 9

Assignment 1.docx
by Abdullah Hashim M Alghamdi
Submission date: 04-Oct-2019 06:52PM (UTC+1000)
Submission ID: 1185932471
File name: Assignment_1.docx (39.71K)
Word count: 1721
Character count: 9761
37%
SIMILARITY INDEX
15%
INTERNET SOURCES
12%
PUBLICATIONS
30%
STUDENT PAPERS

1 24%
2 4%
3 2%
4 2%
5 1%
6 1%
7 1%
8 1%
9
Assignment 1.docx
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to RMIT University
Student Paper
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Internet Source
Submitted to University of Western Sydney
Student Paper
www.emeraldinsight.com
Internet Source
usir.salford.ac.uk
Internet Source
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
Internet Source
Submitted to Huntington Beach Union High

School District
Student Paper
www.wwwords.co.uk
Internet Source
Torkil Clemmensen. "Separation in theory,
1%
10 1%
11 1%
12 1%
Exclude quotes Off
Exclude bibliography On
Exclude matches Off
coordination in practice - teaching HCI and SE",
Software Process Improvement and Practice,
04/2003
Publication
dspace.nwu.ac.za
Internet Source
academicjournals.org
Internet Source
archive.org
Internet Source
Assignment 1.docxby Abdullah Hashim M AlghamdiAssignment

1.docxORIGINALITY REPORTPRIMARY SOURCES
Overview for referencing in written reports,
essays and assignments
College of Business
Dr Peter Chomley
The academic challenge: Understanding how
you communicate
The RMIT College of Business Guidelines are based on the
Style manual for
authors, editors and printers (2002), referred to here as Style
manual (2002)
which is published on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia,
and is the
Commonwealth Government’s preferred style. The Style manual
(2002) can be
used to provide guidance on areas which are not covered in the
RMIT Business
document, but if there is any inconsistency you should follow
the RMIT

Business document.
RMIT University 2018 College of Business v.4 2010 2
What is referencing?
• Referencing means acknowledging someone else’s work or
ideas. It is
sometimes called ‘citing’ or ‘documenting’ another person’s
work.
• Referencing is a basic University requirement.
• It is mandatory for all students to cite or acknowledge
information that has
come from other sources.
• Without appropriate referencing students are in effect
‘stealing’ the work of
others - this is tantamount to academic fraud.
There are consequences if students fail to reference their
assignments. These
may include:
• Reduction in marks for assessment tasks.
• Failure in a course of study.
• Expulsion from a program.

Note: The Harvard system has many variations. You must use
this version
known as the AGPS style.
3RMIT University 2018
When do I reference?
You reference whenever you have used a piece of information
that comes from
• Text books
• Journals
• Published papers, (e.g. conference or working paper)
• Newspapers
• Websites
• TV/Radio interviews
• Personal communication
• Others
You must cite the origins of the information you are using,
whether you have
copied the words directly or whether you have paraphrased.

• If in doubt----REFERENCE!
Referencing
Whenever you rely on someone else’s work you must
acknowledge that by
providing details of the source.
In this system, each reference is indicated in two areas of your
work:
• in the text (in-text citation) by using the name of the author(s)
and the date of
publication of the work.
• In the reference list, where the full details of each reference,
including the title
and publishing details are given
In-text citations
There are two ways of referencing in-text:
• Paraphrasing - ideas of the author(s) are expressed in your
own words.
• Direct quotes

How to reference in-text
There are two options for in-text referencing
• Adding the citation at the end of the sentence.
• Using the author’s name as part of your sentence.
• When paraphrasing include the author’s name and date of
publication.
e.g.
– Lack of variability in a product is an important measure of its
quality
(Shannon 2003).
OR
– Shannon (2003) describes the role of statistics in minimising
product
variability.
General rules for reference in-text (1)
Where the name(s) of the authors are given:

• For books, journals, websites, conference papers and
newspapers, the
general rule is to use the family name and the date.
7
One author
Family name
Year of publication
Kumar (2007) argued that…
...(Kumar 2007).
Two or three authors
Family name
Year of publication
Brown and Lee (2008) offer the opinion that…
....(Brown & Lee 2008).
Four or more authors
The name of the first author followed by
‘et al.’
Year of publication
Note: Family names of all authors, and

initials, to be used in the reference list
Ng et al. (2004) stated that…
…(Ng et al. 2004).
RMIT University 2018
Where the name(s) of the authors are NOT given:
• For books, journals, websites, conference papers and
newspapers, the
general rule is to use the organisation name and the date.
8
Newspapers from a database or hard copy
Name of paper – in italics
Date
Page
Date viewed
Database if applicable
In-Text Reference
As stated in the Financial Review (1 August

2007, p. 62, viewed 27 August 2007, Factiva
Database)…..
…. (Financial Review, 1 August 2007, p. 62,
viewed 27 August 2007, Factiva Database).
Websites – corporations / institutions
An organisational publication with no
individual author e.g. a corporate website or
report, treat the company as the author
Name of authoring body, corporation /
institution
Year of publication
Telstra (2007) provided the latest….
...,(Telstra 2007).
Several items with same author and year):
9

If you are referring to more than
one work written by the same
author in the same year, the
letters a,b,c etc are added to the
date to indicate which one you
mean.
In the reference list the works
are listed alphabetically
according to the title. If the title
starts with ‘A’, ‘An’, or ‘The’, the
alphabetical order is determined
by the second word in the title
Hill, CWL 2004a, Global
business today, 3rd edn,
McGraw Hill / Irwin,
Boston.
Hill, CWL 2004b, Strategic
management theory: an

integrated approach, 6th
edn, Houghton Mifflin,
Boston.
Hill (2004a) suggests that...
Hill (2004b) suggests that...
...(Hill 2004b).
...(Hill 2004a).
Secondary citation (citation within a citation):
• A secondary citation is when you refer to the work of one
author cited by
another author.
• Primary sources are preferred.
10
If the original source is not
available you must include

the name of both writers for
in-text references.
Only the source you have
read appears in the reference
list.
Horton, S 2006, Access by
design: a guide to universal
usability for web designers,
New Riders, Berkeley,
California.
‘Form ever follows function’
(Sullivan, cited in Horton
2006, p. 1).
In 1896 Louis H. Sullivan
observed that ‘form ever
follows function’ (cited in
Horton 2006, p. 1).

How to use quotes (1)
Direct quotes
• Direct quotes show where another person's original thoughts,
words, ideas,
images etc have been used word-for-word in someone else's
work. Direct
quotes should be kept to a minimum.
Quotations are used to:
• acknowledge the source of your information, eg ideas, words,
thoughts, images
etc
• enable the reader independent access to your (re)sources.
Using the author’s name as part of your sentence.
e.g.
– Research shows the ‘Lack of variability in a product is an
important measure
of its quality’ (Shannon 2003, p. 147).
OR
– Shannon (2003) describes the ‘lack of variability in a product
is an important

measure of its quality’ (p. 147).
Direct quotes (short)
• Follow these steps to use direct quotes in your assignments.
• Copy the exact words from the original source.
• Use quotation marks ' ' at the beginning and end of the copied
text.
• Reference with appropriate author, year and page number
information.
Also:
McShane and Travaglione (2003) state ‘work motivation and
performance
increase when employees feel personally accountable for the
outcomes of
their efforts’ (p. 199).

Blockquotes (long direct quotes)
• For citations over 4 lines, blockquotes should be used. A
blockquote is
indented and written as a separate paragraph. It does not have
quotation
marks around it.
Reference lists (1)
A reference list:
• The publication details of every item cited / used in your
writing need to be
included in the reference list at the end of your paper. Any
websites used
must also be documented in full. This enables the reader to
locate the source
if they wish.
• Each reference list entry requires a specific format depending
on the
reference type i.e. whether it is a book, book chapter, journal
article, website,
etc.

• You must use a variety of sources in your written work e.g.
books, journals
and websites etc. This indicates that you have researched
widely.
Note: RMIT Business requires all students to use a reference
list in
assessment tasks unless otherwise instructed by your lecturers
Reference lists (2)
Order of entries:
Note: No full stops are used between an author’s initials, and no
comma is
used after the last author's initials. The dots following the
entries’ names
indicate the details of the reference that should follow.
15
Reference list order rules Reference list
The reference list is arranged first alphabetically
by author, and if the authors are the same then
by date.

