Read the Real World Case 3, Cogent Communications, Intel, and Others: Mergers Go More Smoothly When Your Data Are Ready (pp. 213-214).

In a three- to five-page paper (not including the title page and reference pages), respond to the following:

Place yourself in the role of a manager at a company undergoing a merger or acquisition. Explain your customer?s expectations during the merger with at least three examples and describe what role IT would play in meeting those expectations.
Focus on what Andi Mann in the case calls ?tribal knowledge.? Explain what you think is meant by that, and why it is important to the process. Provide at least one strategy you would suggest for companies that are faced with the extensive presence of this issue in an acquired organization.
Most of the discussion on the case focused on hardware and software issues. However, these are essentially enablers for underlying business processes developed by each of the companies involved. Analyze the different alternatives that companies have for merging their business processes, and discuss the role IT would play in supporting those activities. Be sure to address data management and governance issues.
Your paper must be formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center, and it must include citations and references for the text and at least two scholarly sources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read the Real World Case 3, Cogent Communications, Intel, and Others: Mergers Go More Smoothly When Your Data Are Ready (pp. 213-214).

In a three- to five-page paper (not including the title page and reference pages), respond to the following:

Place yourself in the role of a manager at a company undergoing a merger or acquisition. Explain your customer?s expectations during the merger with at least three examples and describe what role IT would play in meeting those expectations.
Focus on what Andi Mann in the case calls ?tribal knowledge.? Explain what you think is meant by that, and why it is important to the process. Provide at least one strategy you would suggest for companies that are faced with the extensive presence of this issue in an acquired organization.
Most of the discussion on the case focused on hardware and software issues. However, these are essentially enablers for underlying business processes developed by each of the companies involved. Analyze the different alternatives that companies have for merging their business processes, and discuss the role IT would play in supporting those activities. Be sure to address data management and governance issues.
Your paper must be formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center, and it must include citations and references for the text and at least two scholarly sources.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

International law does not exist.

Draft research plan, choose a research method (legal or social science), and provide justifications and evidence for your decision.

NB: You are NOT required to answer this question as such, but only to draft a research plan that would aim to address and answer the question, if carried out.
Information about the assignment:
Coursework Question Posted on StudyNet Submission Date Coursework Return Date (4 weeks)
CW3 – Essay Friday 19th May Friday 30th June
Question:

Alternative dispute resolution is preferable to court procedures.

Or

International law does not exist.

Instructions:

Choose one of the questions, draft research plan, choose a research method (legal or social science), and provide justifications and evidence for your decision.

NB: You are NOT required to answer this question as such, but only to draft a research plan that would aim to address and answer the question, if carried out.

Word Limit: 2.000 words excluding footnotes and bibliography.

How to submit:
Written Coursework:

Ensure that you consult your individual module guides for details on individual assessments.

Word Length

Your word count must appear at the end of your work.

Do not exceed the word limit in relation to your answer by more than 10%. If you do, then your mark will be capped at 40%.

The word count for coursework will NOT include footnotes or the bibliography. However, footnotes must not include material that should be in the body of the answer or
be used as a means to circumvent the word count.

Presentation

The assignment itself should be in Arial font size 11 and in double line spacing to allow for the markers’ comments.
Referencing

All quotations from, or use of other writers’ work must be properly referenced- that is, you must give the author, title, and date of publication of the work
concerned, and the page or section number of the passage quoted or cited. Reference style should remain consistent throughout each submitted essay.

Your coursework answer should be properly referenced using the Oxford Referencing System (OSCOLA) see www.law.ox.ac.uk

You should include a full bibliography at the end of your work.
60-69 Very good Upper 2nd Class Honours/ Commendation 60-69 Very good Upper 2nd Class Honours/ Commendation

50-59 Good Lower 2nd Class Honours/Pass 50-59 Good/ satisfactory Lower 2nd Class Honours/Pass
50 Referred Pass

40-49 Satisfactory 3rd Class Honours/Pass 40-49 Marginal fail Not applicable
40 Referred Pass
30-39 Clear fail
30-39 Marginal fail Not applicable
20-29 Clear fail 20-29
0-19 Little or nothing of merit 0-19 Little or nothing of merit
LLB Programme Handbook

Expectations of written assessment at Level 4

Presentation & structure
Includes: Content / Knowledge
Includes: Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources
includes: Comprehension & Application
includes: Presentation of References
Includes:

Clear introduction addressing the issues

Followed by a logical and coherent discussion

With a clear conclusion drawn from your discussion

Identify the main legal issues

State the law or other sources accurately

Demonstrate use of basic texts and leading case law or other sources

Consider both sides of an argument

Integrate supporting material into your argument

Comprehension:
Use your material to show you clearly understand the content you are considering

Review the question and assess what you are being asked to do

Application: show your understanding by linking to relevant supporting examples from your sources – statute, case law, academic writers etc.
Use footnotes at a basic level to cite your references

Include all references from your footnotes in your bibliography

Use the OSCOLA referencing system – information available on Studynet under Learning Resources and the Law Subject Toolkit

Key tips:

Aim for good use of paragraphs to develop your discussion

Put points in a useful order to the question

Write in clear English and avoid informal language

Avoid inappropriate abbreviations

Use the spell and grammar checker and double check unusual words such as case names

Ensure the spell checker is set to UK English
Key tips:

Aim for a balance of appropriate detail depending on the significance of the issue to the answer

Avoid being too descriptive

Focus your material around the question set

Avoid irrelevant material
Key tip:

For a higher mark review footnotes in your texts and explore whether one or more could be used in your answer

Ensure you look up the reference to ascertain its relevance
Key tips:

Review the instruction in the Q – words such as ‘Compare’, ‘Explain’, ‘Discuss’ are aimed at comprehension whilst words such as ‘Apply’ ‘Demonstrate’, ‘Illustrate’
require you to support your analysis in the context of the question

In a problem question scenario you are likely to be used to advise one or more of the parties in the question. Bear this in mind when constructing your answer to
ensure you support your understanding and application to those you are asked to advise, remembering to outline any counter arguments against them Key tip:

Avoid plagiarism – use quotation marks and reference the quotation
If this is an individual piece of work ensure you avoid collusion when preparing and writing your answer

Detailed criteria on mark ranges below:

Written work Assessment and Grading Criteria: Level 4

Numeric Grade Grade Descriptor Written Work Level 4 Grading Criteria
Presentation & structure Content / Knowledge Breadth / Depth & Integration of Sources Comprehension & Application Presentation of
References
80-100
Outstanding
work Outstanding presentation & clarity.
No significant grammatical / spelling errors.
Outstanding exploration of topic showing excellent knowledge & understanding.
Outstanding breadth & depth of sources used. Outstanding integration of sources into work. Outstanding level of comprehension & some application.
Highly developed / focused work. Outstanding standard of referencing within text with accuracy to those on list.
Accurate list & use of recommended referencing system.
70-79
Excellent work Excellent structure.
Fluent writing style with very few errors. Excellent level of knowledge & demonstrated. Covers all relevant points & issues. Excellent breadth & depth.
Excellent integration of sources into work.
Excellent level of comprehension & some application to issues. Excellent standard of referencing within text with accuracy to those on list.
Accurate list & use of recommended referencing system.
60-69
Very good work Very good clear structure.
Articulate & fluent writing style. Very few grammatical errors & spelling mistakes. Very good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Some minor issues
not fully explored or applied Very good breadth & depth appropriate to topic.
Sources integrated very well.
Very good level of, comprehension & some application but not consistently taken to full extent. Very good standard of referencing within text with general
accuracy to those on list.
Use of recommended referencing system.
50-59

Good work Good clear presentation &structure with paragraphing.
Writing is mainly clear but some spelling &/ or grammatical errors. Good level of knowledge & understanding demonstrated. Most major issues explored with some
minor aspects not considered Good breadth & depth appropriate to topic.
Sources integrated well.
Good level of comprehension & some application but some issues could be addressed or developed further.
Some minor omissions.
Good standard of referencing within text with most accurate to those on list.
Use of recommended referencing system.
40-49

Satisfactory work Satisfactory but a
basic structure.
Not always written clearly & has grammatical & / or spelling errors. Satisfactory level of knowledge & understanding but with limited integration into topic set.
Some major issues not fully explored and minor issues omitted.
Satisfactory breadth & depth appropriate to topic.
Sources integrated in some places.
Satisfactory level of comprehension & some application but some matters superficially addressed or omitted Basic referencing within text & consistent use
of referencing system.
Some inaccuracies in recording.
30-39

Marginal Fail Weak format, limited or poor structure.
Muddled work with many spelling & / or grammatical errors. Unsatisfactory evidence of knowledge & understanding with limited exploration or omission of the major
issues

Limited or muddled understanding of the topic with limited reference to relevant sources with some irrelevant to topic.

