英语论文网

he target of reducing the time taken to generate the requested data and at the same time improve its accuracy.
Common Errors in Student work – unfortunately there are host of errors and they point to poor thinking skills and lack of basic knowledge. The outcome/actor linking implying actions to bring about change is of particular importance as it shows with clarity whether the problem and how it might be resolved has been thought through.
Confusing the Outcome with the Target - This means a student does not understand that to get any sort of target effect you need to use something. So for example, if you say my outcome is “increased productivity” then tacitly you are saying this will occur all on its own; but a thinking person will say that to get “increased productivity” you need, for example, the outcome of “a new training model”.
Confusing the actor with a place - Actors are people so saying that your “Position Paper” will be used by “The Malaysian Gas Corporation” is absurd. The Malaysian Gas Corporation cannot use anything but a person or persons in the company can. It is also clear in this example that a large corporation will have 1,000s of employees so just stating that it will be used by the corporation is so vague as to be worthless.
Outcome and Actor Don’t Match - The outcome must be able to be used by the actor. However, many students thoughtlessly just seem to write anything down and so we end up with absurdities such as a server virtualization plan will be used by the sales manager.
Stating an Impossible Actor – this usually shows itself when a student suggests the actor is the Managing Director of the Russian Gas Corporation that sort of thing or perhaps suggesting that the actors are ALL small business owners in Hong Kong
Not stating an Outcome qualification - for example stating “my outcome will be a position paper” has zero value because readers have no idea what the paper is about. Therefore, one must say something like “I will produce a position paper on the use and properties of Digital Paper for consideration by IT managers who may then decide there is some potential in this technology area and hence define a full scale feasibility study…”
This needs care as we often see things that look as if they are right but are in fact wrong. For example, we commonly see an outcome as “An IT strategy” but although it is qualified by saying “IT” it is still practically worthless because we then have to ask: “is it an IT strategy for technology procurement”, “is a strategy for IT deployment”, “is it a strategy for IT support” and so on.
No appropriate outcome – unfortunately often no outcome is mentioned or one that is inappropriate implying no awareness that there has to be an agent of change.
Stating the actor as everyone - Often there is a reasonable outcome but then it is ruined by stating the actors are: mangers, support staff, sales staff, engineers etc – that is everyone. This is most often a hopeless strategy as it is rarely the case that a given outcome can be used by everyone. For example, suppose we have an outcome of a security policy on the uses of backup software on lap tops. Now it is tempting to say the actors are everyone with a laptop but that would be a mistake as you would have no authority to tell anyone to use the policy and so the correct assignment of actors is something like “IT management” because they will endorse, implement and ensure the use of the policy.
Q3a/