A reference with multiple authors follows single
author entries beginning with the same author
name.
Where an item has no author it is listed by its
title.
Where several works have the same author and
year of publication, add the letters a, b, ... etc
according to the alphabetical order of the titles in
the reference list, ignoring the initial articles A,
An or The.
Jones, AB 2000, ...
Origin Energy 2005, …
Smith, AK 1990, ...
Smith, AK 1999, …
Smith, AK 2004, …
Stein, B 2003, …(single author entry)
Stein, B, Lee, HK, Yin, CX & Singh, GS 2000, … (plural and
alphabetical
author entry, that is, Lee comes before Reynolds in the English
alphabet.)
Stein, B & Reynolds, JS 1995, …
Stein, B & Reynolds, JS 2000, … (This reference is sorted by
its date, it
has the same authors as the reference before it but was written
at a later
date)…

Style manual for authors, editors and printers 2002, ...
Young, JC 1988a, Economic indicators …
Young, JC 1988b, A quick guide … (Economic comes before
quick in the
English alphabet)
Young, JC & Smith, AK 1988, …
Reference lists (3) - examples
Textbook
• Schermerhorn, J Davidson, P Factor, A Woods, P Simon A &
McBarron, E
2016, Management, Wiley, Milton, Qld.
Journal article
• Cole, B, & Salimath, M 2013, ‘Diversity identity management:
an organizational
perspective’. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 116, no.1, pp.
151–161.
eBook
• Karlsen, F 2013, A world of excesses: online games and
excessive playing, Routledge,
Proquest Ebook Central.

Book Chapter
• Ahmadjian, C 2006, ‘Japanese business groups: continuity in
the face of change’, in S
Chang (ed.), Business groups in East Asia: financial crisis,
restructuring, and new
growth, 3rd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 22-51.
Website
• World Health Organization 2014, WHO recommendations for
routine immunization –
summary tables, World Health Organization, viewed 1 May
2014,
<http://www.who.int/immunization/policy/immunization_tables/
en/>
RMIT Resources
https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/dlsweb/bus/public/referencing/secon
dary_sources/s
econdary_sources.html
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/lp7zndovilp7.pdf
http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=8rwjnkcmfoeez

http://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/easy-cite/
https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/lsu/content/1_studyskills/study
_tuts/studysmart/
referencing.html
https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/lsu/content/1_studyskills/study
_tuts/harvard_ll/
harvard.html
https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/dlsweb/bus/public/referencing/secon
dary_sources/secondary_sources.html
http://mams.rmit.edu.au/lp7zndovilp7.pdf
http://www1.rmit.edu.au/browse;ID=8rwjnkcmfoeez
http://www.lib.rmit.edu.au/easy-cite/
The full document
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1.217
7&rep=rep1&type=pdf
FOUR PARADIGMS The most fundamental set of assumptions
adopted by a professional community that allows its members to
share similar perceptions and engage in commonly shared
practices is called a “paradigm.” Typically, a paradigm consists
of assumptions about knowledge and how to acquire it, and
about the physical and social world.4 As ethnomethodological
studies have shown [x] such assumptions are shared by all
scientific and professional communities. As developers must
conduct inquiry as part of systems design and have to intervene
into the social world as part of systems implementation, it is
natural to distinguish between two types of related ‘To establish
this would need a representative empirical follow-up study of

the belief systems held by practitioners. A first step in this
direction is the study undertaken by Vitalari and Dickson [96].
It showed that the processes used by analysts in determining
information requirements were more comprehensive than the
literature on structured systems development approaches had
suppested. ’ Only insofar as the literature influences ISD
practice would the assumptions derived from the descriptions of
systems development approaches also be representative of the
actual beliefs held by practitioners. ‘Paradigms are defined by
Eiurrell and Morgan [IS] as “meta-theoretical assunmtions
about the nature of the sub&t of studv.” This differs somewhat
from Kuhn’s classic conception of paradigms which were
defined as “universally recognized scientific achievements that
for a time provide model problems and solutions to a
community of practitioners” [56]. assumptions: those associated
with the way in which system developers acquire knowledge
needed to design the system (epistemological assumptions), and
those that relate to their view of the social and technical world
(ontological assumptions). Two types of assumptions about
knowledge (epistemological) and the world (ontological) are
given by Burrell and Morgan [18] to yield two dimensions: a
subjectivist-objectivist dimension and an order-conflict
dimension. In the former, the essence of the objectivist position
“is to apply models and methods derived from the natural
sciences to the study of human affairs. The objectivist treats the
social world as if it were the natural world” [18, p. 71. In
contrast, the subjectivist position denies the appropriateness of
natural science methods for studying the social world and seeks
to understand the basis of human life by delving into the depths
of subjective experience of individuals. “The principal concern
is with an understanding of the way in which the individual
creates, modifies, and interprets the world in which he or she
finds himself [or herself]” (p. 3). In the order-conflict
dimension, the order or integrationist view emphasizes a social
world characterized by order, stability, integration, consensus,
and functional coordination. The conflict or coercion view

stresses change, conflict, disintegration, and coercion. The
dimensions when mapped onto one another yield four paradigms
(see Figure 1): functionalism (objective-order); social
relativism (subjective-order); radical structuralism (objective-
conflict); and neohumanism (subjective-conflict). This
particular framework has been chosen because it allows us to
capture the distinguishing assumptions of alternative
approaches to information systems development in a simplified
yet philosophically grounded way. The functionalist paradigm is
concerned with providing explanations of the status quo, social
order, social integration, consensus, need satisfaction, and
rational choice. It seeks to explain how the individual elements
of a social system interact to form an integrated whole. The
social relativist paradigm seeks explanation within the realm of
individual consciousness and subjectivity, and within the frame
of reference of the social actor as opposed to the observer of the
action. From such a perspective “social roles and institutions
exist as an expression of the meanings which men attach to their
world” [93, p. 1341. The radical structuralist paradigm
emphasizes the need to overthrow or transcend the limitations
placed on existing social and organizational arrangements. It
focuses primarily on the structure and analysis of economic
power relationships. The neohumanist paradigm seeks radical
change, emancipation, and potentiality, and stresses the role
that different social and organizational forces play in
understanding change. It focuses on all forms of barriers to
emancipation-in particular, ideology (distorted communication),
power, and psychological compulsions and social constraints-
and seeks ways to overcome them. These paradigms, initially
identified by Burrell and Morgan [18] in the context of
organizational and social October 1989 Volume 32 Number 10
Communications of the ACM 1201 OBJECTIVISM <
Functionalism Radical Structuralism ORDER A Social
Relativism ) SUBJECTIVISM Neohumanism V CONFLICT
FIGURE 1. Information Systems Development Paradigms
(adapted from [18]) research, also manifest themselves in the

domain of information systerns development.5 Yet to show how
the paradigms are actually reflected in ISD is complicated. The
paradigms are largely implicit and deeply rooted in the web of
common-sense beliefs and background knowledge [go] which
serve as implicit “theories of action” [4]. A simplifying vehicle
was sought to help develop and articulate the paradigms, in
particular, the types of behaviors and attitudes that follow from
them. Such a vehicle was found in the notion of “generic
stories” or, more precisely, generalized story types (genres).
Each story type consists of typical classes of behavior that
follow from the assumptions of a particular paradigm. For
example, different types of behavior in requirements
determination arise depending on whether one believes in an
objective organizational reality or not. These types of behavior
were identified and grouped into story types. Each of these was
derived by interpreting pools of systems development literature
that share the assumptions of a particular paradigm. These pools
have been identified by analyzing the specific core assumptions
and beliefs that are revealed in the concepts and examples they
employ. This allows us to explicitly compare sets of
assumptions that typically have not been widely articulated or
systematically compared. ‘The view that these four paradigms
capture the whole of sociological and organizational research is
not without its critics. Numerous writers have criticized the
Burrell and Morgan framework for being oversimplified [cf. 21,
46). For example, many are unhappy with the way functionalism
is portrayed. e.g., that it denies conflict and that functionalists
always adopt positivism. Coser’s [23] treatment of
functionalism does take into account conflict; and certain
functionalists did not necessarily adopt positivism (cf. Talcott
Parsons]. Others argue that the dichotomies projected by Burrell
and Morgan are artificd. Although there iwe other frameworks
for categorizing social science research [37, 911, none is xs
representative of the IS development domain. We see the
framework proposed by Burrell and Morgan--with some
modification-as best depicting the different classes of systems

