Week 1 – e-borders case analysis

Using the following case from Information Technology for Managers (2nd ed.), 

Do the following in this week’s case discussion forum:

1. Collaborate with your peers in this week’s case discussion forum to investigate where the project went wrong during its 11-year history. In your paper you will be documenting the actions taken by both government agencies and private companies.

Then, answer the following (case questions):

Knowing in August 2014, the U.K. courts ordered the Home Office to pay £224 million to Raytheon for breach of contract after Theresa May, the British home secretary, terminated the company’s contract to build the immigration computer system.

1. Explain why you think the court decided in favor of Raytheon in its breach of contract decision.
2. Conduct your own research to discover if the government agencies involved with the development of this system implemented lessons learned from the e-Borders’ failures.
3. Assess whether the new Border Systems Programme is robust enough to protect U.K. citizens from looming terrorist threats based on your own research.

Paper Requirements

Draft a 3-5 page paper (double-spaced) outlining what you have learned through collaboration, your own research, and the application of this week’s topics about this IT project. Be sure to address all points of this assignment in your final paper (summary of the central issue, analysis, and recommendations) and cite your work appropriately using APA formatted citations and include a references page.

Get help with APA-style citations from Purdue’s OWL site >>Links to an external site.

View RubricCase Study RubricCase Study RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsUnderstandingview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)4 ptsGood: Demonstrates an accomplished understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)3 ptsFair: Demonstrates an acceptable sophisticated understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)2 ptsPoor: Demonstrates an inadequate understanding of the topic(s) and issue(s)0 pts/ 5 ptsAnalysisview longer description5 ptsExceptional: Makes appropriate and powerful connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading4 ptsGood: Makes appropriate connections between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading3 ptsFair: Makes appropriate but somewhat vague connections between the issues and concepts studied in the reading2 ptsPoor: Makes little or no connection between the issues identified and the strategic concepts studied in the reading0 pts/ 5 ptsRecommendationsview longer description10 ptsExceptional: Presents detailed, realistic, and appropriate recommendations clearly supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading8 ptsGood: Presents specific, realistic, and appropriate recommendationssupported by the information presented and concepts from the reading6 ptsFair: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations supported by the information presented and concepts from the reading4 ptsPoor: Presents realistic or appropriate recommendations with little, if any, support from the information presented and concepts from the reading0 pts/ 10 ptsUse and Quality of Referencesview longer description5 ptsAll reliable authorities.4 ptsMost are reliable authorities.3 ptsSome are reliable authorities2 ptsNone are reliable authorities0 pts/ 5 ptsTotal Points: 0

Choose a submission type