Read all instruction carefully 

Must be 100% Original

Week 8 Discussion (Due in 24 hours) urgent/.Week 8 DQ (Required Assignment) Urgent.docx

100% Original Work (2 Pages) due in 1 day urgent

My Note:

During this 7 week course we hv Below selected research topic presentations made.

1. Using It as a Competitive Advantage
2. Information Technology in Supply Chain Management
3. Emerging Technology Adoption and Competitive Advantage

Learning resource attached

Answers all questions

Course Name : Seminar in IT for Competitive Advantage

Discussion: Seminar Reflection Discussion (2 Pages)

To prepare for this Discussion, reflect on the research you have reviewed, the presentations you have made and evaluated, and the Discussions in which you have engaged over the last 7 weeks of this course.

By Day 3

Post an assessment of the seminar content and evaluation of the research design. Your post should address the following:

· Does the research and content presented in this course inform or relate to your individual Doctoral Study? What research methods or strategic analysis approaches might be useful in answering the questions that you have posed?
· Consider the articles that you’ve read, and evaluate how the methods of data collection, research statistics employed, and overall research designs have enlightened your individual approach to research. Is there anything about your approach to your individual research that the literature in this seminar has reinforced or confirmed?
· Were you exposed to any new sources of data that will be useful in your Doctoral Study? Be specific in your answer.
· How do you view yourself as a global change agent in light of the topics covered in this seminar course?

Be sure to support your work with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and at least one or more additional scholarly source.

My Note: Should be write/follow Rubric Superior Criteria

Rubric Detail
 

 

Superior Criteria

Excellent Criteria

Satisfactory Criteria

Marginal Criteria

Unsatisfactory Criteria

Not Submitted

Element 1a: Initial Post – Research and Content Related to Doctoral Study

5.25 (7%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of how the research and content presented in this course informs or relates to his/her individual Doctoral Study, including what research methods or strategic analysis approaches might be useful in answering the questions he/she has posted. Several sources and examples support thinking.

4.99 (6.65%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of how the research and content presented in this course informs or relates to his/her individual Doctoral Study, including what research methods or strategic analysis approaches might be useful in answering the questions he/she has posted. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors in explanation.

4.46 (5.95%)
Student presents an explanation with some details of how the research and content presented in this course informs or relates to his/her individual Doctoral Study, including some details on what research methods or strategic analysis approaches might be useful in answering the questions he/she has posted. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3.94 (5.25%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of how the research and content presented in this course informs or relates to his/her individual Doctoral Study, and/or does not include what research methods or strategic analysis approaches might be useful in answering the questions he/she has posted. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2.62 (3.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 1b: Initial Post – Influence of Literature Read

5.25 (7%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of the articles he/she has read and how they helped to evaluate the methods of data collection, research statistics employed, and overall research designs related to his/her Doctoral Study, including whether the research reinforced or confirmed his/her approach to research. Several sources and examples support thinking.

4.99 (6.65%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of the articles he/she has read and how they helped to evaluate the methods of data collection, research statistics employed, and overall research designs related to his/her Doctoral Study, including whether the research reinforced or confirmed his/her approach to research. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors.

4.46 (5.95%)
Student presents an explanation with some details of the articles he/she has read and how they helped to evaluate the methods of data collection, research statistics employed, and overall research designs related to his/her Doctoral Study, including some details on whether the research reinforced or confirmed his/her approach to research. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3.94 (5.25%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of the articles he/she has read and how they helped to evaluate the methods of data collection, research statistics employed, and overall research designs related to his/her Doctoral Study, and/or does not address whether the research reinforced or confirmed his/her approach to research. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2.62 (3.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 1c: Initial Post – New Sources of Data

5.25 (7%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of whether he/she was exposed to any new sources of data that will be useful in his/her doctoral study, and provides specific details to support explanation. Several sources and examples support thinking.

4.99 (6.65%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of whether he/she was exposed to any new sources of data that will be useful in his/her doctoral study, and provides specific details to support explanation. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors in explanation.

4.46 (5.95%)
Student presents an explanation with some details of whether he/she was exposed to any new sources of data that will be useful in his/her doctoral study, and provides some details to support explanation. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3.94 (5.25%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation of whether he/she was exposed to any new sources of data that will be useful in his/her doctoral study, and/or does not provide details to support explanation. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2.62 (3.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 1d: Initial Post – Global Change Agent

5.25 (7%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of how he/she views himself/herself as a global change agent in light of the topics covered in this seminar course. Several sources and examples support thinking.

4.99 (6.65%)
Student presents a thorough and detailed explanation of how he/she views himself/herself as a global change agent in light of the topics covered in this seminar course. Several sources and examples support thinking. There are one or two minor errors in explanation.

4.46 (5.95%)
Student presents an explanation with some details of how he/she views himself/herself as a global change agent in light of the topics covered in this seminar course. Some sources and examples support thinking.

3.94 (5.25%)
Student presents a cursory or incomplete explanation with vague or missing details of how he/she views himself/herself as a global change agent in light of the topics covered in this seminar course. Few sources or examples support thinking.