development approaches, relatively speaking. This is not meant,
however, to rule out the need to explore other alternatives.
After each story type has been articulated in some detail, we
provide a theoretical interpretation and discuss some of its
potential consequences. (For stylistic reasons, we shall now
drop the qualifier type and simply speak of story. The theoretic
interpretation will take the form of discussing the (1) key actors
of the storythe “who” part of the story; (2) narrative-the “what”
of the story, what are the key features and activities; (3) plot-
the “why” of the story, why did the action of the story take
place the way it did; and [4) assumptions-the fundamental
beliefs held by the actors of the story, discussed in terms of
epistemologi.cal and ontological assumptions. The four stories
are neither equally well-developed nor known. The same is true
of their consequences. For the first story, there is a large
experiential base from which to draw. It is the orthodox
approach to systems development and has been used to develop
information systems for decades. Its consequences, therefore,
are reasonably clear cut. The other three stories are more recent
and have not been widely applied. Thus practical knowledge
about them is sparse and their consequences largely conjectural.
They are presented in the rough chronological order in which
they emerged. The four paradigms, as depicted through the
stories, are not as clear cut nor as animated as they are made out
to seem. There is overlap and their differences are overstated
for the purpose of effect. They are, in fact, archetypes-highly
simplified but powerful conceptions of an ideal or character
type [80]. ‘These ideal types do not exist as real entities; rather
their properties which are exhibited (to a greater or lesser
degree) in existing entities give the archetype meaning. The
archetypes reflected in the stories play #an important role in
conveying the essential differences that exist in alternative
conceptions of, and approaches to, systems development. 1202
Communications of the ACM October 1989 V&me 32 Number
10 Articles

STORY I: THE ANALYST AS SYSTEMS EXPERT
Interpretation Systems Development as Instrumental Reasoning
This story has progressed considerably over the years [24, 87,
88, 941, and has been the source of many successful systems.
The story suggests that all information systems are designed to
contribute to specific ends. The role of management is that of
the leadership group in the organization that knows or develops
the ends which are then translated and specified in terms of
systems objectives. The usual assumption is that the
specification is as objective as possible. The resolution of
polemical issues associated with objectives is seen as the
prerogative of management and not normally within the domain
of the systems developer. As a result, the ends can be viewed as
being articulated, shared, and objective. Of course, there are
many kinds of conflicts with which the system developer does
deal, but the tools and methods used typically concern only the
choice of means to prespecified ends, not the substance of the
ultimate ends of a system. Key Actors: Management, the system
developer and users. Managers are responsible for providing the
system objectives. The systems developer is the expert who
takes the objectives and turns them into a constructed product,
the system. Management dictates the ends; the developers use
specific means to achieve the ends. Users operate or interact
with the system to achieve organizational objectives. The
primary role of the analyst is to be the expert in technology,
tools and methods of system design, and project management.
Their application helps to make systems development more
formal and rational, placing less reliance on human intuition,
judgment, and politics. Politics is seen irrational as it interferes
with maximal efficiency or effectiveness. As noted by DeMarco,
[27, p. 131 “Political problems aren’t going to go away and they
won’t be ‘solved.’ The most we can hope for is to limit the
effect of disruption due to politics. Structured analysis
approaches this objective by making analysis procedures more
formal.”

Nnrrutive: Information systems are developed to support
rational organizational operation and effective and efficient
project management. The effectiveness and efficiency of IS can
be tested by objective means tests which are similar to the
empirical tests used in engineering. Requirements specification
builds on the notion of a manifest and rational organizational
reality. Information systems development proceeds through the
application of “naive realism”-the notion that the validity of
system specifications, data models, decision models, and system
output can be established by checking if they correspond to
reality. Reality consists of objects, properties, and processes
that are directly observable.
PIot: The ideal of profit maximization. As an organization’s
primary goal is to maximize its shareholders’ wealth, the
developed information systems must contribute to its
profitability. Management is the most appropriate group to
decide how profitability is to be attained and thus, is
empowered to specify what the system objectives should be. In
this story there is one reality that is measurable and essentially
the same for everyone. Otherwise it would not be possible to
have what McMenamin and Palmer [77] call the “true
requirements of the system.” The role of the developer is to
design systems that model this reality [36] in a way that will
turn the system into a useful tool for management to achieve
their ends [7]. In principle, these ends coincide with
organizational goals. Through the concept of economic
requirements, economic reality becomes measurable, taking on a
naturelike, given quality. The economic reality (translated into
quantitative, financial goals, and systems performance
characteristics) allows system objectives to be derived in an
objective, verifiable, and rational way. Systems design becomes
primarily a technical process6
Assumptions: The epistemology is that of positivism in that the
developer gains knowledge about the organization by searching
for measurable cause-effect relationships. The ontology is that
of realism since an empirical organizational reality that is

independent of its perceiver or observer is believed to exist. The
paradigm is that of functionalism, which is defined by Burrell
and Morgan as an overall approach which: “seeks to provide
essentially rational explanations of social affairs”
[18, p. 261.
Analysis and Discussion The developer-as-systems-expert story,
through its emphasis on various forms of modeling, focuses on
grasping the underlying order of the domains in which
organizational actors operate. In the process, it assumes that
there are general laws or regular patterns that help to explain
and predict reality. It seeks to capture these by identifying key
organizational relationships and aspects in IS that help the
actors to orient themselves and achieve their objectives. This
simplifies a complex reality, making organizational life more
rational. Rationality, in this case, relates to choosing the best
means for achieving given ends (i.e., maximize efficiency and
effectiveness). The systems development approach suggested by
this story attempts to follow the scientific ‘This is in part due to
the reification of economic requirements which hides the human
authorship of systems objectives, presenting them more as
technical objectives. Such a view has a rich historical backing.
The belief that the economic laws are not of human authorship
is very clearly portrayed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of
Nations who writes of an “invisible hand” that directs
management de&i& to realize the economic interests of
individual companies for the common good. From a social and
economic policy perspective. it is therefore unwise to question
the legitimacy of management in deciding system objectives.
This could only reduce the general welfare by leading to
suboptimal allocation of economic resources. Furthermore this
stow adouts manv features of the “bureaucraw ideal tvoe” of
Weher 1971 such . . _ ~1 . 1 as instrumental rationality,
formalization, and depersonalization. October 1989 Volume 32
Number 10 Communications of the ACM 1203 Articles method.
This aids its clarity and comprehensibility, and makes it widely

acceptable to the community at large. Moreover, it helps
operationalize fuzzy issues and directs efforts to finding
productive technical solutions. The features of this story
support a number of apparently appealing beliefs. First, it
allows the developer to play a neutral and objective role during
systems development which helps in clarifying the implications
of alternative system design options. Second, many would claim
it makes the issues of power, conflicting interests, and system
goals appear to be largely outside the domain of the systems
developer. Moreover, a large number of systems have been
successfully completed by foll.owing the tenets of this story.
However, as Bostrom and Heinen [14] have pointed out, the
systems designer’s assumptions associated with this story can
lead to a number of conditions that contribute to system failure.
The story, therefore, has a number of potential dysfunctional
consequences. For one, the primary emphasis is on investigating
means rather than discussing ends. There is an implicit
assumption that the ends are agreed. But in reality, ends are
controversial and the subject of considerable disagreement and
debate. By assuming the ends and thus sys,tem objectives are
agreed, legitimation can become little more than a hollow force
or thinly concealed use of power. The prespecified ends meet
the needs of certain system stakeholders at the expense of
others. There are also more fundamental problems with
legitimacy. It is now widely doubted that economic laws govern
social affairs in a similar way as natural laws govern the
physical universe. Instead, it is believed that economic affairs
are governed by social conventions and the decisions of a
powerful socio-political elite. There are no rational,
deterministic laws that emerge from an objective reality. A
reaction to the erosion of these legitimating beliefs is end user
resistance to change. To overcome resistance to change, systems
developers have relied on a series of approaches, games, and
strategies. These have taken the form of planned change models
(e.g., the Lewin-Schein and Kolb-Frohman models),
implementation strategies [2, 631, counterimplementation and

