Get help from the best in academic writing.

Ashford University Week 5 Chapter 4 of Babok Agile CWI Scenario Discussions

Ashford University Week 5 Chapter 4 of Babok Agile CWI Scenario Discussions.

Discussion one Due Jan-21Prior to beginning this task, read Chapter 14 of the Robertson and Robertson text, and review Chapter 4 of BABOK®’s Agile Extension guide located in your online classroom. Define requirements gathering, then evaluate the techniques discussed in Chapter 4 as they relate to requirements gathering. Explain two techniques that would be appropriate to use in the CWI scenario, and explain why these two methods would be the best ones to use in this situation. Also, explain how the Agile techniques you have identified are different from traditional methods. Use examples to support your position.Discussion two Due Jan-21Using Chapter 4 of BABOK®’s Agile Extension guide in your online classroom as your road map, define solution development, and then evaluate the techniques as they relate to solution development. Explain two techniques that would be appropriate to use in the CWI scenario, and explain why these two methods would be the best ones to use in this situation. Also explain the need for iterative solution development practices. Use examples to support your position.Weekly Lecture:Analysis and Design: What’s the Difference, Anyway?One of the concepts that is often difficult to fully grasp for BSAs and stakeholders alike, is understanding the difference between analysis and design in the process of business analysis. To be clear and short ‘analysis’ is the examination and documentation of a problem or process. Design, on the other hand, is the development of elements that encompass or make part of a solution to the problem or process that was previously analyzed.Ideally, analysis must first be completed before design can take place, though in a practical sense, design often happens at the same time as analysis, simply because as one examines the problem/process elements, ideas for addressing issues are prompted. This is a natural extension of the analysis process; however, it’s incumbent on the BSA to recognize that many of the ‘design’ ideas caught in the analysis process may not be viable in the final solution. That means one needs to avoid becoming ‘sold’ on a design element during the analysis process as this can blind one to better or more appropriate design solutions.The risk of stakeholders being sold on a design element early in the analysis process is that once time has been invested in the element, it can become a de facto inclusion in the final product — even if it isn’t appropriate for the solution. Ok, so why is that a problem? Consider that it could mean there would be workarounds to force the element into the solution when there are other elements more suited for the task. Effort spent on workarounds like this can be a significant source of wasted time and resources. This often happens because it’s difficult for stakeholders to drop an idea when there is time spent on it, or if there’s a personal investment in the element.Fortunately, in today’s business analysis, we use Agile or iterative processes to help flesh things out more rapidly and that helps to eliminate many design ideas before they become ‘baked in’ to the final product. The most commonly used iterative process is a group of ideas that fall under the category of ‘Agile’. Agile isn’t a single process or method, but rather it consists of a set of ideals for approaching things in an iterative fashion. Review the sections 1.2 through 1.5 in the IIBA® (n.d.) Agile Extension and chapter 11 in the BABOK® (2015) guide for a more detailed picture of what these ideals mean to the processes of business analysis.An important element in Agile design of the process is determining the difference between a functional requirement and a non-functional requirement. One way to do this is through user stories. User stories describe things that a product must accomplish. In chapter 14 of your Robertson and Robertson text, it has an example of a bank transaction as a user story. The story describes the need (be informed if projected balance near or below zero), identifies why it’s necessary (overdraft protection), and includes the criterion needed for accomplishing the task. The user story describes a functional requirement. Chapter 10 in your text has additional examples and information about functional requirements.In the bank transaction user story, some non-functional requirements might be good security to protect client accounts, an audio enabled smart phone app, or a customizable account dashboard are elements. None of these are essential to the actual function of a bank transaction, they are non-functional requirements focused on usability. Chapter 11 in your text has a number of other examples of non-functional requirements and more information about identifying these as well.This week you’ll have the opportunity to dig further into the Agile concepts in your discussion forums and consider how you might apply them to your CWI scenario solution. Be sure to read the chapters in the resources so that you have a solid foundation before working in the forums.Have a great week!ReferencesIIBA® (n.d.). Agile Extension to the BABOK® Guide, Version 1.0. International Institute of Business Analysis, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Robertson, S. & Robertson, J. (2013). Mastering the Requirements Process: Getting Requirements Right, 3rd ed. Addison-Wesley. Upper Saddle River, NJResources :TEXTRobertson, S., & Robertson, J. (2013). Mastering the requirements process: Getting requirements right (3rd ed.) Retrieved from https://content.ashford.eduChapter 14: Requirements and Iterative DevelopmentARTICLEShah, S. (2017, January 25). Improving the continuous improvement (Links to an external site.) [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.modernanalyst.com/Resources/Articles/ta…This article provides information about the iterative nature of continuous improvement for all process associated with continuous improvement. The article will assist you in your assignments and discussions this week.Accessibility Statement does not exist.Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)
Ashford University Week 5 Chapter 4 of Babok Agile CWI Scenario Discussions

write an indirect strategy memo. I’m working on a Communications question and need guidance to help me study.