2.62 (3.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 1e: Scholarly Sources for Initial Post

9 (12%)
Student supports his/her initial post with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources.

8.55 (11.4%)
Student supports his/her initial post with a minimum of two specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources. There are one or two minor errors in format or relevance of sources.

7.65 (10.2%)
Student supports his/her initial post with only one specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and one or more additional scholarly sources.

6.75 (9%)
Student supports his/her initial post with at least one scholarly source provided.

4.5 (6%)
Does not meet minimal standards and/or no sources supported post.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 2: Response to Colleagues’ Postings

22.5 (30%)
Responses fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to more than two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response.

21.38 (28.5%)
Responses fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response. There are one or two minor errors.

19.12 (25.5%)
Responses somewhat contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with a minimum of one appropriately cited scholarly reference for each response.

16.88 (22.5%)
Responses do not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes to at least two peers with at least one scholarly source provided for each response.

11.25 (15%)
Does not meet minimal standards and/or no sources supported response.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 3: Written Delivery Style & Grammar

11.25 (15%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are no spelling or grammar errors.

10.69 (14.25%)
Student consistently follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are one or two minor errors in spelling or grammar.

9.56 (12.75%)
Student mostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Student mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style. There are some errors in spelling or grammar.

8.44 (11.25%)
Student does not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style and does not communicate in a cohesive, logical style.

5.62 (7.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Element 4: Formal and Appropriate Documentation of Evidence, Attribution of Ideas (APA Citations)

11.25 (15%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are no APA errors.

10.69 (14.25%)
Student demonstrates full adherence to scholarly reference requirements and adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. There are one or two minor errors in APA style or format.

9.56 (12.75%)
Student mostly adheres to scholarly reference requirements and/or mostly adheres to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Some errors in APA format and style are evident.

8.44 (11.25%)
Student demonstrates weak or inconsistent adherence scholarly reference requirements and/or weak or inconsistent adherence to APA style with respect to source attribution, references, heading and subheading logic, table of contents and lists of charts, etc. Several errors in APA format and style are evident.

5.62 (7.5%)
Does not meet minimal standards.

0 (0%)
Did not submit element.

Week 8 Discussion (Due in 24 hours) urgent/Lerning Resources.docx
Learning Resources

Abdelkader, B., & Abed, B. (2016). The effect of information technology on competitive advantage of firm: The role of environmental uncertainty. International Journal of Management Science and Technology Information, 22, 16–38.

Ashrafi, R., & Mueller, J. (2015). Delineating IT resources and capabilities to obtain competitive advantage and improve firm performance. Information Systems Management, 32(1), 15–38. doi:10.1080/10580530.2015.983016.

Kiron, D., Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., & Buckley, N. (2016). Aligning the organization for its digital future. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(1), 1–28. 

Turulja, L., & Bajgorić, N. (2016). Innovation and information technology capability as antecedents of firms’ success. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 14(2), 148–156. doi:10.7906/indecs.14.2.4 

Zardini, A., Rossignoli, C., & Ricciardi, F. (2016). A bottom-up path for IT management success: From infrastructure quality to competitive excellence. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1747–1752. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.049 

Zhang, X., Chen, H., Wang, W., & Ordóñez de Pablos, P. (2016). What is the role of IT in innovation? A bibliometric analysis of research development in IT © 2019 Laureate Education, Inc. Page 10 of 10 innovation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 35(12), 1130–1143. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2016.1212403 

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Papadopoulos, T. (2017). Information technology for competitive advantage within logistics and supply chains: A review. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 99, 14–33. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2016.12.008.

Carr, A. S. (2016). Relationship among information technology, organizational cooperation and supply chain performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 28(3-4), 171–190. Retrieved from http://www.pittstate.edu/business/journal-of-managerial-issues/index.dot

Bach, M. P., Čeljo, A., & Zoroja, J. (2016). Technology acceptance model for business intelligence systems: Preliminary research. Procedia Computer Science, 100, 995–1001. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.09.270.

Karagöz, I. B., & Akgün, A. E. (2015). The roles of IT capability and organizational culture on logistics capability and firm performance. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 7(2), 23–45.

Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (2017). Building a more intelligent enterprise. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(3), 28–38. 

Trantopoulos, K., von Krogh, G., Wallin, M. W., & Woerter, M. (2017). External knowledge and information technology: Implications for process innovation performance. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 287–A8

Wirtz, B. W., Göttel, V., & Daiser, P. (2016). Business model innovation: Development, concept and future research directions. Journal of Business Models, 4(1), 1–28.

Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). How to improve firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy alignment? International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 113– 131. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018

Liu, X., Vahtera, P., Wang, C., Wang, J., & Wei, Y. (2017). The delicate balance: Managing technology adoption and creation in multinational affiliates in an emerging economy. International Business Review, 26(3), 515–526. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.11.002 

Alamoudi, Y., & Alamoudi, W. (2016). Cloud computing – The future of business. Journal of Information Systems Technology and Planning, 8(19), 41–60.

Grosse, R. (2016). How emerging markets firms will become global leaders. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 11(3), 274–287. doi:10.1108/IJOEM-07-2015-0138.