ASS 3 (kim Woods) only

Dear Brittany,

Thank you for sending your work to The Writing Center. I have provided written feedback in the margins of the paper to highlight some specific areas for you to address. I have also provided feedback and direction through a video that you can access by clicking on the link below:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zUdojw7FxBWT0T-1F-MnOJ2jqteJ7VOx/view?usp=sharing

The link may take a few minutes to load, and, in the meantime, you will see a blank screen. Please wait for the video to appear.

Please see the Paper Review and QA in Cranium Cafe Guide for details about scheduled paper review.

Please note: You should be able to see the tutor’s written comments in the right margin of your paper. If you cannot, please make sure your Microsoft Word Review settings are set to Final Show Markup. If you are still unable to see the marginal comments, please contact the Writing Center. If you have any questions or trouble accessing your feedback, please email me at [email protected]. You are also welcome to join us during Live Tutoring hours: https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/page/writing-center

We want to hear from you! Please take the time to read the comments on your paper and watch your review. Then let us know what you think. Please click here ( https://form.jotform.com/72916589616168 ) to complete the Paper Review Survey and provide your feedback.

Thank you for your time, and I wish you well with your writing!

Warmly,

Allen, tutor

Critical Thinking in Psychology

Brittany Salley

February 9, 2020

Critical Thinking in Psychology

Introduction

Introducing change in an organization more often than is met with confrontation, especially if such a change comprises of a redesign of the elementary work process and introduction of advanced technology . The article scrutinizes the introduction of intricate software systems to standard work processes within a business.

Summary of the Article

Literature review.

Organizational retooling calls for cautious planning and communication to achieve effective execution. Risk acceptance at some level may provide an advantage to a business. Flexibility in an organization can be amplified when the management is enthusiastic to integrate lesson learned as part of the transformation management process. The majority of the participants lack a high level of technical knowledge (Long, S., 2010 ). The designers of social technology more often overlook the social knowledge fundamentals of change and fail to contemplate the degree of stockholder learning related to complete coziness with the technology. The degree of learning mandatory for effective application of technology can serve as a transformation management guide. Advance technological motivated transformation management and transformational restructuring necessitate equivalent changes in learning and organizational culture. Operative technology practice must be well-thought-out as a slice of sequences of social, cooperative relationships dubbed a technology support net (Long, S., 2010).

TSN empowers the usage of the technology appropriately by creating an intertwined informational, physical, and socioeconomic relations. Disruptions of advanced technology result in resistance to change. Distinct points of view regarding the meaning of technology may well be determined through the impacts of the system redisposition on stakeholders’ daily plans or influence level. A business process cannot go on disjointed or secluded from the transformation process (Long, S., 2010). It is critical to transforming TSN to embrace innovative outlines of work, the organization's structure, as well as cross-functionality for expertise inventiveness to fully flourish. McCarter et al. endorse the necessity for training and organizational education for any genuine transformation in an organization's culture. Incorporation of supply chain structures is impossible when there is no establishment of suitable cultural alleyways to manage individuals (Long, S., 2010).

Methods

The researcher employed a case study Methodology, narrative interviews . The author conducted a succession of twenty-four in-depth description interviews with integral participants to determine the efficacy in project development at the societal interfaces of the socio-economic structures. A quality approach was employed

Results

There is a high likelihood of a communication breakdown between system developers and participants. This communication breakdown must be addressed. Additional training will help lessen the interruption vertically and horizontally. Lastly, decision making encounters rest with expressively approaching the participants .

Discussion

According to the results, all the participants admitted that change was necessary and all approved that the change could only be accomplished with considerable planning and communication. However, several attempts to implement change management have had limited success, as several stakeholders complain of levels of forced participation among other threats from the state.

Conclusion.

People are highly resistant to change which the change involves loss of control over long-standing work patters or exposing weakness from lack of understanding of the proposed change. Stakeholders should be engaged through meaningful talks for a better understanding of what the change entails.

Article analysis

Stakeholder perception (Nardi, P., 2017) . Incongruent observations of the system will offer a robust risk valuation than would perhaps form a lineup of stakeholders with a similar familiarity. Initiating team building can help grow confidence and identity questions that will promise considerate, honest responses to learning setting and probable system delinquent .

