HI5031 Professional Issues in IS Ethics and Practice Assignments Help

1. HI5031 Professional Issues in IS Ethics and Practice Assignments Help HI5031 Professional Issues in IS Ethics and Practice T3 2024 Assessment Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines Trimester T3 2024 Unit Code HI5031 Unit Title Professional Issues in IS Ethics and Practice Assessment Type Individual Assignment Due Date + time: 24 January 2025 11.59 pm (Melb/ Sydney time) Purpose of the assessment

2. (with ULO Mapping) Critically discuss the issues and challenges (ethical, legal, technological, social, political etc) that impact upon the administration and leadership of contemporary organizations ; Critically evaluate the role and application of standards, codes of conduct and legislative/regulatory obligations on the level of professionalism of the ICT industry; Critically review the roles and responsibilities of Information Systems professionals in organizations and society from a range of perspectives such as work-life balance, mentoring, obligations and lifelong learning; 4. Develop an awareness and skills relating to written and oral communication vital for professional Information Systems practitioners; 5. Develop and apply appropriate information gathering, evaluation and problem- solving skills in regards to Information Systems ethical issues. Weight50 %Total Marks Assignment (50 marks)Word limit 2500 words Submission Guidelines

3. 1.All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date along with a completed Assignment Cover Page. 2.The assignment must be in MS Word format unless otherwise specified. Academic Integrity Information Holmes Institute is committed to ensuring and upholding academic integrity. All assessments must comply with academic integrity guidelines. Please learn about academic integrity and consult your teachers with any questions. Violating academic integrity is serious and punishable by penalties that range from deduction of marks, failure of the assessment task or unit involved, suspension of course enrollment, or cancellation of course enrollment.lPenalties All work must be submitted on Blackboard by the due date and time,along with a completed Assessment Cover Page. Late penalties apply. Your answers must be based on Holmes Institute syllabus of this unit. Outside sources may not amount to more than 10% of any answer and must be correctly referenced in full. Over-reliance on outside sources will be penalized. Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard

4. Referencing. Penalties are associated with in correct citation and referencing. Assignment Description: Using the case study: B. C. Stahl and D. Eke, “The ethics of Chat GPT — Exploring the ethical issues of an emerging technology,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 74, p. 102700, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102700. A copy of this case study is available on the Blackboard site. Students are required to review the case study provided and critically analyze the ethical challenges associated with ChatGPT, an emerging technology. The analysis should focus on key issues highlighted in the case study, including authorship attribution, misinformation risks, algorithmic bias, privacy, and transparency. Students must also search for and review a minimum of ten (10) academic research papers that expand on these ethical challenges. Additionally, students should assess OpenAI’s actions in addressing these concerns by applying a chosen professional code of conduct (e.g., ACS, ACM, or IEEE).

5. Finally, students are required to propose some recommendations to mitigate risks and promote ethical practices in deploying ChatGPT. These recommendations should focus on transparency, bias mitigation, user privacy, and inclusive access, balancing the ethical considerations with the benefits of innovation. Instructions: Read the Case Study (Stahl and Eke, 2024), and then complete the following tasks: 1.Identify Ethical Issues Discuss the main ethical issues raised by ChatGPT as outlined in the case study. Undertake additional research to expand on these concerns. Topics to address include: Authorship and attribution challenges. Misinformation risks and manipulation potential. Privacy risks, transparency, and algorithmic bias. Analyse Ethical Issues

6. Evaluate OpenAI’s actions in addressing these ethical concerns through a chosen professional code of conduct (ACS, ACM, or IEEE). Include the following analyses: Professional Responsibilities: How developers and organizations adhere to or deviate from ethical practices in deploying ChatGPT. Classical Ethical Theories: − Utilitarianism: Assess the balance between ChatGPT’s societal benefits and harms. − Deontology: Analyse OpenAI’s intentions and obligations in addressing ethical challenges. − Virtue Ethics: Evaluate the role of responsible innovation and the character of organizations involved in ChatGPT’s development. − Contract Theory: Discuss the implicit agreements with users and stakeholders regarding transparency, safety, and fairness. 3. Develop Recommendations Provide actionable recommendations for OpenAI to address ethical risks effectively. Focus on:

7. Ensuring algorithmic transparency and explain ability. Strategies for mitigating bias and enhancing fairness. Improving user privacy protections. Establishing inclusive access models for underserved communities. 4. Conclusion Summarize the key findings of your analysis and emphasize the importance of balancing ethical considerations with technological innovation. 5. References Use at least 10 academic sources to support your analysis and recommendations. All references must adhere to the Holmes Institute Adapted Harvard Referencing style. The report format must contain the following sections: 1.Introduction (~150 words) 2.Identification of Ethical Issues (~250 words) 3.Analysis of Ethical Issues (~1700 words) 4.Recommendations (~250 words)

