Feedback Sheet and Marking scheme Criteria Max Mark Achievable Mark Awarded Comments Quality of literature review – evidence of independent research, critical engagement with sources, a discussion of the differences between opposing or complementary views; clear understanding of IG and IS? 20% Demonstration of understanding of information governance in practice; clear argument showing which elements are present in the case study? 15% Solid analysis of the chosen organisation's/department's information systems; focus on staff development, communication flow, decision making? 20% Critical evaluation of possible improvements to the organisation’s use of information systems; focus on same three key areas as above? 15% Critical analysis of the importance of security in information management in the chosen organisation; risk landscape assessment; recommendations? 15% Referencing and presentation 15% Overall Comments Total 100%

Referencing and presentation (20%) Excellent Harvard referencing throughout the paper and an excellent bibliography/references list. 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

Critical analysis of the importance of security in information management (20%) An excellent discussion of the risk landscape around information management in general and in the chosen organisation; types of risks (internal, external, malicious, unintended, natural disasters) and possible impact (operation, legal, financial) and mitigation. Fully supported by existing literature and great evidence of a logically developed conceptual framework. A good discussion of the risk landscape around information management, which covers most aspects. Stronger support from existing literature may have been needed. A reasonably good discussion of the risk landscape around information management, which covers most aspects but misses a few. Stronger integration of theory and practice was needed.

Critical evaluation of possible improvements to the organisation’s use of information systems (20%) An excellent proposal for possible improvements to the organisation’s use of IMS, in terms of infrastructure, use of the cloud, use of data, use of social media (internally and externally), with a focus on staff development, communication, decision making. All aspects fully discussed and properly supported by relevant theoretical frameworks and the previous analysis. A good proposal for possible improvements to the organisation’s use of IMS, with few areas that needed more attention and stronger support from the previous analysis or existing literature A reasonably good proposal for possible improvements to the organisation’s use of IMS, with some areas that needed more attention and stronger support from the previous analysis or existing literature.

Critical appraisal of the use of information systems in an organisation (20%) An excellent analysis of inner-facing and outer-facing social media; of corporate infrastructure, including cloud services in use, their type, advantages and disadvantages for the organisation; operations management; data 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 account in each and every aspect. 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.

Criteria and Weighting To obtain 70% or above: To obtain 60% or above: To obtain 55 – 59%: To obtain 50% - 54%: To obtain a Fail grade of between 49 - 40 %:- To obtain a substantial fail of between 39 - 0%:- Critically reflect on the senior manager's role and responsibility in leading information governance within a service or organisation (20%) An excellent reflection, very well written, making full use of the information in the case study as well as relevant literature. Use of theoretical frameworks (such as “five rights”, CIA, etc.) to support the analysis of the roles and responsibilities of senior leadership. Technical issues, cultural issues, security and legal implications of data location, the importance of the “one truth” for decision making are all considered, and more. Coherent and fully justified conclusions. A good reflection, well written, making good use of the information in the case study as well as relevant literature for the topic, but more integration of theoretical frameworks in practice would be needed.

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.