Unit Details

Name

IS Strategy and Innovation

Code

HI6036

Year, Trimester

2024, Trimester 1

Assessment Details

Name

Individual Assessment

Due Date and Week

Final version of the paper (30%): Week 11 Friday

Individual Student Details

Student Number

First Name

Family Name

Submission Declaration

Integrity Declaration

I have read and understand academic integrity policies and practices and my assessment does not violate these.

Full Name

Submission Date

Objectives

This assessment item relates to the unit learning outcomes as in the unit descriptor. This assessment is designed to improve student learning skills and to give students experience in researching the literature on a topic relevant to the Unit of Study subject matter, critically analysing current academic papers then presenting idea or questions and expected outcomes with clarity and definition in a referenced

written report.

Instructions

Overview:

This assignment challenges you to apply the design thinking methodology to develop an Information Systems (IS) strategy that addresses a real business problem provided in a case study. Your goal is to demonstrate how strategic use of information systems can lead to innovative solutions and support the organization's transformation and renewal.

Objectives:

To enhance your ability to analyze complex business scenarios.

To develop practical solutions using design thinking and information systems.

To critically evaluate the strategic impact of IS innovations on business operations. Assignment Details:

Case Study Analysis:

You will be provided with a case study that describes a business problem in an organizational context. Carefully read and analyze the case to understand the underlying issues.

Design Thinking Application:

Empathize: Gather insights about the organization’s needs, challenges, and

Strategic Appraisal:

Assess the potential of the proposed IS solutions to align with and propel the organization's strategic objectives. Discuss the expected impacts, benefits, and possible challenges of implementing your solutions.

Students can choose to write about the same case study, but the approach and the thrust of each paper must be different.

Here are some proposed topics:

1. Netflix's Cloud Migration
2. Walmart's Retail Technology Transformation
3. Blockbuster's Failure to Innovate
4. Ford Motor Company’s Digital Transformation
5. Zara’s Fast-Fashion IT Strategy
6. DBS Bank’s Digital Transformation
7. General Electric’s Predix Platform
8. Healthcare.gov’s Implementation Challenges
9. Airbnb’s Data Science Applications
10. Toyota’s Just-In-Time System

The Key elements of the research proposal

The following elements must be included in your research proposal:

1. Introduction or background to the research problem or issue, including an identification of the gap in the current research
2. Research question and, if possible, a thesis statement answering the question
3. Justification for the proposal research, i.e., why the research is needed.
4. Preliminary literature review covering what others have already done in the area.
5. Theoretical framework to be used in the proposed research.
6. Statement of the contribution of the research to the general area
7. Proposed research methodology
8. Research plan and outline.
9. Timetable of proposed research

10. List of references used in preparing the proposal

Guidelines for Writing

1. Introduction
   • The introduction should be as brief as possible (a paragraph or two). Whatever you do, don’t ramble on for pages; you need to make this part of the proposal clear and crisp. In the introduction, you need to give a sense of the general field of research of which your area is a part. You then need to narrow to the specific area of your concern. This should lead logically to the gap in the research that you intend to fill. When the gap is identified, a research question can then be raised. The answer to this question is called the thesis statement.
2. The research questions.
   • The research question may not be a question as such, but rather a statement of a problem to be investigated.
3. Justification for the proposed research
   • one page is usually sufficient for this. You need to tell the reader that the research can justified along four main criteria: (1) The size of the industry/area involved; (2) The gaps in the literature that demand attention; (3) The unusual or improved methodology being used; (4) The benefits in terms of policy and practice
4. Preliminary literature review
   • This is where you provide more detail about what others have done in the area, and what you propose to do. You need to write around 2-3 pages in which you cover the following: (1) The major issues or schools of thought

(2) Gaps in the literature (in more detail than is provided in the introduction) (3) Research questions and/or hypotheses which are connected carefully to the literature being reviewed (4) Definitions of key terms, provided either when you introduce each idea, or in a definition sub- section (5) Questions arising from the gaps that can be the focus of data collection or analysis.

1. Theoretical framework
   • The theoretical framework usually forms the final part of the literature review section. It describes the concept/theory/model that you are using in the thesis to demonstrate your point.
2. Contribution of the research
   • In this section, you outline how your research will make a change to an area of study. This is different from the justification of your research. The justification explains why the research should be done. The contribution section explains how what you will do will lead to certain outcomes. You need to outline: (1) The importance of the research outcome(s); (2) The practical or theoretical nature of the outcome(s).
3. Proposed research methodology
   • You do not have to describe the methodology to be used in great detail, but you should justify its use over other methodologies. For example, you could explain the reasons for using: (1) a certain paradigm or theory (2) qualitative or quantitative research (3) a case study of a specific kind (4) surveys, correlational experiments, field studies, specific statistical measurements, etc. (5) certain dependent or independent or moderating variables (6) a particular sampling frame and the size of a sample.
4. Research plan

• The research plan or outline can be discussed in conjunction with a research timetable. However, be aware that they have a different function. A research plan helps you as well as the reader as: (1) it gives you a framework for the direction your research will take (2) it shows the reader the project is well-organized and achievable in the time available (3) it shows your detailed research activities.

1. Research timetable
   • The timetable should indicate the weighting of each part of the proposed thesis in percentage terms, the topics covered, approximate word limit and, importantly, the approximate length of time it will take to complete them. You might consider providing a graph for convenience.
2. List of references
   • This must be provided in the usual scholarly fashion. It helps to convince your reader that your proposal is worth pursuing if you can identify literature in the field and demonstrate that you understand it. It makes a very strong impact if you can identify where there is a research gap in the literature that your proposal hopes to fill. This is your contribution to the scholarly conversation. You should use academic references (peer reviewed

articles), rather than web articles.

