Enterprise Social Networks

Feedback - Group 6 (Friday morning class)

Regarding your group assignment, my marks follow the Kent Institute Australia (KIA) criteria. I found several inconsistencies in all sections of your report, in terms of research, references, content, and structure.

In terms of references, your group did not follow the unit guideline (Harvard referencing). Besides, there are several missing sources in your assignment, and those presented are not related to or integrated with the rest of the report. As there is no indication of the source your group used, this is considered MISCONDUCT (remember the Academic integrity survey? - ‘Using other people’s work - especially that of published researchers - without quoting, citing, and/or referencing accurately. This is plagiarism’). Furthermore, I noticed that there is only one academic source. A minimum of 5 ACADEMIC sources in work being presented for this assignment. Your group lost points as your report presented only one academic source. Moreover, Investopedia and blogs are not reliable sources of research. As it was described in the unit assessment brief, this type of source “is acceptable as a starting point to gain knowledge about a topic, but should no be over-used - these should constitute no more than 10% of our total list of references/sources”. Your group reported 7 references, therefore, it should have just one source. It has 2. Finally, you should have read the Harvard referencing workbook provide by KIA Academic Learning Support (ALS). Your whole referencing section used APA referencing. It seems harsh, but that was the rule written in your unit guideline (Assessment Brief 2), and rules are made to be followed. In this sense, the lack of credibility of your sources affected your overall score in terms of references and research.

In relation to the content and structure, your report lacks coherence, as it presents many inconsistencies with flow and analysis. As a starting point, there is no table of contents. A table of contents is important to orient the readers as well as it provides links to the sections. Another issue is that the introduction does not have any links to the main body of the report. A good introduction should set the direction and goals of the essay as well as prepares the reader what the report is going to be about. Besides, your introduction basically paraphrased the whole Bigcommerce page. It can be considered little evidence of research and analysis. Furthermore, your group reported the history of other companies (Book Stacks, Amazon, Etsy, Apple Pay, etc.), which has nothing to do with Alibaba and should have not been in this report. In other words, in 30 lines of your group introduction section, only ONE LINE talked about Alibaba. Thus, for all of these reasons your group lost points.

The organisation overview, business model, and website sections presented a superficial analysis of Alibaba as a business. For instance, in the background and organisation overview, your group started describing the history of Alibaba without presenting any source. As there are no indications of the sources your group used, it could be considered MISCONDUCT. Although it provided some description of the business, your report did not describe the structure of Alibaba in terms of management.

In the business model section, I noticed that the sources in your report have no relation at all with your in-text citations. I downloaded and checked ALL your sources (one by one) and I compared them with your in-text citation. No matches were found. Thus, as there are no indications of the sources your group used, it could be considered MISCONDUCT. I could have stopped here as the information was modified.

In the website content section, your group described the website and its features. There is no mention of the source your group used. In the hardware infrastructure section, there is a source (Alibabagroup.com, 2021), which, by the way, is technically wrong according to the Harvard referencing workbook. Besides, I checked this source and it has no relation at all with the in-text citation. This is considered MISCONDUCT (Using other people’s work without quoting, citing, and/or referencing accurately’.).

In the software section, the same issue: No sources (MISCONDUCT). Your group did not describe the software Alibaba uses. Your group basically described the whole software section in ONE LINE!!! It is considered little evidence of research or this section was poorly addressed.

Concerning SECURITY ISSUES, your group started with irrelevant information about Cloud, IaaS, etc. which has nothing to do with this section. Again, your group in-text citation (Alibaba Cloud Community, 2021), which, by the way, is technically wrong according to the Harvard referencing workbook has no relation to the references. This is considered MISCONDUCT.

In the payment section, your group basically paraphrased the entire GRONKVIST's BLOG. This can be considered little evidence of research and analysis.

In the discussion section, your group argued about things that were not discussed in any part of your report (e.g.: ” …The pandemic can comparatively be said to have propelled the increased use of e-commerce”, “… the future of marketing and selling is online… “etc.). How did you get this information from?. There are no sources. Thus, this is considered MISCONDUCT.

In the recommendation section, again your group argued about things that were not discussed in any part of your report (e.g.: ” …Alibaba should discover data on the remote market… reduce tediousness…”, “…can propel the organization even to a great scale…”, “… use other development apparatuses, such as accessible links…”, etc.). Besides, your group did not point out in any part of the report that Alibaba has issues with TEDIOUSNESS (or whatever it means in your report), scalability, accessibility, identification, and so forth.

Finally, your conclusion does not clearly summarise your essay and there are no clear links or connections to the introduction or main body. Again, your report talked about something that was not discussed in-depth in the previous sections.

Thus, as you can see, my marks were based on the quality of your group report. Besides, your group lost points, because it DID NOT follow the unit guideline (Harvard referencing). I was expecting more from your group as your group presentation was good. Unfortunately, your group report does not match your presentation.

Hope this feedback can help you in your future assignments.

Kind regards, Domingos