UCBS7040 Information Management

Assessment
University of Cumbria and Robert Kennedy College

General Instructions – Please read carefully

You are required to complete the assessment outlined below and submit your completed final
document through the RKC Online Campus by the end of Unit 6. Your grade will be based 100% on
this final document, to which you will also receive written feedback.

In addition, you must upload part of your draft of the above document by the end of Unit 3 (see
Interim Assignment, below). This draft will not be graded, but it is an important way of monitoring
your progress. Formative feedback on your draft will be given, and general feedback with respect to
the topic(s) covered in the interim assignment will be posted on the Forum after Unit 3 has been
completed.

Your paper must have a clear structure and must include:

• Cover page (an example is available to you in Induction/Unit 4)

• Abstract (no more than 150 words in a single paragraph)
• Table of contents (Table of tables/figures if necessary)
• A subsection for each of the five questions of the assessment - no more than 4500 words in
total
• References (or Bibliography) – at Master level you must use in-text citations to support your
arguments and any work cited must appear in the References list at the end of the work

Please ask any questions about the interim assignment and final assessment in the Forum.
Final Assessment – 4,500 words
For all questions below, “an organisation of your choice” ideally means “your organisation”,
an organisation you are currently working with/for, or have done so in the recent past. This
will allow you to develop a much more critical analysis of internal processes and
characteristics of the organisation. You are specifically asked NOT to discuss Apple, Google,
Amazon, Zara, Walmart, etc., unless you work there
Questions:
1. Conduct a literature review that critically discusses the concepts of
a. Information Governance
b. Information Security

and their importance in information management. Find and discuss relevant literature (peer-
reviewed literature is preferred, such as journal articles, conference articles, with books, white
papers, practitioner literature, and blog articles having a little less weight).

Weight: 20% of the final mark

2. After reading the Procter and Gamble case study (Unit 2), critically discuss the role and
responsibilities of senior leadership in information governance in the context of Procter and
Gamble

Weight: 15% of the final mark

3. In an organisation of your choice, perform a critical analysis of their use of information

systems and information technology (including cloud services and social media) and how this
impacts on staff development, effective flows of communication, and decision making in the
organisation

Weight: 20% of the final mark

4. Building on your analysis from question #3, critically evaluate possible improvements to the
organisation’s use of information systems with emphasis on staff development in line with
organisational goals, effective flows of communication, and decision making in the
organisation

Weight: 15% of the final mark

5. Critically analyse the importance of security in information management in your

organisation in particular

Weight: 15% of the final mark

The remaining 15% of the final mark will be dependent on the quality of Harvard referencing
and bibliography, as well as the general presentation of your paper.
Interim Assignment
The Interim assignment requires you to submit, by the end of Unit 3, a draft of the final assessment
to Turnitin. Your draft will not be assessed, and it will only cover topics covered in the first three
units – we suggest by that time you should have roughly a 1500 to 2000 words paper.
 To obtain a Fail grade of To obtain a substantial fail
Criteria and Weighting To obtain 70% or above: To obtain 60% or above: To obtain 55 – 59%: To obtain 50% - 54%:
between 49 - 40 %:- of between 39 - 0%:-

An excellent review, A good review that A good review, showing A reasonably good review, A poor review, showing little A very poor review, with little
demonstrating independent demonstrates some independent research, showing little independent or no evidence of independent or no sources, and/or little or
A critical literature research (relevant and recent independent research and although sources are not research, although sources are research and critical thinking. no critical engagement with
review on Information sources, from academic as well critical engagement with always trustworthy, are taken not always trustworthy, are said sources.
as practitioner sources) and sources. at face value, or are outdated. taken at face value, or are
Governance and critical thinking (engaging with outdated.
Information Security sources rather than taking
them at face value; discussing
(20%)
their limitations, strengths and
weaknesses)

An excellent reflection, very A good reflection, well written, A good reflection, making A reasonably good reflection, A poor written analysis, with A very poor analysis, with little
well written, making full use of making good use of the some use of existing making some use of existing limited support from existing if any link between theory and
the information in the case information in the case study theoretical frameworks to theoretical frameworks to theoretical frameworks, and practice, or not at all
study as well as relevant as well as relevant literature build and support the build and support the many of the issues are attempted.
literature. Use of theoretical for the topic, but more argument, which may argument, which may ignored.
Critically reflect on the frameworks (such as “five integration of theoretical sometimes lack in clarity. Few sometimes lack in clarity.
senior manager's role rights”, CIA, etc.) to support frameworks in practice would issues may be weakly Some issues may be weakly
and responsibility in the analysis of the roles and be needed. explored. explored.
responsibilities of senior
leading information leadership. Technical issues,
governance in P&G case cultural issues, security and
legal implications of data
study (15%) location, the importance of the
“one truth” for decision
making are all considered, and
more. Coherent and fully
justified conclusions.