counter-counterimplementation strategies [6, 491, and the like.
These approaches, however, simply perpetuate the notion that
systems development and implementation is a type of game.
They continue to concentrate on means not ends. The
assumption that the system objectives are legitimate and agreed
remains. Failure to focus on the legitimation of the ends has led
to an inappropriate conception about why users resist change.
The adoption of functionalism as the preferred paradigm for
organizational knowledge acquisition also poses problems. As
Burrell and Morgan [18] point out, the assumptions intrinsic to
functionalism have proved to be at odds with much of recent
social science thinkin,g. Functionalism’s two essential
assumptions. (1) that there exists an objective empirical reality
and positivistic: methods are the best way to make sense of it,
and (2) that the nature of the social world is best conceived in
terms of an integrated order rather than conflict, are widely felt
to be problematic. Many now argue that functionalism has not
been a particularly successful paradigm for understanding
organizational and societal life, as the subject of study-people-
does not lend itself to study through positivistic means (cf. [12,
32, 43, 53, 62, 951). People have free will and observation is
not neutral. This latter point reflects the fact .that people as
objects of study always “observe back.” Tlhey can perceive the
observer’s plan of study and counteract it. Note, however, that
the more recent forms of functionalism (cf. [l, 311) have
recognized these p:roblems and have proposed ways to
overcome them. In some of the more advanced thinking in ISD,
there is an awareness of the changing nature of organizational
reality facing the developer. It is explicitly recognized that at
any point in time a system can, at best, approximate the
changing requirements emerging from the constantly shifting
trends and policies of organizational life which can never fully
be known to developers.7 Such insight transcends the mental
“cage” of functionalist tenets in ISD and insofar as practitioners
realize the consequences, they will see value in the following
stories.

STORY II: THE ANALYST AS FACILITATOR Systems
Development as Sense Making The second story has emerged
relatively recently (cf. [5, 9, 13, 20, 54, 731). It is partly a
reaction to the shortcomings of the first and in many ways its
opposite. It recognizes that knowledge about human means and
ends is not easily obtained because reality is exceedingly
complex and elusive. There is no single reality, only different
perceptions about it. Business does not deal with an objective
economic reality, but one that evolves through changing
traditions-social laws, conventions, cultural norms, and
attitudes. Trying to discern economic laws is one way in which
people try to make sense of confusing experiences by imposing
a possible order. No one has a privileged source of knowledge,
all see different parts. Furthermore, the role of people in
shaping reality is very unclear. What they subjectively
experience as a willful choice of action may simply be a
reaction induced by enculturated habits or by circumstances.
Management, too, tries to make sense of the confusion and
instill others with a commitment to the organizational mission
that is constantly evolving. IS are part of the continually
changing social environment and somehow should help to
identify which ends are desir- ’ In particular. consider the case
when users and management are identical, such as in executive
support systems. In such cases, the goals of systems
development cannot be treated as if they were predetermined by
higher authoritv. Rather. the coals are derived from an analvsis
of the shifting forces f&n the envir&nent that affect the
continueh vzability of the &ganization. This is the
responsibility of senior management. On the other hand, in the
classical data processing era, it was easy to set the gc& for
systems development because the systems dealt with well-
understood and structured tasks. 1204 Communications of the
ACM October 1989 Volume 32 Number 10 Articles able and
feasible. The distinction between ends and means is fluid and
reversible. System objectives emerge as part of the
organizational construction of reality, the “sense-making

process” [8]. The role of the system developer is to interact
with management to find out what type of system makes sense,
but there is no objective criterion that distinguishes between
good and bad systems. It all depends on what the parties come
to believe to be true. The developer should work from within
the users’ perspective and help them to find their preferred
views. He or she should ease the transition from one viewpoint
to another, thereby alleviating possible resistance to change.
Ideally the developer-by virtue of prior experiences, wisdom or
special insights-is able to reduce the pains of change. But, the
purpose and direction of change is hidden from him or her just
as much as it is from everyone else. The developer’s expertise
is similar to that of the midwife who can ease the process of
birth and make sure that the baby emerges safe and sound, but
has no part in designing its genetic characteristics. Any system
that meets with the approval of the affected parties is
legitimate. To achieve consensus or acceptance, continuous
interaction among all parties is critical. Through interaction,
objectives emerge and become legitimized through continuous
modification. Systems cannot be designed in the usual sense,
but emerge through social interaction. The mechanism of
prototyping or evolutionary learning from interaction with
partial implementations is the way technology becomes
embedded into the social perception and sense-making process.
Interpretation
Key Actors: Users and the systems developer. Users are the
organizational agents who interpret and make sense of their
surroundings. The systems developer is the change agent who
helps users make sense of the new system and its environment.
Nurrafive: Information systems development creates new
meaning. The effectiveness of the information system rests on
its ability to help users better understand the currently accepted
conventions and meanings. Information systems development
proceeds through the application of symbolic interactionism,
which suggests that organizational actors interpret system

objectives and specifications and act according to the meaning
their interpretation provides for them. Mead [78, p. 781
captures the essence of symbolic interactionism when he writes
“Language does not simply symbolize a situation or object
which is already there in advance; it makes possible the
existence or appearance of that situation or object, for it is part
of the mechanism whereby that situation or object is created.”
Plot: None manifest. As the social environment is under
continuous evolution, no particular rational explanations can be
provided to ‘explain’ organizational reality.
Assumptions: The epistemology is that of anti-positivism
reflecting the belief that the search for causal, empirical
explanations for social phenomena is misguided and should be
replaced by sense-making. The ontology is that of nominalism
in that reality is not a given, immutable “out there,” but is
socially constructed. It is the product of the human mind. Social
relativism is the paradigm adopted for understanding social
phenomena and is primarily involved in explaining the social
world from the viewpoint of the organizational agents who
directly take part in the social process of reality construction.
Analysis and Discussion The developer-as-facilitator story
focuses on the complexity of reality which is by its very nature,
confusing. It does not try to conceal this complexity by
pretending that there is an underlying order that can be captured
in simplifying models. Reality is socially constructed and the
product of continual social interaction. The involvement in the
social interaction produces unique experiential knowledge. The
emerging meanings are a function of experience which is always
changing and never quite the same for two people. The
uniqueness and idiosyncratic nature of each situation does not
allow it to be handled only by applying universal laws and
principles. There is a shift from the rigorous scientific paradigm
of prediction by expanatory laws to interpretative accounts of
experiences. The concept of rationality does not play any
significant role here. Developers act rationally if they simply
accept prevailing attitudes and values, remain consistent with

general opinion, and implement changes in a way that does not
threaten social harmony. As this story emphasizes the
complexity of systems development, it doubts the efficacy of
objective and rigorous methods and tools. Instead, it favors an
approach to systems development that facilitates the learning of
all who are concerned and affected. This implies a switch in the
role of the developer from one of system expert to facilitator
who helps to stimulate reflection, cooperation, and experiential
learning. In practice, the social relativist approach seeks to
provide specific tools that facilitator at his or her discretion
may use to support the project group interaction. Examples are
diary keeping, various forms of mappings (historical,
diagnostic, ecological, and virtual [XI]), special group
pedagogy, use of metaphors to stimulate mental shifts
(breakthrough by breakdown [70], etc. These tools can be used
by the organizational actors for exploring, learning, increasing
awareness, inventing solutions to problems, and undertaking
action [%I. This is accompanied by the belief that it is not so
much the result of systems development that is important, but
the way it is achieved. Hence it intrinsically favors strong
participation. The kind of systems that this story produces
stimulate creativity and sense making. The use of creativity is
not seen as a means to achieve any specific or wider benefits.
The local or global effects of ISD, good or bad, are not a
conscious concern. This story does not October 1989 Volume 32
Number 20 Communications of the ACM 1205 Articles support
the notion of a political center that attempts to strike a balance
between individual and collective interests. Consequently,
consensus is not viewed as a social means to maintain interest-
based coalitions or for achieving an overall global optimum to
which individuals interests are subordinate. The story suggests
that all is relative; acceptance is the only thing that matters.
Social interaction is crucial for acceptance but there is no way
to distinguish between valid and fallacious (inauthentic,
manipulative) consensus (what Habermas [39], terms “naive
consensus”). Because of its relativist stance, it is completely

uncritical of the potential dysfunctional side effects of using
particular tools and techniques for ISD. Different products of
systems development are simply viewed as the result of
different socially constructed realities. Note how this differs
from the next two stories.
9/30/2019 Critical Deconstruction of Literature
https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/62216/assignments/367372
1/9
Critical Deconstruction of Literature
Due Friday by 19:00 Points 20 Submitting a file upload File
types doc and docx
Available 22 Jul at 9:00 - 25 Oct at 23:59 3 months
Submit Assignment
Commence: Week 1
Due Date: End Week 10
Due Time: 7 pm (1900 hrs) Melbourne Time
Assignment 1 - Scaffolding
For this assignment, you are asked to analyse and de-construct
four readings and to reconcile them
to the four perspectives discussed in the lectures and in
Hirsheim and Klein's (1989) paper.
Please understand the mapping to your CLOs.