8. 5.Conclusion (~150 words) 6.References CriteriaFailPassCreditDistinctionHigh DistinctionPresentation (4 marks) Poor presentation, lacks clarity and coherence. Adequate presentation, some inconsistencies. Clear and professional writing with logical structure. Very good writing, formatting, and structure. Excellent writing, formatting, and professional

9. presentation. Introduction (4 marks) Unclear or vague introduction; objectives are missing. Objectives stated but lack detail. Clear introduction with outlined objectives. Well-defined objectives with relevant context.Thorough, precise objectives and strong arguments. Identification of Ethical Issues (9 marks) Ethical issues poorly identified or lack relevance.

10. Issues identified but lack depth.Issues identified and supported by research.Thorough identification with insightful connections.Comprehensive identification with critical analysis and deep insight.Analysis of Ethical Issues (20 marks)Lacks depth; minimal use of ethical theories or professional codes. Basic analysis with limited critical insight. Detailed and critical discussion with good reasoning. Thorough, critical discussion with strong reasoning. Exceptional analysis with deep critical engagement and nuanced insights. Recommendations (4 marks) Recommendations are

11. unclear or impractical. Basic recommendations with limited justification. Clear, practical recommendations with adequate justification. Well-thought- out recommendations with strong support. Exceptional recommendations that are actionable and innovative. Conclusion (4 marks) Unclear or lacks coherence.

12. Basic but logical summary.Clear and logical conclusion that reflects the analysis.Strong conclusion supported by the analysis. Insightful conclusion emphasizing key findings and implications. Referencing (5 marks) Lacks consistency with many errors. Generally good referencing style. Clear styles with excellent source of references. Very good sources of references. Correct format followed.

13. Excellent sources of references. The correct format followed. Adapted Harvard Referencing Rules Holmes Institute has implemented a revised Harvard approach to referencing. The following rules apply: 1.Reference sources in assignments are limited to sources that provide full-text access to the source’s content for lecturers and markers. 2.The reference list must be located on a separate page at the end of the essay and titled: “References”. 3.The reference list must include the details of all the in-text citations, arranged A-Z alphabetically by author surname with each reference numbered (1 to 10, etc.) and each reference MUSTinclude a hyperlink to the full text of the cited reference source. For example: 4.All assignments must include in-text citations to the listed references. These must include the surname of the author/s or name of the authoring body, year of publication, page number of the content, and paragraph where the content can be found. For example, “The company decided to implement an enterprise-wide

14. data warehouse business intelligence strategies (Hawking et al., 2004, p3(4)).” Non-Adherence to Referencing Rules Where students do not follow the above rules: 1.For students who submit assignments that do not comply with the rules, a 10% penalty will be applied. 2.As per the Student Handbook, late penalties will apply each day after the student/s has been notified of the due date. 3.Students who comply with rules and the citations are “fake” may be reported for academic misconduct. Your document should be a single MS Word or Open Office document containing your report. Do not use PDF as a submission format. All submissions will be submitted through the Safe Assign facility in Blackboard. Submission boxes linked to Safe Assign will be set up in the Units Blackboard Shell. Assignments not submitted through these submission links will not be considered.

15. Submissions must be made by the due date and time (which will be in the session detailed above) and determined by your Unit coordinator. Submissions made after the due date and time will be penalized per day late (including weekend days) according to Holmes Institute policies. The Safe Assign similarity score will be used in determining the level, if any, of plagiarism. Safe Assign will check conference web-sites, Journal articles, the Web and your own class members submissions for plagiarism. You can see your Safe Assign similarity score (or match) when you submit your assignment to the appropriate drop-box. If this is a concern you will have a chance to change your assignment and resubmit. However, re-submission is only allowed prior to the submission due date and time. After the due date and time have elapsed your assignment will be graded as late. Submitted assignments that indicate a high level of plagiarism will be penalized according to theHolmes Academic Misconduct policy, there will be no exceptions. Thus, plan early and submit early to take advantage of the re-submission feature. You can make multiple submissions, but please remember we grade only the last submission, and the date and time you submitted will be taken from that submission.

16. “Get top-notch academic assistance and ensure your success with Punjab Assignment Help your trusted partner for high- quality, plagiarism-free assignments delivered on time!”