Submissions

The final version of your paper is the polished version. You should not use a lot of small sections and bullet points in the final version. Your research proposal should present the state of current knowledge in a specific area and as such, should have a narrative that flows from one paragraph to another. You cannot achieve this with bullet points and small disjoint sections. All references included with your paper must be cited within the paper and be appropriate to the context of the citation.

• You are required to address Elements 1-10 in your final proposal.
• You are required to provide at least 10 references.
• Word limit: 2500

Academic Integrity Information

Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessment must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Important academic integrity breaches include plagiarism, collusion, copying, impersonation, contract cheating, data fabrication and falsification. Please learn about academic integrity

and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of

the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrolment, or cancellation of course enrolment.

Format Instructions

• Most assessments must be in MS Word format with no spacing, 11-pt Calibri font and at least 2cm margins on all four sides with appropriate section headings and page numbers.
• You must name your file with the Unit Code and Student ID (e.g. “HI5003- GWA1995”).
• Check that you submit the correct document as special consideration is not granted if you make a mistake.
• Student ID needs to be indicated on the cover page.

Penalties

• All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time along with a completed Assessment Cover Page. Late penalties apply.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing. Penalties are associated with incorrect citation and

referencing.

Criterion

Missing or Unacceptable (0-39)

Developing (40-49)

Accomplished (50-74)

Exemplary (75-100)

Introduction: Research question, and background (25%)

Research question(s), definitions, assumptions and limitations were omitted or inappropriate given the context, purpose or methods of the study.

Elements are poorly formed, ambiguous, or not logically connected to the description of the problem, purpose or research methods.

Research questions are stated clearly and are connected to the research topic.

Articulates clear, reasonable, and succinct research questions, and questions are fresh, interesting and significant.

Literature review (25%)

Little or no evidence of a systematic approach, incomplete review; Little or no evidence of having read completely papers cited.

Incomplete and not systematic, but adequate to identify part of the literature, very little evidence of critical evaluation of papers cited

Evidence of reviewing, possibly incomplete but using appropriate approaches, Some evidence of critical appraisal or partial critical appraisal

The literature review addresses a relevant question. The planned method and procedure for the structured/systematic literature review is clearly presented, in sufficient detail, and appropriate for the question to be addressed.

Organization and neatness of the proposal (25%)

The length of the narrative exceeds the suggested limit as indicated in the solicitation. The ideas are presented in a random manner with no focus.

The content and length of the proposal are inadequate (i.e. there is some logic in the narrative part, but the ideas lack of clear focus and structural argumentation).

Proposal format has been followed mostly. The narrative presents the ideas in an almost structural and logical manner.

The narrative has the appropriate length and the ideas are presented in a clear structural and logic manner identifying reasonable well the reasons and means to achieve the goal of the proposal.

Harvard

Reference style (25%)

Clear styles with excellent source of references.

Generally good referencing style

Sometimes

clear referencing style

Lacks consistency with many errors

Criterion

Missing or Unacceptable (0-39)

Developing (40-49)

Accomplished (50-74)

Exemplary (75-100)

Introduction: Research question, and background (20%)

Research question(s), definitions, assumptions and limitations were omitted or inappropriate given the context, purpose or methods of the study.

Elements are poorly formed, ambiguous, or not logically connected to the description of the problem, purpose or research methods.

Research questions are stated clearly and are connected to the research topic.

Articulates clear, reasonable, and succinct research questions, and questions are fresh, interesting and significant.

Literature review and references (40%)

Little or no evidence of a systematic approach, incomplete review; Little or no evidence of having read completely papers cited.

Incomplete and not systematic, but adequate to identify part of the literature, very little evidence of critical evaluation of papers cited

Evidence of reviewing, possibly incomplete but using appropriate approaches, Some evidence of critical appraisal or partial critical appraisal

The literature review addresses a relevant question. The planned method and procedure for the structured/systematic literature review is clearly presented, in sufficient detail, and appropriate for the question to be addressed.

Research design: theoretical framework, contribution, research methodology (20%)

The research design is erroneous for the hypothesis states or has not been identified and or described using standard terminology. Limitations and assumptions are omitted.

The research design is confusing or incomplete given the research questions. Important limitations and assumptions have not been identified.

The research design has been identified and described in sufficiently detailed terms. Some limitations and assumptions have been identified.

The purpose, questions, and design are mutually supportive and coherent. Appropriate and important limitations and assumptions have been clearly stated.

Organization and neatness of the proposal (10%)

The length of the narrative exceeds the suggested limit as indicated in the solicitation. The ideas are presented in a random manner with no focus.

The content and length of the proposal are inadequate (i.e. there is some logic in the narrative part, but the ideas lack of clear focus and structural argumentation).

Proposal format has been followed mostly. The narrative presents the ideas in an almost structural and logical manner.

The narrative has the appropriate length and the ideas are presented in a clear structural and logic manner identifying reasonable well the reasons and means to achieve the goal of the proposal.

Research plan and timeline (10%)

Plan and/or timeline are missing or the timeline is beyond our suggested time.

Plan and/or timeline are present

but not adequate to support the project.

Plan and/or timeline are present

but not very well defined, not easy to understand.

Plan and timeline are adequate to support the

project activities, costs are reasonable in relation to the