The first assignment takes you deeper into how you deconstruct
scholarly literature. You have the
opportunity to demonstrate your ability to critically analyse and
organise information.
To do well in this assignment, you must demonstrate a good
understanding of how knowledge is
legitimised, i.e. how writers attempt to convince you of their
ideas.
Step 1 - learn the four perspectives
One of your required readings is: Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.
K. (1989). Four Paradigms of
Information Systems Development. Communications of the
ACM, 32(10), pp. 1199-1216. Further, in
Lecture Topic 1 four rationales behind Organisational Analysis
were identified and discussed. Use
these two resources to learn the four perspectives of analysis.
Step 2 - Using your understanding of the four perspectives, de-
construct and classify four
scholarly readings by critical analysis
Do you need a reminder of the four
paradigms?
Video Overview on Functionalism
(20 minutes)
Video Overview on Social
Relativism (20 minutes)
https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/62216/pages/assignment-1-
clo

2/9
Video Overview on Radical
Structuralism (20 minutes)
Video Overview on Neohumanism
(20 minutes)
Use this Assignment 1 Template . Remember, this assignment
template shows you how to deal
with a varied range of terminology and how you can organise
and reconcile your understanding.
Students should achieve this assignment using 2000 words as a
maximum.
The four readings you must read, analyse and de-construct are:
Reading Perspective
Howard, SK, Thompson K, Yang, J & Ma, J 2017,
'Working the system: Development of a system model
of technology integration to inform learning task
design', British Journal of Educational Technology, vol.
50, no. 1, pp. 326–341.
Which perspective or paradigm
was this written and why did you

draw this conclusion?
Almas A G, and Krumsvik R 2008, 'Teaching in
Technology-Rich Classrooms: Is There a Gap between
Teachers’ Intentions and ICT Practices?'Research in
Comparative and International Education, vol. 3 no 2,
pp. 103–121.
Haugsbakk, G & Nordkvelle Y 2007, 'The Rhetoric of
ICT and the New Language of Learning: A Critical
Analysis of the Use of ICT in the Curricular
Field', European Educational Research Journal, vol. 6,
no. 1, pp. 1–12.
Biesta, G 2005, 'Against learning. Reclaiming a
language for education in an age of learning', Nordic
Studies in Education, vol. 25, pp. 54–66.
If you need an extension, please read: Extensions of time for
submission of assessable work
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-
essentials/assessment-and-exams/assessment/extensions-
of-time-for-submission-of-assessable-work)

https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/62216/files/8460749/downl
oad?wrap=1
https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-
and-exams/assessment/extensions-of-time-for-submission-of-
assessable-work
3/9
RMIT Electronic Submission of work for assessment
In submitting all work for this assessment, I declare that have
read, understood, and agree to the
Course Learning Outcomes and Assessment Rubric. I have read,
understood and agree to the
content and expectations of the assessment declaration
(https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-
essentials/assessment-and-exams/assessment/assessment-
declaration) .
https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/62216/pages/week-1-
introduction-to-organisational-analysis
https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/student-essentials/assessment-
and-exams/assessment/assessment-declaration

4/9
Criteria Ratings Pts
2.0 pts
Analyse and
responding to
project
requirements
Embark &
Clarify
Respond to or
initiate
research
Define the
problem and
specify Define
purpose
2.0 to >1.58 Pts
Advanced (HD)
and Self
Developing
In addition to
possessing the
level of
competence, the
work shows
evidence of
highly original or
insightful
selection of

information. The
work
demonstrates
curiousity in
approach to
enquiry and
critical analysis.
1.58 to >1.38 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Respond to
questions/t asks
required by &
implicit in a
closed inquiry.
Competence in
choose from
several provided
structures to
clarify questions,
terms,
requirements,
expectations &
ECST issues.
Evidence of
selection of
information for
relevance and
appropriateness
to the task.
1.38 to >1.18 Pts
Competent (CR)
Evidence of
selection of
information for

the task but it is
not always
relevant or fully
discussed. Has
understood and
addressed the
task
requirements.
Able to work
independently
from highly
structured
directions and
modelling from
educator
prompted
researching,
1.18 to >0.98 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Adequate
response to the
task, but is limited
in expression of
ideas and
selection of
information.
Shows some
understanding of
the task but may
not have
addressed all
requirements.
Demonstrates
ability to improve
after structured

directions and
modelling from
educator
prompted
researching,
0.98 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
(NN)
Inadequate
response to the
task, and limited in
expression of
ideas and selection
of information.
Shows inadequate
understanding of
the task and may
not have
addressed all
requirements.
Unable to
demonstrate ability
to improve after
structured
directions and
modelling from
educator prompted
researching,
Neglecting to
follow submission
processes,
neglecting to
submit final report
or to Turnitin.

5/9
4.0 pts
Analyse
context of
problem and
solutions
Find and
reflect
Research
4.0 to >3.16 Pts
Advanced (HD)
and Self
Developing
In addition to
possessing the
level of
competence, a
wide variety of
source types has
been selected to
critically improve
the response to
the task that
demonstrates a
critical
awareness of

research
concentrations
and
contributions.
3.16 to >2.76 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
A wide variety of
source types has
been selected to
critically improve
the response to the
task. Developed
competence in
collecting and
recording
appropriate
research from self-
selected sources
where information
is not obvious.
Reflects insightfully
on the research
process. Illustrates
clarity in the
enquiry approach.
2.76 to >2.36 Pts
Competent (CR)
Locates and
records
data/information
from more than the
prescribed number
of sources. A
variety of source

types has been
selected to improve
the response to the
task. Demonstrates
a satisfactory ability
to collect and
records appropriate
research from self-
selected sources.
Satisfactory ability
to reflect on the
research process.
2.36 to >1.96 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Locates and
records
data/information
from a prescribed
number of
sources across a
specified range.
Able to
demonstrate
satisfactory
reflection on the
research process.
1.96 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
(NN)
Fails to locate
and record
data/information
from a
prescribed

number of
sources across
a specified
range. Unable
to demonstrate
satisfactory
original
reflection on the
research
process,
including
neglecting to
submit final
report or to
Turnitin.
6/9
5.0 pts
Identify
contextual
and solution
themes
Generate and
evaluate
5.0 to >3.95 Pts
Advanced (HD)

and Self
Developing
Demonstrate an
ability to reflect
insightfully to
improve own
processes used.
Evidence of
extremely solid,
thorough,
comprehensive
written work. High
level of academic
integrity.
Demonstrates the
result of
consistent hard
work, use of
sources and/or
independent
scholarship.
Provides evidence
of substantive
self-determined
criteria directly
relevant to aims of
the task).
3.95 to >3.45 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Uses appropriate
academic
methodologies to
search for and
select a range of
reliable and

credible sources.
Critically evaluates
selected
information/data
according to
specified criteria.
Evidence of self-
determined criteria
directly relevant to
aims of the task.
Demonstrates a
capacity to be
discerning about
the way in which
information is
presented
3.45 to >2.95 Pts
Competent (CR)
Uses mostly
academic
methodologies to
search for and
select a range of
sources. Some
evidence of self-
determined
criteria in addition
to specified
criteria.
2.95 to >2.45 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Some use of
academic
methodologies to

search for
sources.
Credibility and
reliability of
selected material
may be
inconsistent.
Evaluates
selected
information/data
using specified
criteria. Able to
demonstrate
satisfactory
reflection on the
research process.
2.45 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
(NN)
Inability to
demonstrate
use of academic
methodologies
to search for
sources. Does
not demonstrate
satisfactory
credibility nor
reliability of
selected
material. Does
not evaluates
selected
information/data
using specified

criteria. Unable
to demonstrate
satisfactory
reflection on the
research
process,
including
neglecting to
submit final
report or to
Turnitin.
7/9
2.0 pts
Develop and
organise
research
structure and
content
Organise and
manage
information.
2.0 to >1.58 Pts
Advanced (HD)
and Self
Developing

The work is
clearly
structured and
convincingly
supported by
appropriate
evidence,
argument or
illustration. The
work
demonstrates a
process to
development
that follow a
transparent
pattern.
1.58 to >1.38 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Structure and
organisation used to
enhance
comprehension and
conveys information
coherently and
logically. Alignment of
the key idea with the
topic and all main
ideas outlined
logically and clearly.
Evidence of self-
determination:
negotiation,
delegation,
cooperation.

