Order custom papers, masters thesis and dissertation in 3 guided steps; human written!
Posted: January 31st, 2023
Assignment 1 (Literature Review) Individual Assignment
HI5019 STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS T2 2017
WEEK 6 Friday 5 pm
Each student will write a literature review of NOT more than 2000 words. The review should demonstrate that the student has thoroughly researched their topic. Students should use examples of business practice from the scholarly journals papers, conferences, books and professional magazines to support their arguments
The literature review would be on an organisation (company) that is using accounting software packages in Australia. The research would cover:
PART 1
1. The current organizational structure
2. What operational problems (e.g., inefficiency, errors) do you think the organisation could experience because of this structure?
3. What is the most likely system acquisition method— commercial software, custom software, or ERP?
4. Describes and prepare a system flowchart of the sales procedures for the chosen organisation (company)
5. Identify any control problems in the system and what sorts of fraud are possible in this system?
PART 2
1. Development and adoption of the accounting software packages,
2. The current market size,
3. Identify the leaders in the market and what gives them the competitive advantage,
4. Identify the current gaps or challenges encountered by users or customers of accounting software/packages and make relevant suggestions or recommendations.
Submission Requirements:
Research reports are to be presented in size 12 Times New Roman or 10 Calibri Font and double spaced. The research should include a list of at least 5 references used in the research report and a bibliography of the wider reading done to familiarize oneself with the topic.
Submission:
• Soft copy to self-check and Final Submission with cover sheet
You are reminded to read the “Plagiarism” section of the course description. Your research should be a synthesis of ideas from a variety of sources expressed in your own words. All reports must use the Harvard referencing style. Marking rubrics are attached.
Assessment Criteria:
Score Very Good (15/15) Good (11/15) Satisfactory (9/15) Unsatisfactory (5/15)
Presentation and writing style
/15 marks Information is well organized. Correct layout including times new roman, font size 12 or calibri, font size10, double spaced. About the right length.
Very well written, excellent paraphrasing and proper grammar and punctuation are used throughout. Information is organized, Correct layout including times new roman, font size 12 or calibri, font size10, double spaced. About the right length.
Well written, some paraphrasing and proper grammar and punctuation Information is somewhat organized, Some elements of layout or length incorrect.
Proper grammar and punctuation mostly used, but overuse of direct quotes.
Information is poorly organized, Some elements of layout or length incorrect.
Proper grammar and punctuation not always used.
Excessive overuse of direct quotes
Score Very Good (15/15) Good (11/15) Satisfactory (9/15) Unsatisfactory (5/15)
Introduction
/15 marks
Introduces the topic of the research report in an extremely engaging manner which arouses the reader's interest.
Gives a detailed general background and indicates the overall -plan-.
Introduces the topic of the research report in an engaging manner which arouses the reader's interest.
Gives some general background and indicates the overall
-plan- of the report. Satisfactorily introduces the topic of the research report.
Gives a general background.
Indicates the overall -plan- of the report. Introduces the topic of the research report, but omits a general background
of the topic and/or
the overall -plan- of the report.
Score Very Good (20/20) Good (15/20) Satisfactory (10/20) Unsatisfactory (7/20)
Evidence of
Research
/20 marks Substantial range of appropriate and current,
supportive evidence
Good range of appropriate and current, supportive evidence.
Suitable range of supportive evidence used. Not always appropriate and/or current.
Minimum cited. Insufficient range or number of supportive evidence used.
Score Very Good (30/30) Good (23/30) Satisfactory (16/30) Unsatisfactory (10/30)
Development of
Discussion
/30 marks Logical, insightful, original discussion with wellconnected paragraphs. Evidence of full engagement with the literature found, with relevant and detailed analysis. Detailed, original discussion develops logically with some connection between
adjoining paragraphs. Understanding of reading shown. Some relevant analysis. Adequate discussion develops logically.
Understanding of reading shown. Few relevant analysis. Inadequate discussion of issues and/or lacking in
logical flow
Little/no demonstrated understanding of reading.
None/little discussion or analysis.
Score Very Good (10/10) Good (7/10) Satisfactory (5/10) Unsatisfactory (3/10)
Conclusion
/10 marks An interesting, well written summary of the main points. An excellent final comment on the subject, based on the information provided.
A good summary of the main points.
A good final comment on the subject, based on the information provided. Satisfactory summary of the main points. A final comment on the subject, but introduced new material. Poor/no summary of the main points. A poor final comment on the subject and/or new material introduced.
Score Very Good (10/10) Good (7/10) Satisfactory (5/10) Unsatisfactory (3/10)
Referencing
/10 marks Correct referencing (Harvard) All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged.
All paraphrased material acknowledged.
Correctly set out reference list and bibliography included.
Mostly correct referencing
(Harvard)
All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged. All paraphrased material acknowledged.
Mostly correct setting out reference list and bibliography included. Mostly correct referencing (Harvard) Some problems with quoted material and paraphrased
material
Some problems with the reference list or bibliography. Not all material correctly acknowledged.
Some problems with the reference list or bibliography.
Total
/100 marks
Final marks
/20
General
Comments:
You Want Quality and That’s What We Deliver
We’ve put together our writing team with care, choosing talented writers who shine in their fields. Each one goes through a tough selection process, where we look for folks with deep expertise in specific subjects and a solid history of academic writing. They bring their own mix of know-how and flair to the table, making sure our content hits the mark—packed with info, easy to read, and perfect for college students like you.
We don’t do AI-written essays or copycat work—everything’s original. Competitive pricing is a big deal for us; we keep costs fair while delivering top-notch quality. Our writers are some of the best out there, and we charge rates that stack up well against other services. This means you get stellar content without draining your wallet. Our pricing is straightforward and honest, built to give you real value for your money. That’s why students turn to us for high-quality writing services that won’t break the bank.
Academic integrity is at the heart of what we do. Every paper starts from scratch, with original research and writing tailored just for you. We write 100% authentic—no plagiarism research essays. Our strict quality control process includes scanning every draft with top tools like SafeAssign and Turnitin, so you get a similarity score and proof of originality. We’re obsessive about proper citation and referencing too, crediting every source to keep things legit. It’s all about giving you peace of mind with content that meets the highest standards.
When you decide to place an order with Dissertation Writer, here is what happens: