HI I need your help in finishing my assignment. Hope to get it done quickly. Thank you

HOLMES INSTITUTE FACULTY OF HIGHER EDUCATION Assignment 1 (Literature Review) Individual Assignment HI5019 STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS T1 2017 WEEK 6 Friday 5 pm Each student will write a literature review of NOT more than 2000 words. The review should demonstrate that the student has thoroughly researched their topic. Students should use examples of business practice from the scholarly journals papers, conferences, books and professional magazines to support their arguments The literature review would be on an organisation (company) that is using accounting software packages in Australia. The research would cover: PART 1 1. The current organizational structure 2. What operational problems (e.g., inefficiency, errors) do you think the organisation could experience because of this structure? 3. What is the most likely system acquisition method commercial software, custom software, or ERP? 4. Describes and prepare a system flowchart of the sales procedures for the chosen organisation (company) 5. Identify any control problems in the system and what sorts of fraud are possible in this system? PART 2 1. 2. 3. 4. Development and adoption of the accounting software packages, The current market size, Identify the leaders in the market and what gives them the competitive advantage, Identify the current gaps or challenges encountered by users or customers of accounting software/packages and make relevant suggestions or recommendations. HI5019 STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS T1 2017 Submission Requirements: Research reports are to be presented in hard copy in size 12 Times New Roman or 10 Calibri Font and double spaced. The research should include a list of at least 5 references used in the research report and a bibliography of the wider reading done to familiarize oneself with the topic. Submission: Hard-copy to tutors/lecturers assignment box and a copy of the first page of the report generated from SAFE ASSIGN attached to it. Soft copy to self-check and Final Submission You are reminded to read the \"Plagiarism\" section of the course description. Your research should be a synthesis of ideas from a variety of sources expressed in your own words. All reports must use the Harvard referencing style. Marking rubrics are attached. Assessment Criteria: Score Very Good (15/15) Presentation Information is well organized. and writing style Correct layout including times new roman, font size 12 or calibri, font size10, double /15 marks spaced. About the right length. Very well written, excellent paraphrasing and proper grammar and punctuation are used throughout. Score Introduction /15 marks Very Good (15/15) Introduces the topic of the research report in an extremely engaging manner which arouses the reader's interest. Gives a detailed general background and indicates the overall "plan". Score Evidence of Research /20 marks Very Good (20/20) Substantial range of appropriate and current, supportive evidence Good (11/15) Information is organized, Correct layout including times new roman, font size 12 or calibri, font size10, double spaced. About the right length. Well written, some paraphrasing and proper grammar and punctuation Good (11/15) Introduces the topic of the research report in an engaging manner which arouses the reader's interest. Gives some general background and indicates the overall "plan" of the report. Good (15/20) Good range of appropriate and current, supportive evidence. HI5019 STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS T1 2017 Satisfactory (9/15) Information is somewhat organized, Some elements of layout or length incorrect. Proper grammar and punctuation mostly used, but overuse of direct quotes. Satisfactory (9/15) Satisfactorily introduces the topic of the research report. Gives a general background. Indicates the overall "plan" of the report. Satisfactory (10/20) Suitable range of supportive evidence used. Not always appropriate and/or current. Minimum cited. Unsatisfactory (5/15) Information is poorly organized, Some elements of layout or length incorrect. Proper grammar and punctuation not always used. Excessive overuse of direct quotes Unsatisfactory (5/15) Introduces the topic of the research report, but omits a general background of the topic and/or the overall "plan" of the report. Unsatisfactory (7/20) Insufficient range or number of supportive evidence used. Score Very Good (30/30) Good (23/30) Development of Discussion Logical, insightful, original discussion with wellconnected paragraphs. Evidence of full engagement with the literature found, with relevant and detailed analysis. Detailed, original discussion develops logically with some connection between adjoining paragraphs. Understanding of reading shown. Some relevant analysis. /30 marks Score Conclusion /10 marks Score Referencing Very Good (10/10) An interesting, well written summary of the main points. An excellent final comment on the subject, based on the information provided. Very Good (10/10) Correct referencing (Harvard) All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged. Good (7/10) A good summary of the main points. A good final comment on the subject, based on the information provided. Good (7/10) Mostly correct referencing (Harvard) /10 marks All paraphrased material acknowledged. Correctly set out reference list and bibliography included. All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged. All paraphrased material acknowledged. Mostly correct setting out reference list and bibliography included. Total /100 marks Final marks /20 General Comments: HI5019 STRATEGIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS T1 2017 Satisfactory (16/30) Unsatisfactory (10/30) Adequate Inadequate discussion develops discussion of issues logically. and/or lacking in logical flow Understanding of reading shown. Littleo Few relevant demonstrated analysis. understanding of reading. Satisfactory (5/10) Satisfactory summary of the main points. A final comment on the subject, but introduced new material. Satisfactory (5/10) Mostly correct referencing (Harvard) Some problems with quoted material and paraphrased material Some problems with the reference list or bibliography. None/little discussion or analysis. Unsatisfactory (3/10) Pooro summary of the main points. A poor final comment on the subject and/or new material introduced. Unsatisfactory (3/10) Not all material correctly acknowledged. Some problems with the reference list or bibliography