Background information: Recently, you’ve been doing research on efficient and environmentally sustainable business practices. One of the most popular practices you’ve found is “going paperless” with business operations. This practice includes not only electronic billing and communications, but also electronic file storage, and converting paper files into digital formats. You’ve decided to send your boss a memo, requesting that Techport begin the process of going paperless.
write an indirect strategy memo

CC Electron Microscope & Contemporary Science Report.

I’m working on a science project and need support to help me learn.

science110 NewsletterStudents shall create their own educational/informative newsletter .PART I: Newsletter (80 points)Students will create a document, which informs and enlightens readers on one of the most important Scientific discovery of 20th century.(Word has numerous standard newsletter templates to assist you)The newsletter shall include at least 6 sections about the following subjects:Why you chose this eventScience behind the discovery Describe the discoveryWhat are the consequences (positive and negative) of the discovery on humanityWhat are the consequences (positive and negative) of the discovery on an environment“my corner” “my side” “my thoughts” Sections can be presented in different formats: i.e. pictures, a story, infographic, interview, article, informational, educational piece, article re-cap, quiz, history note, “did you know?” current event, local event, class, statistics, etc… You must present your sections using at least 4 different formats (you can’t use 6 articles, or 6 events, or 6 jokes, etc…)Each newsletter shall include all the components outlined above and should be at least 3 pages plus the references page. Feel free to be creative and have fun with the assignment. Include all references and citations on your reference page. (Failure to include any of these standards shall result in a reduction of points)PART II: Readers feedback (20 points) Once you have completed and submitted your newsletter, you will be assigned to review two newsletters of your classmates. Please let me know if the students’ newsletters are not visible to you. Feedback can be short but hopefully constructive. You can ask questions to your reader (survey type) to be sure you receive the feedback requested. For example: What is your overall impression of the newsletter? What do you think about the content of the newsletter? Was the content easy to understand? Any suggestions to improve the newsletter? What was your favorite part? etc…Submission guidelines:File submitted must be a pdf.Name the file using this format: Firstname_Lastname_ScienceNewsletter.pdf Use this rubric to self-evaluate your assignment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t6rxocy410e5jve/RUBRIC-NEWSLETTER-PROJECT.pdf?dl=0 (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.)Required Technical Elements:Title(s) using display typefacesHeadlinesSub-headlinesColumns – at least 2Images (pictures, graphics, clip art) – at least 3Typefaces limited to 3Varying font sizes and stylesAt least 3 pages + 1 page for references. PreviousNext
CC Electron Microscope & Contemporary Science Report