1.38 to >1.18 Pts
Competent (CR)
Structure and
organisation
appropriate to
task requirements
and information
mostly integrated
and relevant.
1.18 to >0.98 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Structure and
organisation
largely
appropriate and
information is
coherent and
integrated.
Alignment of the
key idea with the
topic and main
ideas generally
outlined clearly.
0.98 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
(NN)
Inappropriate
structure and
organisation
and
information not
always
coherent nor
integrated.

Alignment of
the key idea
with the topic
and main ideas
not outlined
clearly. Unable
to follow final
submission
processes,
including
neglecting to
submit final
report or to
Turnitin.
8/9
5.0 pts
Make the case
for the
solution.
Justification
and identify
advantages
and
disadvantages
Analyse and
synthesise

Critical
analysis and
use of
evidence
5.0 to >3.95 Pts
Advanced (HD)
and Self
Developing
Advanced ability to
ask emergent,
relevant &
researchable
questions. Material
is deployed in a
disciplined way
and demonstrates
a sophisticated
comprehension of
key issues of
debate and is
advanced in ability
to critically review,
analyse,
synthesise and
apply theoretical
and technical body
knowledge in a
broad and creative
way to a range of
areas and diverse
contexts.
3.95 to >3.45 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Competent in

interpreting
several sources of
information/ data
& synthesise to
integrate
knowledge into
standard formats.
Demonstrates a
high level of
critical analysis
and synthesis
through the
selection,
interpretation and
integration of
multiple sources
of
information/data.
3.45 to >2.95 Pts
Competent (CR)
Demonstrates
critical analysis
and synthesis
through the
selection and
integration of a
range of
information/data.
Competent use of
theory and
generally credible
evidence to
support
arguments and
demonstrate

individual
understanding.
Uses conceptual
skills to express
ideas and offer
some
perspectives.
2.95 to >2.45 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Attempts analysis
and limited
synthesis through
the selection
sources of
information/data.
Able to uses
given theory and
evidence to
demonstrate
individual
understanding.
Able to use some
conceptual skills
to express ideas
and offer limited
perspectives.
2.45 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
(NN)
Unsatisfactory
attempts at
analysis and
limited synthesis
through the

selection
sources of
information/data.
Unable to use
given theory and
evidence to
demonstrate
individual
understanding.
Unsatisfactory
attempt to use
some
conceptual skills
to express ideas
and offer limited
perspectives.
Inability to
demonstrate
original
justification of
solution,
including
neglecting to
submit final
report or to
Turnitin.
9/9
Total points: 20.0

2.0 pts
Present the
solution
Communicate
and apply
Discipline
specific
language and
genre
Grammar and
spelling.
Provide
feedback
(ESCT).
Respond to
feedback
(ESCT).
2.0 to >1.58 Pts
Advanced (Dist)
Student uses
discipline
specific
language &
prescribed genre
to demonstrate
understanding
from a stated
perspective & for
a specified
audience. Apply
to several similar
contexts the

knowledge
developed &
specifies ECST
issues. The work
demonstrates a
constructive
approach to
feedback.
1.58 to >1.38 Pts
Advanced (HD)
and Self
Developing
Demonstrated
knowledge and
understanding of
key discipline-
specific language
and scholarly
application.
Students use
prescribed genre
to develop &
demonstrate
understanding to
a pre-specified
audience. Provide
constructive and
supportive
discussions with
peers and
educator to
account for
ethical, social,
cultural and team
issues (ESCT).

1.38 to >1.18 Pts
Competent (CR)
Students
communicate with
each other and
relate their
understanding
throughout set
task. Use
prescribed genre
to develop and
demonstrate
understanding to
a prescribed
audience.
Demonstrated
knowledge of
discipline-specific
language evident,
but not fully
utilised to support
scholarly
discussion.
Provide
supportive
feedback to peers
and educator to
account for
ethical, social,
cultural and team
issues (ESCT).
1.18 to >0.98 Pts
Satisfactory (PA)
Mostly general

vocabulary with
ability to use
discipline-specific
and academic
language
although with an
acceptable level
of errors. Able to
act as an active
participant in
learning: able to
discuss, listen
and perform
satisfactorily.
Satisfactory
ability to provide
feedback to peers
and educator with
attempts to
account for
ethical, social,
cultural and team
issues (ESCT).
0.98 to >0 Pts
Unsatisfactory
(NN)
Mostly general
vocabulary with an
inability to use
discipline-specific
and academic
language although
with some errors.
Unable to act as a
team member:

unsatisfactory
attempts to
discuss, listen and
perform. Unable to
act as an active
learner with peers
and educator, with
unsatisfactory
attempts to
account for
ethical, social,
cultural and team
issues (ESCT).
Inability to
demonstrate the
originality of the
solution, including
neglecting to
submit the final
report to Turnitin.
Assignment 1 - Scaffolding
For this assignment, you are asked to analyse and de-construct
four readings and to reconcile them to the four perspectives
discussed in the lectures and in Hirsheim and Klein's (1989)
paper.
The first assignment takes you deeper into how you deconstruct
scholarly literature. You have the opportunity to demonstrate
your ability to critically analyse and organise information.
To do well in this assignment, you must demonstrate a good
understanding of how knowledge is legitimised, i.e. how writers
attempt to convince you of their ideas.
Step 1 - learn the four perspectives
One of your required readings is: Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.
K. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems

Development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), pp. 1199-
1216. Further, in Lecture Topic 1 four rationales behind
Organisational Analysis were identified and discussed. Use
these two resources to learn the four perspectives of analysis.
Note : You will find example of the assignment with material .
Step 2 - Using your understanding of the four perspectives, de-
construct and classify four scholarly readings by critical
analysis
Template with materials
Remember, this assignment template shows you how to deal
with a varied range of terminology and how you can organise
and reconcile your understanding.
Students should achieve this assignment using 2000 words as a
maximum.
The four readings you must read, analyse and de-construct are:
Reading
Perspective
Howard, SK, Thompson K, Yang, J & Ma, J 2017, 'Working
the system: Development of a system model of technology
integration to inform learning task design', British Journal of
Educational Technology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 326–341.
Which perspective or paradigm was this written and why did
you draw this conclusion?
Almas A G, and Krumsvik R 2008, 'Teaching in Technology-
Rich Classrooms: Is There a Gap between Teachers’ Intentions
and ICT Practices?'Research in Comparative and International
Education, vol. 3 no 2, pp. 103–121.
Haugsbakk, G & Nordkvelle Y 2007, 'The Rhetoric of ICT and
the New Language of Learning: A Critical Analysis of the Use
of ICT in the Curricular Field', European Educational Research
Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–12.

Biesta, G 2005, 'Against learning. Reclaiming a language for
education in an age of learning', Nordic Studies in Education,
vol. 25, pp. 54–66.
Organisational
Analysis
Assignment
1
Organisational
Analysis
Assignment
1
Given
Paper
1:

Tata
and
Prasad
(2015)
National
cultural
values,
sustainability
beliefs,
and
organizational
initiative
Question
In
your
lectures,
four
rationales
for
organisational
analysis
are
described.
1
Critically
discuss
the
argument
presented
by

the
author(s).
The
topic
that
is
discussed
by
authors
Tata
and
Prasad
in
this
article
relate
to
issues
surrounding
the
sustainability
of
an
organisation.
The
very
first
perspective
that
is
written
is

how
sustainability
is
context
specific;
in
that
people
care
more
about
sustainability
if
they
experience
it
on
a
personal
level.
The
article
then
moves
on
to
argue
that
personal
traits
and
cultural
values
impact

how
an
individual
observes
and
forms
an
opinion
on
sustainability.
This
is
looked
at
using
a
model
which
attempts
to
show
how
cultural
values
“influence
the
sustainability
initiatives
implemented
by
organizations.”
(Tata
&

Prasad
2015,
p.278)
This
is
shown
by
presenting
a
model
that
utilizes
5
dimensions
of
cultural
measurement
to
measure
cultural
attitudes
and
perceptions
on
sustainability
within
an
organization
and
improve
this
aspect.

