School of Computing and Information Systems ISYS90050 – IT Project and Change Management Assignment 2: Managing Ethical Challenges

ISYS90050 IT Project and Change Management – Semester 1, 2020

Assignment 2, Ethical Challenges - Rubrics

Poor Adequate Good Very Good Outstanding

Question 1A [2%] Analyzing information to present facts to make an ethical decision

Poor attempt at presenting facts from the case study. A poor assessment of the situation at hand in the presentation of arguments.

A sufficient attempt has been done in identifying and presenting facts from the case study. Lacks rigor in understanding the entire scenario as a whole.

A good attempt at assessing and reviewing the situation to presents facts from the case study. Some key facts may be missing.

A very good attempt at assessing the information and presenting the facts from the case study. Main facts have been identified.

An insightful and thorough assessment of the case study to present the facts. A thorough rigor exhibited in analyzing the entire case study in bringing the facts to the argument.

Question 1B [2%] Defining the ethical issue

A poor attempt in presenting the main ethical issue in the case study. A poor assessment of the scenario in the case study and presenting the arguments.

A reasonable attempt has been done in identifying the main ethical from the case study. Lacks rigor in understanding the entire scenario as a whole.

A good attempt at identifying and discussing the ethical issues from the case study.

A very good attempt at assessing the information identifying and discussion of the ethical issue.

An insightful and thorough discussion of the ethical issue from the case study . A thorough rigor exhibited in analyzing the entire case study in bringing the facts to the argument.

Question 1C [2%] Identifying affected stakeholder

Poor attempt at identifying the affected stakeholder or the stakeholder is wrongly identified. Weak analysis of the case study and weak arguments in support of the identified stakeholder.

Correct identification of the stakeholder. Weak analysis of the case study and thereby weak arguments in support of the identified stakeholder

Correct identification of the stakeholder. Good argument to support the identified stakeholder, but a few key arguments in the analysis may be missing.

Correct identification of the stakeholder. Most of the arguments to support the identified stakeholder are valid with minor inconsistencies or missing information in the identification.

Correct identification of the stakeholder. Thorough and insightful arguments in support of the choice made.

Question 1D [2%] Identifying consequences

Poor attempt at identifying the consequences or the arguments are unrelated to the consequences of the ethical decision. Argument in support of the decision missing

A reasonable attempt has been made to identify the consequences, but one or more of the consequences from the case study are still missing incomplete. Argument in support of the decision very weak

A good attempt has been made at identifying the consequences. The argument is reasonable, but can be improved.

A very good attempt at identifying the consequences. The argument is presented well in terms of the choices made. Very minor inconsistencies in the entire presentation.

A thorough attempt at identifying the consequences. A well-balanced discussion that handles all critical aspects from the case study in the justification in making the argument.

Question 1E [2%] Identifying obligations

Poor attempt at identifying the obligations or the arguments are unrelated to the obligations or missing completely.

A reasonable attempt has been made to identify the obligations, but one or more of the consequences from the case study are still missing incomplete. Argument in support of the decision very weak.

A good attempt has been made at identifying the obligations. The supporting argument is acceptable, but can be improved.

A very good attempt at identifying the obligations. The argument is presented well in terms of the obligations. Very minor inconsistencies in the entire presentation.

A thorough attempt at identifying the obligations. A well-balanced discussion that handles all critical aspects from the case study in the justification in making the argument.

Question 2 [4%] Following or Ignoring Ben’s instructions

A poor attempt at strategizing and reasoning around the choice made, or there are no arguments made in support of the choice, or the arguments are completely unrelated to the choice made.

An insufficient attempt at strategizing and reasoning to present the choice made. Poor attempt at supporting arguments or the arguments lack sufficient reasoning from the case study in support of the choice made.

A good attempt at strategizing and reasoning to present the choice made. A good attempt at presenting the arguments, but there are missing elements from the case study that had to be accommodated in making the choice.

A well-structured argument and reasoning in terms of the choice made. The arguments have been presented in a systematic manner with good reasoning for the choice.

An excellent and precise choice of the action made. Clear and succinct articulation of the arguments and excellent reasoning in justification of the choice made. Best interests of the client is central theme of arguments.

Question 3 [4%] Approaching Senior Management

A very poor explanation and reasoning for approaching senior management, or the arguments made are completely unrelated to the choice or completely missing.

A reasonable attempt at explaining the choice of approaching the senior management. The arguments made in support of the choice lacks sufficient reasoning.

A good attempt at explaining the choice of approaching the senior management. A good attempt made in support of the arguments, but there are missing elements from the case study and the argument can be improved

A well-structured argument and reasoning for the choice of approaching the senior management. The arguments have been presented in a logical manner with depth of arguments for the choice.

An excellent argument for the choice of approaching senior management. Clear and systematic approach in presenting the arguments, taking into account the best interests of the client in making the choice.

Question 4 [4%] Convincing Ben to take the right approach to address the problem.

A very poor explanation and reasoning for convincing Ben, or the arguments made are completely unrelated to the choice or completely missing.

A reasonable attempt at explaining the choice of convincing Ben. The arguments made in support of the choice lacks sufficient reasoning.

A good attempt at explaining the choice of convincing Ben. A good attempt made in support of the arguments, but there are missing elements in the approach and the argument can be improved

A well-structured argument and reasoning for the choice of convincing Ben. The arguments have been presented in a logical manner with depth of arguments for the choice.

An excellent argument for the choice to fix app and convince Ben. Clear and systematic approach in presenting the arguments, taking into account the best interests of the client in making the choice.

Presentation, Style and Grammar [3%]

Major inconsistencies in grammar and spelling. Presentation style is a major impediment to the readability of the report.

Structure of the argument can be improved. Some inconsistency / minor defects in grammar and spelling. Acceptable style of presentation.

Reasonable structure and flow in the document and consistent style of presentation across the entire document.

Document is well structured and flow of information very good. Presentation and formatting style enhances readability of the report.

Exceptional structure, flow and presentation style adds significantly to the readability and understanding of the report.