Brandon Huff This case took place on February twenty fourth, 1803. It was the first case in which an act of Congress was declared unconstitutional. That being said it was the first time, and the means by which judicial review was used. As the case name suggests the disagreement was between James Madison and William Marbury. It took place a couple of weeks before president Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801. Because of the Judiciary Act of 1801, and the Organic Act there was a multitude of courtship places open. President John Adams tried to fill as many as he could with Federalist party members as to oppose Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican party. He wanted to make it hard for him to pass anything while he was in office. But since William Marbury was one of the last ones to have an appointment, the so called “midnight appointments”, he did not receive their commission. This happened because Jefferson took office and instructed his secretary of state James Madison to withhold the remaining commissions. When Marbury found out he wrote a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court. He did this in the hope Madison would act and hand out the rest of the commissions. Marbury and his lawyer, former attorney general Charles Lee, went before the courts and stated that the signing and sealing of the commission completed the transaction and that delivering them was only formal. Even though Jefferson was very upset stating that he could not serve without the document. Despite this plea, however, the court agreed to hear their case Marbury vs Madison in February of 1803. This case was underway, but was quickly resolved. After hearing the case most people from both the Republicans and the Federalists agreed that it was a very insignificant case. By the time the case took place the people were agreeing the Jefferson’s decision to reduce the amount of justices of the peace, and the Judiciary Act of 1801 was repealed. Also, Marbury’s term was already half over with by the time the case made it to the courts. In other words it seemed that there was no way Marbury would win this case. However, Marshall, the chief justice saw the problem facing him and came up with a brilliant solution. The solution he found the named a tour de force, and is still used today. He managed to establish all power to the court s the final arbiter of the Constitution. By doing this, he could effectively chastise the Jefferson administration for not following the law, while also protecting the court’s authority on the matter. He reduced the case to three basic problems and questions. First, did Marbury have the right to the commission? Second, if he did, and his right had been violated, did the law provide him with a remedy? Third, if it did, would the proper remedy be a writ of mandamus to the Supreme Court? With these three questions Marshall effectively broke down the case to its simplest form. The result of the first two had the desired effect. He explained that by failing to deliver the commission the Marbury, the secretary failed in his duties and violated the law. Having established that Marbury was entitled to receive the commission he turned to the next question. Marbury had a right to the commission, and therefore by not receiving it was denied right. Because of this violation he could have argued that a writ of mandamus would be the right course of action, since the Judiciary Act of 1789 was still in effect, therefore he declared the the court had no jurisdiction to issue such a thing. He continued that it was inconsistent with Article 3 of the Constitution. With this statement, he surrendered the power derived from the 1798 statute which would have given Jefferson a technical victory in the case. By pointing this out he gained a very important power, judicial review. Through his masterful ideas and use the the Constitution through the law Marshall won the case. Even though Marbury only served half his term it had a much greater impact throughout history. We use judicial review to this day and it has been the cornerstone for a lot of cases since this one. Even though this decision has been very controversial it is a part of our system and we are used to it by now. It also fits well with our system of checks and balances run by the government. Through this very small incident in history it impacted the whole country. This case revolutionized our way of thinking in the courts. The courts have more power in this process and have been able to hear and change the outcome of many cases. This has helped shape our country into hat it is today and although it was been surrounded in controversy it is an undeniable fact of our life.

Clinical Aspects of Crisis Management Coursework

This paper will focus on the clinical aspects of crisis management. It will present a perspective of a clinician in practice working on the case of a patient-reported as being suicidal. The paper will highlight the differences in working with patients who are experiencing a crisis and the ones who are not. Furthermore, it will provide the steps to be taken when treating such people including assessments and possible interventions made based on them, a safety plan for the patient and his/her family, and the ethical implications for the client’s family resulting from the crisis. Finally, the paper will describe some practices and national standards for the MFT discipline that apply to working with clients in crisis and offer my reflection on my thoughts and feelings while dealing with this patient. Working with patients in crisis and their families is a special case for any clinician occupied in a practice setting. It requires quick but planned actions so that there is a possibility to change a patient’s mind and save his/her life. First of all, the process of treating such patients should start with assessing their current state. Among the assessments that I might want to include, the primary ones would be analyzing the patient’s environment including family members, relations with co-workers and friends detecting whether he/she is isolated or always surrounded by people, whether the client takes some medications and has addictions such as to alcohol or drugs, and whether he/she has already tried to commit suicide. Finding out the general information, I would want to assess the current state of my patient trying to discover the cause of the crisis whether it was something that happened some time ago or recent trauma, estimate his/her psychoemotional condition, i.e. what is the level of self-hatred, and discover whether the patient has a plan for committing suicide (Roberts

Appraisal And Evidence Synthesis Of Two Reviews

custom essay Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp Select two reviews of your choice. One should be a Systematic Review and the other a Traditional Selective Review. Critically discuss the quality of your reviews with respect to a standard assessment tool suitable for reviews. The aim of a review is to give an overview of the primary studies of a particular subject and analyse them in a way, which is thorough, unbiased and reproducible, should it be repeated. about the gathering of the primary data that is being reviewed. A systematic review is a method of synthesising primary research and studies. It is based on having a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review (Cochrane Collaboration Glosasry, 2010). It also uses an objective and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of minimizing bias. Statistical methods known as meta-analysis may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies (Wiesler