Limited evidence of comprehension & some application.
More development & comment needed. Answer generally limited to accurate description. Use of referencing system with errors & inconsistently applied. Limited
referencing within the text. Limited accuracy of in-text references compared to those in the final Reference list.
20 – 29

Clear Fail Inadequate format & poor paragraphing / signposting.
Inappropriate writing style
Poorly written &/or poor spelling & grammar. Inadequate evidence of knowledge & understanding with very limited exploration or omission of the major issues.
Very limited understanding of topic with very limited reference to relevant sources and possible reference to irrelevant sources Inadequate.
Very limited evidence of comprehension & some application.
Answer generally limited to description, some of which is inaccurate. Inadequate
Inaccurate use of referencing system or absence of use of system

1 – 19

Little or Nothing of merit Nothing of merit.
Poorly written work, lacking structure, paragraphing / signposting.
Many inaccuracies in spelling & grammar. Nothing of merit.
No evidence of appropriate knowledge & understanding.
Nothing of merit
No breadth or depth to answer nor reference to relevant sources. Nothing of merit.
No evidence of comprehension & some application.
Nothing of merit
Referencing system was not or very poorly used.
OSCOLA Quick Reference Guide

Primary Sources
Do not use full stops in abbreviations. Separate citations with a semi-colon.
Cases
Give the party names, followed by the neutral citation, followed by the Law Reports citation (eg AC, Ch, QB). If there is no neutral citation, give the Law Reports
citation followed by the court in brackets. If the case is not reported in the Law Reports, cite the All ER or the WLR, or failing that a specialist report.
Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd [2008] UKHL 13, [2008] 1 AC 884
R (Roberts) v Parole Board [2004] EWCA Civ 1031, [2005] QB 410
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155 (HL)
When pinpointing, give paragraph numbers in square brackets at the end of the citation. If the judgment has no paragraph numbers, provide the page number pinpoint
after the court.
Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, [2001] 1 WLR 2112 [42], [45]
Bunt v Tilley [2006] EWHC 407 (QB), [2006] 3 All ER 336 [1]–[37]
R v Leeds County Court, ex p Morris [1990] QB 523 (QB) 530–31
If citing a particular judge:
Arscott v The Coal Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 892, [2005] Env LR 6 [27] (Laws LJ)
Statutes and statutory instruments
Act of Supremacy 1558
Human Rights Act 1998, s 15(1)(b)
Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Amendment of Minimum Age) Order 2004, SI 2004/3166
EU legislation and cases
Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13
Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation) [2004] OJ L24/1, art 5
Case C–176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I–7879, paras 47–48
European Court of Human Rights
Omojudi v UK (2009) 51 EHRR 10
Osman v UK ECHR 1998–VIII 3124
Balogh v Hungary App no 47940/99 (ECHR, 20 July 2004)
Simpson v UK (1989) 64 DR 188 Students should note that in Microsoft Word, if the reference mark (footnote number) is inside the punctuation mark, then the
punctuation gets counted as a new work. If the reference mark is outside the punctuation mark, then it will not be counted. E.g. He said 1. = 3 words; He said 1, = 3
words; He said. 1 = 2 words; He said, 1 = 2 words.

Secondary Sources
Books
Give the author’s name in the same form as in the publication, except in bibliographies, where you should give only the surname followed by the initial(s). Give
relevant information about editions, translators and so forth before the publisher, and give page numbers at the end of the citation, after the brackets.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (first published 1651, Penguin 1985) 268
Gareth Jones, Goff and Jones: The Law of Restitution (1st supp, 7th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009)
K Zweigert and H Kötz, An Introduction to Comparative Law (Tony Weir tr, 3rd edn, OUP 1998)
Contributions to edited books
Francis Rose, ‘The Evolution of the Species’ in Andrew Burrows and Alan Rodger (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006)
Encyclopedias
Halsbury’s Laws (5th edn, 2010) vol 57, para 53
Journal articles
Paul Craig, ‘Theory, “Pure Theory” and Values in Public Law’ [2005] PL 440
When pinpointing, put a comma between the first page of the article and the page pinpoint.
JAG Griffith, ‘The Common Law and the Political Constitution’ (2001) 117 LQR 42, 64
Online journals
Graham Greenleaf, ‘The Global Development of Free Access to Legal Information’ (2010) 1(1) EJLT < http://ejlt.org//article/view/17 > accessed 27 July 2010
Command papers and Law Commission reports
Department for International Development, Eliminating World Poverty: Building our Common Future (White Paper, Cm 7656, 2009) ch 5
Law Commission, Reforming Bribery (Law Com No 313, 2008) paras 3.12–3.17
Websites and blogs
Sarah Cole, ‘Virtual Friend Fires Employee’ (Naked Law, 1 May 2009) <www.nakedlaw.com/2009/05/index.html> accessed 19 November 2009
Newspaper articles
Jane Croft, ‘Supreme Court Warns on Quality’ Financial Times (London, 1 July 2010) 3

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *