This assignment simulates a real-world scenario where you are a consultant, work

This assignment simulates a real-world scenario where you are a consultant, working collaboratively with your client to solve a complex organisational problem. You will immerse yourself in this scenario via a case study. You will be drawing on the two regulation / order paradigms to analyse the problem and develop your solution: the functionalist paradigm and the interpretivist paradigm. By applying this theory to an authentic case study, you will demonstrate awareness of the real-world challenges associated with implementing solutions in organisational settings. You will write a report providing a critical analysis of the Scandi case study. You will play the role of an organisational consultant working with your fictional client (Scandi) to explore an organisational problem from multiple perspectives. You will analyse the functionalist approach used by your client in the case study and examine the different concerns and views held by various stakeholders by drawing on the theories of both functionalism and interpretivism. From this, you will develop a set of recommendations for your client. This assignment supports to: Develop a deeper understanding of how organisations operate. Understand the value of the functionalist, and interpretivist perspective, but also its limitations. Apply the theory you have learned in Organisations to a real world problem. ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS The target audience for the business report is your fictional client as presented in the case study. Recommended length and structure of your report: Your consultancy report will be approximately 2,000 words long. It should include the following sections: 1. Introduction (100 words) 2. An analysis and critique of the functionalist approach taken in the case study (1,000 words) Identify the views and concerns held by various stakeholders by drawing on the theory of interpretivism. Evaluate and critique the process model proposed in the context of the case study. Identify specific challenges the organisation might encounter if the process model is to be used. 3. A recommendation for a process model informed by both the interpretivist and functionalist paradigms that your client may use for consultation with all stakeholders (700 words) • Identify the limitations of your recommendations given they only include consideration of the two order and regulation paradigms and exclude the two radical change paradigms. 4. Conclusion (200 words). REQUIRED REFERENCES Burrell G and Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Routledge, New York. Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.K. (1989). Four Paradigms of Information Systems Development. 32(10). Communications of the ACM: 1999-1216. At least five additional academic resources. (In total, you will be drawing on at least seven scholarly sources). You must explicitly draw on both the Burrell and Morgan text and the Hirschheim and Klein paper to help you analyse the problem and respond to the assessment brief. Both texts are located in the Reading List. For the Hirschheim and Klein paper, focus on the “two stories” told by the authors: Story 1 (a depiction of functionalism in action) and Story 2 (a depiction of interpretivism / social relativism in action). You may cite the “Consolidation and springboard” readings, but note that these are not peer reviewed and therefore do not count as scholarly texts. HELP AND SUPPORT We will be workshopping the main elements of the assessment in class. Your tutorial slides contain a number of prompts, to help you approach this problem from a functionalist and interpretivist perspective, and to think critically about these perspectives. Attending and participating in class is therefore essential, if you wish to do well. The reading list contains a number of resources that may be useful for you. COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES This assessment is relevant to the following course learning outcomes: CLO1 Identify different analytical perspectives employed to understand organisations at the individual, organisational, and societal levels. CLO2 Interpret and apply these multiple perspectives to empirically analyse organisations and the contexts in which they operate. CLO3 Draw on different analytical perspectives as the basis for a socially responsible, ideologically aware approach towards organisational problem-solving. CLO4 Evaluate knowledge assumptions, including one’s own, and come to recognise their practical implications for management. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND MISCONDUCT Academic integrity is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas. Please note that students are required to retain draft versions of their work as they develop their final submission and keep a file of all material that they collect and use to develop their assignments. These materials may be requested after submission if we have reason to believe that the integrity of an assessment may be compromised. In these instances, we may advise students that we have concerns about the provenance of the material that has been submitted. Students may be asked to provide an ‘oral defence’ of their work, if concerns exist about the true authorship of the assessment. We may ask for a re-submission of a new assessment piece. You should take extreme care that you have: Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate referencing methods Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own. RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct. Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including: Failure to properly document a source Copyright material from the internet or databases Collusion between students Critical deconstruction of literature (20 points) (1) Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeUnderstanding of the purpose of the assignment and response to requirements Student grasps the purpose of the assignment and fulfils the assignment requirements. 5 to >3.95 Pts Advanced (HD) and Self Developing Student demonstrates creativity and independent thought in fulfilling the purpose of the assignment. Student demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the assignment requirements. 3.95 to >3.45 Pts Advanced (Dist) Student demonstrates a refined understanding of the purpose of the assignment and demonstrates a high level of capability in fulfilling the assignment requirements. 3.45 to >2.95 Pts Competent (CR) Student grasps the purpose of the assignment and responds capably to all of the assignment requirements. 2.95 to >2.45 Pts Satisfactory (PA) Student demonstrates a limited understanding of the purpose of the assignment and satisfactorily responds to only some of the assignment requirements. 2.45 to >0 Pts Unsatisfactory (NN) No evidence that the student grasps the purpose of the assignment. The student has not responded to the assignment requirements. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeResearch and engagement Engagement with prescribed and other credible texts and sources of information. 4 to >3.16 Pts Advanced (HD) and Self Developing Student engages with prescribed texts in a sophisticated fashion. A wide range of additional information is drawn upon, which is reflected in the quality of the assignment. 3.16 to >2.76 Pts Advanced (Dist) Student engages with prescribed texts in depth. A range of relevant, additional information is drawn upon, which is reflected in the quality of the assignment. 2.76 to >2.36 Pts Competent (CR) Student engages to a satisfactory depth with prescribed texts. A limited range of relevant, additional information is drawn upon, which is reflected in the quality of the assignment. 2.36 to >1.96 Pts Satisfactory (PA) Student engages with prescribed texts only, and in a limited fashion. No identification of additional, relevant information, demonstrating limited engagement and curiosity, which limits the quality of the assignment. 1.96 to >0 Pts Unsatisfactory (NN) Insufficient engagement with prescribed texts. No identification of additional, relevant information, demonstrating an absence of curiosity and engagement, critically limiting the quality of the assignment. 4 pts This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeStructuring of assignment Student organises and structures information, concepts & ideas to display understanding. 2 to >1.58 Pts Advanced (HD) and Self Developing Student has independently developed a structure for their assignment that allows them to organise information and ideas elegantly and in a way that enhances the quality and impact of their specific argumentation. 1.58 to >1.38 Pts Advanced (Dist) Student has experimented with the provided guidelines/structure in a way that suits their specific argumentation and enhances its quality and impact. 1.38 to >1.18 Pts Competent (CR) Student has organised their information and ideas in accordance with the structured guidelines and has logically unfolded their argumentation. 1.18 to >0.98 Pts Satisfactory (PA) Student has organised their information and ideas in accordance with the structured guidelines, but has not capitalised on the given structure to give shape and force to their argumentation. 0.98 to >0 Pts Unsatisfactory (NN) Student has not organised information and ideas in a log