Investigating the Harmonization of Accounting Practices

Investigating the Harmonization of Accounting Practices. Growth in international trade has been on the increase over the years necessitating several organisations to be involved in the efforts to harmonise accounting practices either regionally or internationally. Among those, leading in this effort were the European Union (EU) and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) (formerly International Accounting Standards Committee, IASC). This essay will look at background and harmonisation process of the two organisations and evaluate their achievements to date. It is considered that ‘harmonisation’ maybe defined as a means by which differences are reduced hence harmonisation of financial practices will be regarded as the process by which the differences in accounting practices across countries are reduced ultimately resulting in a set that is comparable (Nobes and Parker, 2010). Background and Objectives The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member countries located in Europe. The EU was established on 1 January 1958 following the Treaty of Rome 1957 (Nobes and Parker, 2010). The objective of Treaty had established rules to encourage free movement of persons, products and services, and capital. This establishment drives the needs of harmonization of accounting and financial reporting. Thus, the most important objective of EU is to create a common market for the member countries. Uniformed accounting standards are required regionally in all parts of EU to encourage the flow of capital, enhance the protection of the shareholders and other stakeholders, and increase the reliability and comparability of companies’ financial information. The EU shows a contribution to regionally harmonizing accounting practices by established Directives and Regulations which are the two main instruments to harmonize company law and accounting standards (Nobes and Parker, 2010). As as an economic and political union, the EU have issued and established many directives to harmonize accounting practice in regional term. However, in international scope, the IASC is one of bodies are effecting on harmonization of accounting rules and disclosure and it reported a number of international standards (Nobes and Parker 2010). IASC was founded in June 1973, and the Board of IASC was constituted simultaneously by main accountancy bodies in nine different countries such as Canada, France, Germany, UK, and USA etc. The IASC was established to harmonize international accounting standards. IASC has received board range of support for its effort to harmonize international accounting, which has been considered as leading force to harmonization (Larson, 1999). The harmonization of accounting is also supported by IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions), large public accounting firms, trading unions and most national public accountancy bodies. The basic objective of IASC is considered as publishing accounting standards to be observed in the financial statement preparation and encourage their acceptance and observance globally (Nobes and Parker, 2010). In 2001, the IASC restructured and renamed to the IASB. The new organization has shown new more comprehensive objectives compared to the IASC. To be able to understand the objectives of IASB, the conceptual frameworks should be explained. The IASC’s conceptual framework included the objectives and the qualitative characteristics. The following table 1 shows the detailed objectives of IASB under the IFRS Foundation Constitution. IASB’s Objectives To develop high quality and understandable international accounting standards to guide high quality, transparent and comparable information in financial reporting. Thus accounting standards will help the global capital market participants and other users’ decision making. To encourage the use and rigorous application of standards To fulfill the (a) and (b), and take account the interest of small, medium size entities and emerging economic account appropriately. Give high quality solutions about convergence of national and International accounting standards. Source: IFRS Foundation Constitution (ias.com, 2010). The qualitative characteristics of financial statements made by IASC followed the FASB. In order to forecast the risk, the accounting information must include all these three characteristics: relevance, reliability and comparability. The motives of harmonizing accounting practices by these organizations: One is tempted to consider ‘harmonisation’ objective as having shifted from reducing differences to coming out with a standard or model for uniformity. The motives of the two most influential international bodies involved in the process of harmonisation of the different national accounting systems, therefore (as stated on their web sites), seems to suggest that they aim to ‘develop’ or ‘create’ a single set of high quality, understandable and enforceable global accounting standards, (Elliott and Elliott, 2009). It is more of standardization than harmonization as it is less flexible. This therefore raises suspicion as to the true purpose of their efforts especially when we consider their respective current compositions, history, their headquarters and the majority of stakeholders who are likely to benefit. Perera (1989) as quoted in Deegan and Unerman (2006) argued that the accounting standards themselves tend to reflect the circumstances and patterns of thinking of the representatives that makes the committees. Already, IASB seems to have noted similar criticism and Nobes and Parker (2010) states that the trustees will gradually increase the Board membership to include members from Europe, North America, Asia/Oceania, Africa and South America by 2012. Similar concerns were once echoed by Gray, et al (1981) while commenting on the proposal to introduce “standards” specifically for MNCs and the question seems to be still valid. He submitted that the term standard could be used