Ethical Case Study

 

Ethical Case Study Project Guidelines

Overview

You write a case study based on your own experience related to an ethical issue within an organization; or you may choose to write about an emerging ethical issue within your current or planned industry. The case study can be fully anonymous to protect those within your organization, and you may choose to identify your role in the case study or not. Your case study will be submitted for a grade in parts throughout the term with the entire final document as the last deliverable. Please review these general tips and guidelines. How to approach writing your case:

• Assume you are one of the leaders in the organization. Write with clarity and confidence on the topic based on what you have learned prior to and during this course.

• Pretend that the audience reading this case study knows nothing about the situation or ethical philosophy, decision-making, etc. Provide enough detail to give readers enough information to draw conclusions, but remain succinct.

• Explain, as needed, the context, evaluate the evidence, and make a decision concerning the appropriate course of action, and support your conclusion through arguments and counter-arguments.

• Take a clear and decisive position – What would you do in this case? What ethical decision-making framework did you use? What most influenced your decision?

Formatting Requirements

The formatting of this document should be as follows:

• Use consistent formatting throughout (12 pt font, Times New Roman, single-spaced).

• Do review your paper thoroughly for grammatical issues and typographical errors!

• Use cover page and references

• Cite your sources (do not use Wikipedia or Blog, etc.) and list them in a reference page per APA style.

• At minimum 5 resources that are published no more than five years ago. Choose scholarly resources (i.e., peer-reviewed journal, sources from your industry/organization, and (sparingly) the textbook.

• 9-12 body pages (single-spaced, not including cover page and references).

Project Timeline

• Week 3: Choose an ethical issue and a topic. See the assignment for details.

• Week 4: Part 1 and Outline of Case

• Week 5: Part 2

• Week 6: Part 3

• Week 7: Final Document

• Week 8: Final Presentation

Ethical Case Outline

Part 1: Describe the case (3-4 pages):

• Identify the parties involved, their rights, their responsibilities

• Identify the salient ethical and/or legal issues of the case

• Identify the relevant factual issues, conceptual issues, social constraints, and any additional information necessary for an accurate understanding of the case.

• If needed, conduct research about the issue from multiple perspectives and include relevant ethical theory, legal requirements, and technical details about the case to ensure that the case can be solved.

• See OWL Sample Outlines for formatting information.

Part 2: Critically analyze the case (3-4 pages):

• Identify the primary “ethical dilemma (or question)” in the case.

• Formulate possible courses of action.

• Discuss any role that information technology or context played in creating the special circumstances of the case.

• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of those actions.

• Analyze different courses of action, are they based on a consequential or non-consequential approach? Are these courses of action ethical?

• Weigh the pros and cons of each action.

Part 3: Solve the case (3-4 pages):

• Indicate which course of action you would choose, and why. If you were personally involved in the scenario, you can detail what you DID do compared to what you WOULD do given what you have learned in this course.

• Provide your own opinions: do not rephrase the opinions of others, create your own, unique viewpoint based on your ethical philosophy, ethical decision-making framework, and the context and scenario of the case.

• Clearly demonstrate and explain how the pros of your solution outweigh the cons.

• Use the facts of the case and supporting resources to convince your readers of the soundness of your ethical point of view

Final Document

• All parts due as one cohesive document.

• Be sure to have addressed any issues or concerns that were brought to your attention from each individual part.

Final Presentation

• Create a 8-10 minute narrated presentation that is limited to 10 slides

Read More

Computer network design, implementation and testing.

 

 

Southampton Solent University

Coursework Assessment Brief

Assessment Details

 

Unit Title:	Networks
Unit Code:	COM712
Unit Leader:	Warren Earle
Level:	7
Assessment Title:	Report referral
Assessment Number:	AE3
Assessment Type:	Report
Restrictions on Time/Word Count:	3000
Consequence of not meeting time/word count limit:	There is no penalty for submitting below the word/count limit, but students should be aware that there is a risk they may not maximise their potential mark.   Assignments should be presented appropriately in line with the restrictions stated above; if an assignment exceeds the time/word count this will be taken in account in the marks given using the assessment criteria shown.
Individual/Group:	Individual
Assessment Weighting:	50%
Issue Date:	July 6th 2020
Hand In Date:	4th September 2020
Planned Feedback Date:	4th September 2020
Mode of Submission:	on-line
Number of copies to be submitted:	Where on-line submission via ‘Solent Online Learning’ is used, students are not required to submit a hard copy.
Anonymous Marking	This assessment: Will be marked anonymously

Assessment Task

The assessment task is to rework a report on a computer network design, implementation and testing.