2
What
is
the
method
-‐
how
do
the
author(s)
convince
their
readers?
The
authors
convince
readers
in
a
variety
of
ways
throughout
the
article.
They
first
outline
the
current
state
of
sustainability
in

organisations
and
that
the
outlook
they
have
as
one
that
needs
to
change
for
the
sake
of
future
generations.
The
main
type
of
data
collected
is
qualitative
as
the
writers
use
comparisons
between
countries

to
pinpoint
what
they
are
not
looking
at
national
culture
which
they
believe
is
fundamental
for
sustainability
in
an
organisation.
To
further
convince
readers
that
their
model
is
unique
and
worth
considering,
the

authors
criticize
other
researchers
of
not
looking
at
national
cultures
and
if
they
did
it
had
too
many
inconsistencies.
These
comparisons
ultimately
strengthen
the
validity
of
the
model
which
is
evidence
of
the

authors
projecting
realism;
that
their
model
is
one
of
objective
truth.
The
conclusions
to
their
model
and
findings
is
by
offering
suggestions
of
further
areas
of
research
and
that
their
work
could
prove
useful

for
managers
and
other
researchers
to
have
a
deeper
understanding
on
sustainability
in
organisations.
A
possible
criticism
of
this
conclusion
arises
in
its
lack
of
a
functionalist
perspective
that
the
model
has
not
been

proven
yet
if
it
is
effective
in
improving
or
changing
an
organisations
outlook
on
sustainability.
3
Drawing
on
your
answers
from
analysing
Q
(1)
and
(2),
critically
analyse
and
match
your

analysis
to
the
rational
given
in
Lecture
1
for
Organisational
Analysis
Due
to
the
qualitative
nature
of
the
model
the
writers
possess
a
rationale
that
best
characterises
the
article
as
that
of
subjective
interpretation

that
want
to
define
and
govern
organisations.
This
is
exhibited
by
the
elaboration
of
various
cultural
dimensions
and
how
they
influence
beliefs
and
perceptions
of
sustainability.
It
directly
relates
to
the
rationale
wanting

to
rewire
or
change
the
viewpoint
of
the
constructors
which
in
this
case
are
organisations.
Organisational
Analysis
Assignment
1
Given
Paper
2:
Powel
and
Osborne

(2015)
Can
Marketing
Contribute
to
Sustainable
Social
Enterprise
Question
In
your
lectures,
four
rationales
for
organisational
analysis
are
described.
1
Critically
discuss
the
argument
presented
by
the
author(s).
The
context

of
Powel
and
Osborne’s
research
is
about
marketing
being
an
effective
tool
in
producing
satisfactory
sustainability
practices
in
social
enterprises.
This
was
communicated
initially
through
the
expression
of
new
ideas,
questioning
the
impact

of
marketing
and
outlining
alternative
approaches
for
social
enterprises
to
achieve
sustainability
objectives.
Other
types
of
methodology
to
convey
the
notion
of
the
paper
was
by
using
a
case
study
strategy
and
a

conceptual
model
to
elaborate
the
topic.
The
case
study
strategy
operated
by
using
four
cases
that
were
classified
by
age
and
consisted
of
semi-‐structured
interviews
from
the
chief
executive
officer
of
social
enterprises.
These

four
cases
were
used
to
explore
themes
that
were
common
between
each
case
to
fundamentally
explain
if
there
was
a
correlation
between
marketing
and
sustainability.
The
conceptual
model
presented
in
the
paper
suggested

that
a
relationship
marketing
approach
be
implemented
into
management
to
show
that
marketing
is
part
of
three
step
progression
for
eventually
capturing
sustainability.
From
the
narrative
the
ontological
position
of
the
paper
can

be
identified
as
being
nominalism
due
to
the
expression
of
new
and
untested
ideas
which
are
merely
theoretical
and
not
real
truths
that
will
function
with
complete
reassurance.
2

What
is
the
method
-‐
how
do
the
author(s)
convince
their
readers?
Evidence
was
gathered
through
an
emic
stratagem
which
“investigates
how
local
people
think”
(Kottak
2006
p.
47)
that
is
internal
to

an
organisation
it
is
a
more
personal
expression
of
information
compared
to
the
etic
approach.
Since
the
interviewing
of
social
enterprise
Chief
executive
officers
is
an
internal
source
of
an
organisation
it
is

classified
as
emic.
The
information
gathered
from
the
interviews
can
only
be
analysed
qualitative
because
it
requires
a
more
personal
understanding
of
an
individual’s
motives
and
values.
Unlike
quantitative
analysis
there
are

no
“universally
applicable
techniques
that
can
be
applied
to
generate
findings,”
(Referencing
Method
2019,
para
17.)
it
requires
critical
thinking
with
which
the
authors
have
used
by
the
peroration
of
their
research.
The
conclusion

is
exhibited
as
“indicative
rather
than
definitive,”
(Powell
&
Osborne
2015
p.38)
the
data
gathered
from
the
four
interviews
are
not
true
of
all
organisations
it
is
far
too
small
of
a

sample
space
and
they
take
note
of
this
as
an
area
of
further
research
of
whether
the
findings
transcend
between
cultures.
3
Drawing
on
your
answers
from
analysing
Q
(1)

and
(2),
critically
analyse
and
match
your
analysis
to
the
rational
given
in
Lecture
1
for
Organisational
Analysis
The
type
of
thinking
used
in
this
paper
is
to
give
a
glimpse
into
possible

alternative
approaches
to
how
businesses
should
tackle
a
situation.
This
can
be
reasoned
by
the
auxiliary
decisions
that
are
given
by
Powel
and
Osborne
such
as
the
importance
of
building
and
maintaining

long
term
partnerships
between
business
and
relationships
between
customers
for
the
prosperity
of
social
enterprises.
Given
Paper
3:
Cho,
C.,
Laine,
M.,
Roberts,
R.
and
Rodrigue,
M.
(2019).
Organized
hypocrisy,

organizational
façades,
and
sustainability
reporting.
Question
In
your
lectures,
four
rationales
for
organisational
analysis
are
described.
Organisational
Analysis
Assignment
1
1
Critically
discuss
the
argument
presented

by
the
author(s).
1. The
paper
was
written
on
the
premise
that
currently
in
corporation
sustainability
reporting
is
not
as
impactful
as
it
should
be
in
changing
the
way
organisations
act
towards
social

and
environmental
issues
as
they
do
not
disclose
everything
to
stakeholders.
The
authors
believe
“legitimacy
or
reputational
threats
tend
to
drive
sustainability
reporting
decisions”
(Cho,
C
et
al.
p.
79).
This
suggests
that

the
ontological
position
favoured
by
the
writers
is
that
of
realism,
that
objective
truths
are
important
for
sustainability
reporting
as
it
creates
real
change
in
corporations.
It
is
superseded
by
the
fact
that

hypocrisy
and
facades
limit
the
“prospects
that
sustainability
reports
will
ever
evolve.”
(Cho,
C
et
al.
2019
p.
78)
The
authors
do
not
present
a
framework
but
does
refer
to
Brunsson’s
model
of

organized
hypocrisy
and
research
on
organizational
façades
to
demonstrate
their
importance
in
governing
credibility
of
an
organisation
and
it
is
a
direct
cause
of
conflict
between
the
interests
of
stakeholders.
They
urge
for

reporting
to
be
through
a
“nuanced
theoretical
lens”
to
ultimately
portray
corporations
with
integrity.
2
What
is
the
method
-‐
how
do
the
author(s)
convince
their
readers?
The

data
that
the
research
is
dependent
on
are
the
examples
of
poor
sustainability
reporting
from
large
natural
resource
corporations.
As
mentioned
earlier
the
work
of
other
researchers
is
used.
The
data
is
collected
qualitatively,

and
it
is
possessing
a
realist
ontology.
The
various
authors
of
this
paper
seek
for
corporations
to
reveal
the
truth
they
explicitly
state
that
the
natural
resource
corporations
were
analysed
qualitatively.
An
example

of
this
analysis
was
when
looking
for
similarity
between
corporations
when
observing
their
activities
for
each
organisational
façade.
The
conclusions
of
their
research
are
presented
in
a
nominalist
way
as
both
sides
of

the
argument
are
discussed
with
the
view
that
“organizational
hypocrisy
and
facades
can
be
beneficial
for
the
broader
society”
while
on
the
other
hand
it
develops
social
distrust
and
being
truthful
could
be
more

beneficial.
The
writer’s
conclusions
and
the
premise
of
their
research
can
be
challenged,
and
this
is
written
when
they
say
that
the
“tricky
issue
here
is
whether
the
motive
behind
hypocrisy
is
to

conceal
an
unpleasant
truth
or
to
reduce
the
difference
between
current
and
aspirational
reality.”
Not
always
is
telling
the
whole
truth
the
best
course
of
action
as
it
can
create
more
problems
or

jeopardise
an
organisation.
3
Drawing
on
your
answers
from
analysing
Q
(1)
and
(2),
critically
analyse
and
match
your
analysis
to
the
rational
given
in
Lecture
1
for
Organisational
Analysis