broadly to mean a set of statements which may include reference to disclosure or measurement issues for the benefit of Multinational Companies. He found such statements to have a different meaning from that intended to achieve strict uniformity to those capable of more flexible interpretation; from those derived from statutory authority, to those which are effectively advisory. However, he relented that the fact that they exist as guidelines or criteria against which MNCs accountability is assessed, qualified such statements to be described as ‘standards. Whittington (2005) stated that the motivation for the creation of the IASC was due to the need for a common international language of accounting to serve capital markets. He highlighted that a common set of accounting standards increased the comparability of companies in different countries and facilitated the easy consolidation of group of companies based in different countries. Although IASB sets standards after close scrutiny from different national standard setters, it is evident that it is involved more with convergence than harmonisation. This may in a way also support the sentiments expressed by UK finance directors during a survey that IFRSs undermined UK (and obviously of all other countries) reporting integrity, (Elliott and Elliott, 2009). Countries still need to maintain their national pride as they exhibit substantial economic and cultural differences. On another hand, it is important to note that we now have more of a global economy hence the development of international standards makes it easier to raise cross-border finance and to compare performance of companies by users who include prospective investors, (Elliott and Elliott, 2009). To summary, Epstein and Mirza (2001) and Choi et al.(2002) gave reasons for the harmonization process of accounting practices in the preparers and user perspectives, they stated that harmonization created huge advantages as listed in the following tables: Process of harmonization on IASC/IASB and EU The IASC and its successor are considered to be the most successful body that evolved in harmonization of accounting practices (Nobes and Parker, 2010). The harmonization efforts of IASC can be classified in three phases. Simultaneously, the IOSCO and IFAC have supported to the IASC/IASB and EU. First phase: 1973 to 1988 This period of time is called the first stage of development of IASC. During this period, the IASC set up most of its standards which covered major accounting topics like accounting for inventory (Epstein and Mirza, 2001). IASC focused on achieving compatibility between the existing standards and IAS and giving a ‘lowest-common denominator’ approach cross the countries. At the same time, the strategy of IASC allowed multiple methods that used in various countries. IOSCO accepted that IASs for financial statement of foreign companies that listed in their stock exchange market (Larson, 2011). Additionally, the IFAC was founded in 1983 to develop the areas which were uncovered by the IASC, such as auditing and management accounting (Nobes and Parker, 2010). The following table shows the detail information of process: Table : Harmonization Process from 1973 to 1988 Harmonization Process 1973-1988 Context 1973 The IASC was founded. 1976 The Economic Cooperation and Development published an announcement on investment in MNCs to develop guidelines on disclosure of information (Choi et al., 2002) 1977 A Report about IASs for transitional corporations was issued by an expert group of United Nations (Choi et al., 2002). 1981 In order to set IAS widely, the IASC had forums with other organizations. 1983 Foundation of IFAC helped IASC to get a closer relationship with other bodies (Nobes and Parker, 2010). 1984 The London Stock Exchange issued a number of incorporated companies to follow IAS in the UK or Ireland (Choi et al., 2002). Second phase: 1989 to 1993 During this period IASC started to cooperate with IOSCO, and made agreement with IFRS for cross-border securities offerings (Nobes and Parker, 2010). However, the IASC was decreasing the choices under the IAS and the IASC needed more capital market so that the IOSCO would accept it in the period between 1989 and 1993 (Fritz and Lämmle, 2003). IASC published a framework to prepare financial statement in 1989 and “Comparability/Improvement Project” was carried out to narrow the alternative accounting treatment in this period. Furthermore, 10 standards was revised in 1993 (Nobes and Parker, 2010). Table 4 shows the processes in this period. Table : Harmonization Process from 1989 to 1993 Harmonisation Process 1989-1993 Context 1989 Exposure Draft 32 was issued by IASC Third phase: 1993-2001 IASC started agreement with IOSCO and IOSCO supported 30 core standards that were developed or revised by IASC. From 2001, IASB started to improve existing International Accounting Standards, deal with the problem that IASC haven’t addressed and enhance quality of financial report. IASB also involves in reducing the international differences in standards with FASB (USA) (Nobes and Parker, 2010). Table : Harmonization Process from 1993 to 2001 Harmonization Process 1993-2001 Context 1995 The European Commission planned to support the IASC to make IAS link with EU accounting requirements. 1996 The SEC manifested that it “supports the IASC´s objective to develop, as expeditiously as possible, Accounting Standards that could be used for preparing financial statements that could be used in cross-border offerings.” (Choi et al., 2002:296) 1998 The IOSCO published an announcement “International Disclosure Standards for Cross Border Offerings and Initial Listings by Foreign Issuers” (Choi et al., 2002:296); the IASC began to explore a new strategy and organization structure. 2000 The IOSCO accepted the IAS, especially for foreign registers (Nobes and Parker, 2010). 