Problem Solving Case Study And Proposal Report
1. the course name: Organisational Analysis
2. I have three articles to do the work on and slide 8 to connect the Theories.
3. the writing should be mix 2500 words and not less than 2100 words double space.
4. the writing should be Harvard format and no Plagiarism
I attached the Report Structure and articles the names also slide that has the theories.
Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Problem statement 3 2 Methodology – Demonstration of Critical analysis – thinking (how) 3 3 Literature Review (Find and Generate) 4 4 Analysis/Response: Solution Development and Proposal 5 5 Discussions 5 6 References 5 7 Discussion 6 8 References 6 9 Appendices 6
Students need to articulate the various issues they have identified drawn from the case study details.
Students should identify the issues and make substantive or critically engaging comment about the relevant paradigm perspectives involved, as well as identifying related course concepts, including. Do not be descriptive, make sure you engage with the paradigm.
The problem statement is an incisive, insightful, powerful and engaging statement of the problem. This section conveys your groups’ identification of the problem. Remember, what an organization states as being the problem may be vague and it is the result of your group’s critical engagement with the problem that has resulted in your group’s statement of what you present the problem to be.
|How do you, as an individual, see what the problem is? This problem statement also drives your search for literature for inspiration to solve your problem. What themes did you identify? What have others done?
· The pre-campaign functionalist approach of the mining company. Assumptions such as: that it is merely an organisation going through a commercial process – ‘making money = sustainability ?
|To help you write the methodology, you must draw from the given readings from Assignment 1 when constructing this section.
As reminder, one of the required readings is: Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H. K. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), pp. 1199-1216.
Which two of the given readings did you identify and de-construct as being Radical Structuralist and Neohumanist?
Importantly, how did you apply these perspectives in developing your solution?
|Find scholarly resources, that will help you ground your solution proposal
What themes would you search? Do this on your own and try to identify researchable questions or themes, worth asking. These themes can help you to build your solution, you do not re-invent the wheel but identify gaps in knowledge.
|You may create a hierarchy of themes based on “find and generate”. For example, you might think about:
· Risk management frameworks?
· Project planning, life-cyles?
· Reputational risk?
You might create a list of sub-themes if necessary to convey how you wish to organize your literature.
|Importantly, identify gaps, are these frameworks too functional, and if so, what do they miss out?
Students respond to the specific assignment questions in this section – having demonstrated that they understand the paradigm contexts and other relevant course concepts.
· Can Neohumanism be used as one of the two conflict based perspectives, explain the methodology for avoiding, as best as possible, individual employees from being partisan to this conflict;
· Would radical structuralism be better as the second conflict based perspective, explain in your report why there is a predicable negative backlash from the public against this marketing campaign;
· What if the organization does not want to believe the proposed risk management proposals?
· propose a set of questions that the project teams may ask in the future, to avoid the pressure on individuals (to avoid inciting /escalating issues within the organization?
· At which point do you provide prompts? What prompts would you propose and why (relating to the conflict perspective) do you expect that employees in a company should consider?
Remember, this is a final report and you must substantiate your arguments with scholarly resources.
Must be in Harvard. Demonstrate that you can identify enough citations to support and convince. For group work, each individual, at the minimum, can identify 3 additional scholarly references (additional to the given readings).