Please see enclosed details

Networking Report – please read very carefully

 

         

XYZ are a company in the South of England. They have an office in Southampton with staff in three departments, Sales, Marketing and Admin. A new network is proposed. Each department will have its own router. The router in the Admin department will have a connection to an Internet Service Provider router to provide Internet connectivity for all departments. The business network must use an interior gateway routing protocol.

 

 

The tasks are as follows:

1)           Design an IPv4 and IPv6 addressing scheme for the network (including the interfaces on the ISP routers connected to the company office).

Use 192.168.0.0/24 network address subnetted into three networks for Sales, Marketing and Admin each with 62 possible usable addresses.

Use 198.51.100.0/30 as the network address for the ISP

Use the following IPv6 network addresses do not subnet them.

2001:db8:cafe:1::/64

2001:db8:cafe:2::/64

2001:db8:cafe:3::/64

  Design, implement and test a network with routers and switches and essential additional services including DHCP, DNS and a webserver to provide network services and business network applications.

2)           Run tests to demonstrate that you have formulated a correct solution to the problem and full network connectivity is possible using ipv4 and ipv6.

3)           Recommend and demonstrate configuration of device security policies  for routers and switches on the network.

Write up your work in the form of a report that discusses and analyses the design of the network and the addressing scheme. Also discuss and analyse the configuration and commands that you used to configure the addresses, routing protocols and authentication. Discuss and analyse the results of the tests that you made on the network.  Formulate conclusions and recommendations from your work and the results. The report should address all points raised in the marking scheme below.

 

 

 

Assessment criteria

Evidence of knowledge, problem solving, implementation and professional skills will be required. See enclosed details.

 

Learning Outcomes

This assessment will enable students to demonstrate in full or in part the learning outcomes identified in the unit

T1      Present information and evaluation on an independently researched topic descriptors.

C1      Design an addressing scheme to fulfil given requirements in IPv4 and IPv6 networks.

P1      Demonstrate a sound justification for the approach adopted in designing an Ethernet network using routers and switches.

 

This assessment will enable students to demonstrate in full or in part the learning outcomes identified in the unit descriptors.

Late Submissions

 

Students are reminded that:

 

i.         If this assessment is submitted late i.e. within 5 working days of the submission deadline, the mark will be capped at 40% if a pass mark is achieved;

ii.        If this assessment is submitted later than 5 working days after the submission deadline, the work will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero;

iii.      If this assessment is being submitted as a referred piece of work (second or third attempt) then it must be submitted by the deadline date; any Refer assessment submitted late will be regarded as a non-submission and will be awarded a zero.

 

http://portal.solent.ac.uk/documents/academic-services/academic-handbook/section-2/2o-assessment-policy-annex-1-assessment-regulations.pdf?t=1411116004479

 

Extenuating Circumstances

The University’s Extenuating Circumstances procedure is in place if there are genuine circumstances that may prevent a student submitting an assessment. If students are not 'fit to study’, they can either request an extension to the submission deadline of 5 working days or they can request to submit the assessment at the next opportunity (Defer).  In both instances students must submit an EC application with relevant evidence.   If accepted by the EC Panel there will be no academic penalty for late submission or non-submission dependent on what is requested.  Students are reminded that EC covers only short term issues (20 working days) and that if they experience longer term matters that impact on learning then they must contact a Student Achievement Officer for advice.

 

A summary of guidance notes for students is given below:

 

http://portal.solent.ac.uk/documents/academic-services/academic-handbook/section-4/4p-extenuating-circumstances-procedures-for-students.pdf?t=1472716668952

 

 

Academic Misconduct

Any submission must be students’ own work and, where facts or ideas have been used from other sources, these sources must be appropriately referenced. The University’s Academic Handbook includes the definitions of all practices that will be deemed to constitute academic misconduct.  Students should check this link before submitting their work.

