A critical literature review on Information Governance and Information Security (20%)
|
An excellent review, demonstrating independent research (relevant and recent sources, from academic as well as practitioner sources) and critical thinking (engaging with sources rather than taking them at face value; discussing their limitations, strengths and weaknesses)
|
A good review that demonstrates some independent research and critical engagement with sources.
|
A good review, showing independent research, although sources are not always trustworthy, are taken at face value, or are outdated.
|
A reasonably good review, showing little independent research, although sources are not always trustworthy, are taken at face value, or are outdated.
|
A poor review, showing little or no evidence of independent research and critical thinking.
|
A very poor review, with little or no sources, and/or little or no critical engagement with said sources.
|
Critically reflect on the senior manager`s role and responsibility in leading information governance in P&G case study (15%)
|
An excellent reflection, very well written, making full use of the information in the case study as well as relevant literature. Use of theoretical frameworks (such as “five rights”, CIA, etc.) to support the analysis of the roles and responsibilities of senior leadership. Technical issues, cultural issues, security and legal implications of data location, the importance of the “one truth” for decision making are all considered, and more. Coherent and fully justified conclusions.
|
A good reflection, well written, making good use of the information in the case study as well as relevant literature for the topic, but more integration of theoretical frameworks in practice would be needed.
|
A good reflection, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity. Few issues may be weakly explored.
|
A reasonably good reflection, making some use of existing theoretical frameworks to build and support the argument, which may sometimes lack in clarity.
Some issues may be weakly explored.
|
A poor written analysis, with limited support from existing theoretical frameworks, and many of the issues are ignored.
|
A very poor analysis, with little if any link between theory and practice, or not at all attempted.
|
Critical appraisal of the use of information systems in an organisation (20%)
|
An excellent analysis of inner-facing and outer-facing social media; of corporate infrastructure, including cloud services in use, their type, advantages and disadvantages for the organisation; operations management; data collection and use for adding added value to the organisation’s operations are all considered to a high level of excellence. The organisation’s
particular context is taken into
|
A good analysis of a chosen organisation, that discusses some of the most obvious aspects of the use of information systems, with good consideration for the organisation’s context
|
A reasonably good analysis that takes into account a specific organisation and discusses most of the relevant aspects, but misses some of the obvious ones. The organisation’s context may be only partially taken into account in the analysis.
|
A sufficient analysis that takes into account a specific organisation and discusses some of the relevant aspects, but misses many of the obvious ones. The organisation’s context may be only partially taken into account in the analysis.
|
The analysis is limited and does not take into account the context of an organisation or does so only very poorly. Many if not all of the aspects of information systems’ use are ignored.
|
Little evidence of understanding of the issues surrounding information systems and their use in an organisation.
|