Read Chapter 5 scenario, and address the following question
“Did the organization handle addressing its PHIve risk in its five steps well? Provide one additional step the company could have explored that was not addressed, discussed, or recommended in the PHIve five step process that may have worked.”
- Be 4 paragraphs in length
- Be supported by the required textbook and at least two additional references
Points deducted if the submission:
- Does not use the required textbook as one of the two reference sources
- You CANNOT use Wikipedia, LinkedIn articles, blogs, paid vendors, certification websites, or similar sources in academic writing. You CAN use reputable industry articles from publications similar to ComputerWeekly, PCMag, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or similar sources. Academic journals and popular industry articles are accessible in the university’s library databases and Google Scholar. All references should not have a publication date older than 2005.
- Does not respond to the question(s) thoroughly meaning with at least 4 paragraphs
- Primarily consists of bullet points
- Uses statements such as “I have gone through your post,” “I have gone through your discussion,” “adding a few more points,” “based on my knowledge,” “according to me,” “as per my knowledge,” or similar
- Contains contractual phrases, as an example “shouldn’t” “couldn’t” or “didn’t,” or similar
- Uses vague words or phrases such as “proper,” “appropriate,” “adequate,” “it is obvious,” “it is clear,” “in fact,” or similar to describe a process, function, or procedure
- As an example, “proper incident response plan,” “appropriate IT professional,” “adequate security,” or similar. These words are subjective because they have different meanings to different individuals.
Submission results in a ZERO if it:
- Does not adhere to the University’s academic dishonesty and plagiarism policies
- Is off-topic and does not address the discussion question(s)