 

Procedures relating to student academic misconduct are given below:

 

http://portal.solent.ac.uk/support/official-documents/information-for-students/complaints-conduct/student-academic-misconduct.aspx

 

 

 

Ethics Policy

The work being carried out by students must be in compliance with the Ethics Policy. Where there is an ethical issue, as specified within the Ethics Policy, then students will need an ethics release or an ethical approval prior to the start of the project.

 

The Ethics Policy is contained within Section 2S of the Academic Handbook:

http://portal.solent.ac.uk/documents/academic-services/academic-handbook/section-2/2s-university-ethics-policy.pdf

 

 

Grade marking

The University uses a letter grade scale for the marking of assessments. Unless students have been specifically informed otherwise their marked assignment will be awarded a letter grade. More detailed information on grade marking and the grade scale can be found on the portal and in the Student Handbook.

 

Policy:             http://portal.solent.ac.uk/documents/academic-services/academic-handbook/section-2/2o-assessment-policy.pdf

 

 

Guidance for online submission through Solent Online Learning (SOL)

 

http://learn.solent.ac.uk/onlinesubmission

 

Criteria	F3...........................................F1	D3..........................................D1	C3.........................................C1	B3.............................................B1	A4..................................................A1
1. Design & implementation of ipv4 and ipv6 addressing scheme & referencing (30%)	Little attempt to produce satisfactory or workable ipv4 and/or no description at how the scheme was derived, and/or no references.	Satisfactory introduction and description of how a workable ipv4 addressing scheme was derived. Some references used.	Good introduction and discussion of decisions made that evidence a correctly formulated ipv4 addressing scheme. Supported by a range of references.	Very good introduction and discussion of networking design requirements and discussion of decisions made that evidence a correctly formulated ipv4 addressing scheme. Supported by a good range of references.	Excellent introduction and analysis of networking design requirements and comprehensive justification of decisions made that evidence a full and correctly formulated ipv4 scheme. Analysis is supported by an excellent range of references.
2. Research and specify static routes or  routing protocols to meet defined requirements & referencing (30%)	Poor discussion of an/or evidence of a working solution with little proof of support from tests and /or no references	Satisfactory introduction and discussion of working solutions to the problem evidenced by description of test results. Some references used.	Good introduction and discussion and demonstration of a working solution to the problem evidenced by discussion of a sequence of test results. Supported by a range of references.	Introduces and demonstrates very good understanding of the routing design requirements and is able to discuss and prove a working solution to meet them evidenced by analysis of a sequence of test results. Supported by a good range of references.	Introduces and demonstrates excellent and professional understanding of the routing design requirements and is able to comprehensively analyse and prove a fully working solution to meet all of them evidenced by comprehensive analysis of a thorough sequence of test results. Analysis of solutions supported by an excellent range of references.
3. Design, implementation and testing  (20%)	Poor discussion of an/or evidence of a working solutions with little proof of support from tests and/or no references	Satisfactory introduction and discussion of working solutions for some additional services evidenced by description of test results. Some references used.	Good introduction and discussion and demonstration of a working solution for additional services evidenced by discussion of a sequence of test results. Supported by a range of references.	Introduces and Demonstrates very good understanding of the additional services required and is able to discuss and prove a working solution to meet them evidenced by analysis of a sequence of test results. Supported by a good range of references.	Introduces and Demonstrates excellent and professional understanding of the additional services required and is able to comprehensively analyse and prove a fully working solution to meet all of them evidenced by comprehensive analysis of a thorough sequence of test results. Analysis of solutions supported by an excellent range of references.
4. Conclusions and recommendations that relate to the case study & referencing P1 (20%)	Poor conclusions and recommendations. Doesn’t relate to the case study and/or no references.	Satisfactory conclusions and recommendations that relate to the case study by evaluating the effectiveness of the solution. Some references used.	Good conclusions and recommendations that relate well to the case study and evaluation of the effectiveness of the solution. Supported by a range of references.	Very good conclusions and recommendations that relate fully to the case study, fully evaluating the solution and alternatives. Supported by a good range of references.	Excellent and professional conclusions and recommendations that are fully justified and meaningful in the context of the case study, including professional evaluation of effectiveness of the solution informed by excellent references.

Report      (50% of unit mark)   Marking scheme

 

 

 

Read More