Weakness

Brittleness of the technology employed (Nardi, P., 2017). From the study, it is evident that the majority of engineers hardly ever put into consideration the fragility of the technology compared to those who lack technical expertise. As such due diligence is called for when scheming their servility against the success of the project. The study comprised methodological weaknesses characteristic in qualitative research. The research design is wedged by investigator predispositions regardless of efforts to abate the bias .

Reflection

Advance technology implementation in current organizations is key to efficiency a nd effectiveness. However, without stakeholder’s engagement meaningfully can only inspire resistance to change (Andriof, J., & Waddock, S., 2017). Training and team building are among the key were of getting an in-depth and truthful response and deep and proper analysis of the risks of a given project. The researcher would have narrowed down to a specific representative number, and detailed interview other than generalizing (Bryman, A., 2016).  Focusing on departmental needs and perception other projects would have yielded more explicitly answers regarding their needs.

Standard check.

The study employed a typical issue-based sweeping approach for analysis of the narrative interviews. A generalized reporting scheme was used to add layers of confidentiality necessary to preserve the anonymity of interviewees (Bryman, A., 2016). Responses stayed coded by categorizing broadly the subjects that survey levels of proficiency, teamwork, and headship among others.

Conclusion

Critical thinking refers to the analysis of truths to deduce judgment. Analysis of the article revealed that change management is one big challenge for every organization. People are enemies of change. Yet, proper involvement can yield a much-desired result .

References

Andriof, J., & Waddock, S. (2017). Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking (pp. 19-42). Routledge.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Long, S. (2010). The strategic implications of non-technical stakeholder acceptance in high technology system design and implementation. Human Systems Management, 29(4), 205-215.

Nardi, P. (2017). Critical Thinking: Tools for Evaluating Research. Univ of California Press.

�This should be at the top of the first page. Use Insert>Page Break.

�Your wording here is too close to the original. When paraphrasing from a source, you must put the information completely in your own words and provide a citation or else it can be considered plagiarism since the words are not really your own. You may want to look at the tutorials on paraphrasing in our Writing Reference Library: � HYPERLINK "https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/page/using-sources" �https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/page/using-sources�

�What article? You need to give the title and the author(s) in the introduction. Also, you need a thesis statement which indicates that this paper will summarize and analyze the article.

�If you are required to use headings and subheadings in APA style, you will want to follow the directions in this tutorial: � HYPERLINK "https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/article/apa-headings-and-subheadings" \h �https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/article/apa-headings-and-subheadings�

�Only the last name is given in the citation, no first initial.

(Long, 2010).

Be sure to fix throughout. Knowing what to include in a parenthetical citation takes practice, especially because citation formats vary for different kinds of references. Writers rarely memorize these different formats, preferring instead to keep their style guides and tutorials handy. You will want to do the same! Here are two helpful tutorials for you to use (and save if you wish!): � HYPERLINK "https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/article/basic-citation-guidelines" \h �https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/article/basic-citation-guidelines� and � HYPERLINK "https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/page/apa-common-citations" \h �https://campus2.purdueglobal.edu/page/apa-common-citations�

�When summarizing or paraphrasing, you need to write completely in your own words. Here, you are going sentence by sentence through the article and changing a few words or reordering them slightly. That can lead to plagiarism problems.

Here is a way to approach summarizing/paraphrasing from sources. Read the source material carefully so that you have a solid understanding (you can jot down short notes). Then, put the source material away and pretend that a friend or family member has asked you about what you were reading. How would you explain it to them without looking at the source again? This way, you will write in your own words.

�For this section you want to generally summarize the Literature Review. Use phrases like:

The author looked at several studies which showed…

Some of the previous studies the author used defined…

See?

�methodology with narrative interviews

�Again, rather than trying to take sentences from the article and slightly change them, try to give an overall summary of the methods the author used. What you have here is only a few sentences from the methods section. There is a lot more that should be summarized.

�This is only a few sentences from the end of the article and is part of the Discussion section, not the Results.

�This is not a complete sentence, and I am uncertain what the citation is for.

�How does this relate to analyzing the article?

�This sounds like it is being reworded from a source, but a lot of the wording does not make sense. Phrases like “scheming their servility” and “wedged by investigator predispositions” sound like rewording by looking up synonyms.

�Text needs to be even with the left margin.

�The Standards Check is based on your textbook readings and is about how the article is written, not its methodology.

�The conclusion should be about whether the study is effective and well-written and documented.

�The reference page needs to be a completely separate page. Use Insert>Page Break before the heading to ensure this.