An excellent analysis of inner-
facing and outer-facing social
media; of corporate
infrastructure, including cloud
Critical appraisal of the services in use, their type,
advantages and disadvantages
use of information
for the organisation;
systems in an operations management; data
organisation (20%) collection and use for adding
added value to the
organisation’s operations are
all considered to a high level of
excellence. The organisation’s
particular context is taken into
A good analysis of a chosen
organisation, that discusses
some of the most obvious
aspects of the use of
information systems, with
good consideration for the
organisation’s context
A reasonably good analysis
that takes into account a
specific organisation and
discusses most of the relevant
aspects, but misses some of
the obvious ones. The
organisation’s context may be
only partially taken into
account in the analysis.
A sufficient analysis that takes
into account a specific
organisation and discusses
some of the relevant aspects,
but misses many of the
obvious ones. The
organisation’s context may be
only partially taken into
account in the analysis.
The analysis is limited and
does not take into account the
context of an organisation or
does so only very poorly. Many
if not all of the aspects of
information systems’ use are
ignored.
Little evidence of
understanding of the issues
surrounding information
systems and their use in an
organisation.
 account in each and every
aspect.

An excellent proposal for A good proposal for possible A reasonably good proposal A rather limited proposal for A poor proposal for possible Little evidence of
possible improvements to the improvements to the for possible improvements to possible improvements to the improvements to the understanding of the issues
organisation’s use of IMS, in organisation’s use of IMS, with the organisation’s use of IMS, organisation’s use of IMS, with organisation’s use of IMS, with surrounding information
terms of infrastructure, use of few areas that needed more with some areas that needed many areas that needed more limited coverage of many of systems and the way they can
Critical evaluation of the cloud, use of data, use of attention and stronger support more attention and stronger attention and stronger support the aspects, and stronger be used to improve aspects of
possible improvements social media (internally and from the previous analysis or support from the previous from the previous analysis or support from the previous organisational life.
externally), with a focus on existing literature analysis or existing literature. existing literature. analysis or existing literature
to the organisation’s staff development, was needed.
use of information communication, decision
making. All aspects fully
systems (15%)
discussed and properly
supported by relevant
theoretical frameworks and
the previous analysis.

An excellent discussion of the A good discussion of the risk A reasonably good discussion A sufficiently good discussion The analysis is limited and only No real analysis, with no
risk landscape around landscape around information of the risk landscape around of the risk landscape around touches on a few of the logical development and little
information management in management, which covers information management, information management, aspects, with little evidence of or no integration of theory and
Critical analysis of the general and in the chosen most aspects. Stronger which covers most aspects but which covers some of the a logically developed practice.
organisation; types of risks support from existing misses a few. Stronger relevant aspects but misses a conceptual framework.
importance of security
(internal, external, malicious, literature may have been integration of theory and large part. Much stronger
in information unintended, natural disasters) needed. practice was needed. integration of theory and
management in a case and possible impact practice was needed.
(operation, legal, financial) and
study organisation mitigation. Fully supported by
(15%) existing literature and great
evidence of a logically
developed conceptual
framework.

Excellent Harvard referencing
throughout the paper and an
excellent
Referencing and bibliography/references list.
presentation (15%) The paper itself is presented in
a clear, logical way, and would
be appropriate for peer-review
publication.
Very minor Harvard
referencing errors throughout
the paper and bibliography.
The paper itself is presented
with some style
Minor Harvard referencing
issues throughout the paper
and bibliography which does
not detract from the academic
level of the work. The paper
itself is presented clearly and
coherently
Harvard Referencing issues
throughout the paper and
bibliography detract from the
academic level of study and/or
the spelling and grammar
errors cause the whole to be
poorly presented.
Very poor Harvard referencing
throughout the paper and
bibliography and/or a poorly
constructed paper.
Either no Harvard referencing
and/or spelling and grammar
detracts from the academic
level required. The paper is not
adequate for Master level
work.
Assessment Feedback Sheet and Marking scheme

Max Mark Mark

Criteria Achievable Awarded
Comments

Quality of literature review – evidence of independent research, 20%

critical engagement with sources, a discussion of the differences
between opposing or complementary views; clear understanding of
IG and IS?

Demonstration of understanding of information governance in 15%

practice; clear argument showing which elements are present in the
case study?

Solid analysis of the chosen organisation's/department's 20%

information systems; focus on staff development, communication
flow, decision making?

Critical evaluation of possible improvements to the organisation’s 15%

use of information systems; focus on same three key areas as
above?

Critical analysis of the importance of security in information 15%

management in the chosen organisation; risk landscape assessment;
recommendations?

15%
Referencing and presentation

Total
Overall Comments
100%