In
terms
of
the
rational
that
best
describes
the
research
by
Herscheim
and
Klein
is
that
of
opening
up
alternative
interpretations
and
possibilities
of
organisations
and
events
surrounding
organisations.
To
uncover
multiple
narratives

of
organisational
‘realities.’
Organisational
Analysis
Assignment
1
Given
Paper
4:
Atkins
Thomson
and
Maroun
(2015)
Good
News
from
nowhere
imagining
utopian
sustainable
accounting

Question
In
your
lectures,
four
rationales
for
organisational
analysis
are
described.
1
Critically
discuss
the
argument
presented
by
the
author(s).
The
narrative
of
this
piece
is
that
the
only
way
to

change
accountability
and
sustainability
reporting
is
to
first
create
a
sustainable
world.
The
writers
attempt
to
convey
this
using
a
“fourfold”
method
of
an
auto-‐ethnographic
approach,
a
contextual
dialogue
on
different
types
of

accounting
individuals,
Morris’
utopian
metaphor
and
stakeholder
accountability
events
through
a
fictional
dystopian
recount.
The
authors
believe
that
“current
efforts
at
integrated
reporting
are
unlikely
to
change
how
large
companies
do
business
in

order
to
judge
the
risk
of
climate
change
in
the
short
term.”
(Thomson
&
Maroun
2015
p.
651)
The
ontological
view
that
the
authors
present
is
nominalism
as
the
research
rejects
or
even
mention

universal
truths
and
attempts
to
outline
its
own
independent
and
optimistic
resolution
in
the
form
of
a
utopia
regarding
social
and
environmental
factors.
The
intent
of
the
research
is
to
give
consultation
to

businesses
that
would
essentially
transfigure
current
business
practices
and
reporting
methods
to
have
greater
benevolence
to
society
and
the
environment
2
What
is
the
method
-‐
how
do
the
author(s)
convince
their

readers?
The
type
of
research
presented
possesses
an
etic
approach
because
it
refers
to
other
research
and
findings
from
external
sources
to
analyse
a
business’
sustainability
such
as
UN
reports
on
climate
change.

The
evidence
which
the
research
is
dependent
upon
is
financial
and
accounting
discourse.
The
data
is
collected
both
quantitatively
this
is
evident
when
looking
at
climate
change
in
the
UN
report
where
for

example,
“40
percent
increase
[in
air
pollution]
that
can
be
attributed
to
relatively
short
period
of
human
history.”
The
information
that
has
been
collected
by
researchers
is
analysed
with
philosophical
inquiry
lens
of
socio-‐

economics
as
the
contention
suggests
that
problems
can
be
solved
by
looking
at
micromanagement
of
resources
such
as
the
“monetisation
of
the
costs
of
climate
change.”
The
findings
from
the
research
are
answered
by

examining
the
case
of
a
paradigm
shift
in
corporate
reporting
by
using
accounting
systems
that
are
more
detail
orientated
and
argues
that
it
should
be
more
than
just
the
positivist
definition
of
“providing

financial
information
to
enable
efficient
allocation
of
capital,”
but
also
social
and
environmental
accounting
have
the
same
level
of
fine
tuning
as
financial
information
to
produce
“high
quality
integrated
reporting.”

3
Drawing
on
your
answers
from
analysing
Q
(1)
and
(2),
critically
analyse
and
match
your
analysis
to
the
rational
given
in
Lecture
1
for
Organisational
Analysis
.
The
epistemology
of
this

research
is
that
of
subjective
description
that
tries
to
interpret
organisational
workflows
through
subjective
interpretations
that
ultimately
define
and
govern
organisations.
This
can
be
explained
by
the
researchers
wanting
to
bring
about

change
within
organisations
when
stating
that
“accounting
can
play
a
role
in
the
reconstitution
of
organisational
agents.”
ations
to
occur.
REFERENCES
Tata,
J,
Prasad,
S
2015,
‘National
cultural
values,

sustainability
beliefs,
and
organizational
initiative’,
Cross
Cultural
Management,
vol.
22,
no.
2,
pp.
278-‐293.
Organisational
Analysis
Assignment
1
Powel,
M,
Osborne,
S
2015,
‘Can
Marketing
Contribute
to
Sustainable
Social

Enterprise’,
Social
Enterprise
Journal,
vol.
11,
no.
1,
pp
651-‐666.
Cho,
C,
Laine,
M,
Roberts,
R
and
Rodrigue,
M
2019,
‘Organized
hypocrisy,
organizational
façades,
and
sustainability
reporting’,
Accounting,
Organizations
and
Society,
vol.

40,
pp.
78-‐94.
Atkins,
J,
Atkins,
B,
Thomson,
I,
Maroun,
W
2015,
‘Good
News
from
nowhere
imagining
utopian
sustainable
accounting’,
Accounting,
Auditing
and
Accountability
Journal,
vol.
28,
no.
5,
pp.651-‐670.
Herscheim,

R,
Klien,
H
1989,
‘Four
Paradigms
of
Information
Systems
Development’,
Communications
of
ACM,
vol.
32,
no.
10,
pp.
1199-‐1214.
Kottak,
C
2006,
Mirror
for
Humanity,
McGraw-‐Hill,
New
York.
Research
Methodology
2019,

Qualitative
Data
Analysis,
viewed
10
April
2019,
<https://research-‐
methodology.net/research-‐methods/data-‐analysis/qualitative-
‐data-‐analysis/>
Thoughtco
2018,
Understand
the
Philosophical
Theories
of
Nominalism
and
Realism,
viewed
8
April
2019,
<
https://www.thoughtco.com/nominalism-‐vs-‐realism-
‐2670598>

Assignment 1 CLO
CLO
Description
Relation to the Assignment
CLO1
Identify different analytical perspectives employed to
understand organisations at the individual, social, structural and
systemic levels.
Addresses this PLO. You are expected to identify all four
analytical perspectives, and to be able to demonstrate your
understanding at the individual, social, structural and systemic
levels through the four given readings.
CL02
Interpret and apply these multiple perspectives to empirically
analyse specific organisations and the contexts in which they
operate.
Addresses this PLO, through interpretation and application by
classification and therefore demonstrating your mastery of the
perspectives in different organisational contexts.
CLO3
Draw on different analytical perspectives as the basis for a
multidisciplinary approach towards organisational functionality,
political and social relations.
Addresses this PLO, by building your mastery of the four
analytical perspectives.
CLO4
Evaluate knowledge assumptions and come to recognise their
management implications and practical consequences.
Partially addresses. This assignment builds your skills but not
application.
CLO5
Assess and judge how organisational analysis can be used to
engender solutions to organisational challenges that are socially

responsible.
Partially addresses. This assignment builds your skills but not
application.
Organisational Analysis Assignment 1
Student Name:
Student ID:
Given Paper 1
Question
In your lectures, four rationales for organisational analysis are
described.
1
Critically discuss the argument presented by the author(s).
Answer hints:
· How do the author(s) try to describe their context? (e.g. how
is the narrative presented?)
2
What is the method - how do the author(s) convince their
readers?
Answer hints:
· What data is relied on?
· How is data collected?
· How is data analysed?
· Are the conclusions open to be challenged?
3

Drawing on your answers from analysing Q (1) and (2),
critically analyse and match your analysis to the rational given
in Lecture 1 for Organisational Analysis
Answer hints:
· What rational is best matched to the paper analysed?
· Critically discuss your reasoning
Given Paper 2
Question
described.
1
Answer hints:
2
readers?
Answer hints:
· How is data collected? Semi structure interview
· Semi structure interview
3

Answer hints:
Given Paper 3
Question
described.
1
Answer hints:
2
readers?
Answer hints:
3
Answer hints:

Given Paper 4
Question
described.
1
Answer hints:
2
readers?
Answer hints:
3
Answer hints:

Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)Organisation.docx

Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)Organisation.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)Organisation.docx

Similar to Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)Organisation.docx (20)

More from jacksnathalie

More from jacksnathalie (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Organisational Analysis Individual (20 Points)Organisation.docx