2001 IASB was set up by supporting from the IOSCO and SEC (Nobes and Parker, 2010). The fundamental of EU accounting harmonization is a harmonization of company law which is aim to create a uniform business environment (Mueller, 1997). Harmonization of company law taken by EU is directives, which have publicized 12 directives. Moreover, the forth and the seventh directives made the contribution to the accounting harmonization process in the Europe (Hulle, 2001). In details, the fourth directive in 1978 combines Member States’ provision and provide a guideline of the presentation and content of annual accounts, valuation methods and the publication. The Directive also pointed out that the annual report must include a fair review of firm’s financial position and the ‘true and fair’ view brought from UK was firstly mentioned in mandatory term. Also, the seventh Company Law Directive in 1983 combines National laws on consolidation accounting and the fourth directive together, and sets out the methods of preparing consolidated accounts. Choi (2002) suggested that IASs as the new accounting standards are the preferred choice for EU countries by European Union. In terms of international harmonization of accounting standards, the policy stated by European Commission in 1995 pointed out that it was more efficient to associate EU with IASC and IOSCO than amend existing directives (Epstein and Mirza, 2001). In 2000, a further step in harmonization process was made by EU, which required enterprises on a regulated market to prepare their consolidated accounts under IAS (Fritz and Lämmle, 2003). The important obstacles faced by EU and IASC are differing accounting practice, which caused by different countries, nationalism, as well as lack of strong professional bodies and international enforcement agency. Also, the difference in regulatory sources is the challenge for EU and IASC (Houssain,nd). IASC is broadly focused on removing unnecessary differences in accounting principles and practice around the whole world (McComb, 1982). That A lack of synchronization between release of standards in different countries and the formulation of standards by IASC will be an obstacle for harmonization (Rivera, 1989). Furthermore, lack of the professional bodies takes a challenge to implement IAS’s. It is said that IASC can only implement its accounting standards by its member bodies, not through the own authority. Taking France and Germany as examples, the professional accounting bodies in these two countries have rarely influence setting of accounting rules than setting by the government and governmental bodies, so that IAS’s can only promoted by persuasion (Nobes, 1995). In terms of nationalism, there is an unwillingness to change accounting practice by accepting compromises. Nationalism may be brought out when attempting to maintain independence of sovereignty. It can be observed that some countries did not make a reaction to attempts of harmonization by IASC (Nobes and Parker, 2002). Another challenge is the economic consequences of a particular country. Various in economic consequences of standards could result in de-harmonization unless considered by those who set the standards (Nobes and Parker, 2002). The international accounting firms are also worried about the increasing interest of outsiders in the profession and the wish the standard setting process to be kept outside of the hands of the government (Samuels and Piper,1985). The achievements or successes of both EU and IASC/IASB in harmonising accounting practices: In order to decide whether EU and the IASC were successful, it is important to review the objectives of these 2 organizations. First of all, the achievements of EU would be evaluated. In the past, countries in European used control of bookkeeping system instead of the financial statements which were lack of law and format. The EU set two main directives to improve financial reporting practices and brought about some harmonisation. These directives approached rapidly throughout Europe and nowadays most countries in the continental Europe followed the EU’s accounting system rather than Anglo-American type. The Table 6 describes the extent of harmonization that has been achieved in descending order. Table : Extent of harmonisation achieved between 8 EU countries in descending order The balance sheet translation Differences in translation treatment Value of inventory The income statement translation The way to approach depreciation Examination and improvement Value of Fixed Asset Goodwill Approach for cost of inventory Source: HerrmannInvestigating the Harmonization of Accounting Practices

Unit 2 discussion

Unit 2 discussion. I need support with this English question so I can learn better.

Assignment Details
Evaluating Science Resources
In Unit 1 you learned how to determine whether a resource was reliable and reputable and how to best apply such a source of information to your everyday life. To reinforce this skill, you will apply this knowledge by researching and evaluating two different resources on one scientific topic. Pick a topic that is related to any field of science, such as chemistry, physics, biology, or geology, and think of a question that you would like to find an answer to. For example, “Is global warming causing more earthquakes?” Or “What is the best treatment for my allergies?” Discuss how, and why, you chose your question.
To complete this Assignment:

Locate two resources about a scientific topic that interests you: one from a scientifically reputable resource and another from a questionable resource.
Write a brief summary of these two articles and an explanation of the differences between the reliability of these resources.
What characteristics make one more scientifically valid than the other? Be sure to indicate which resource is the scientifically reputable resource and which resource’s reliability is questionable. Present both your resources in APA format.

Basic Writing Expectations:

400 words minimum.
Free of grammatical and spelling errors.
No evidence of plagiarism.
Follow college-level writing expectations such as an introduction, conclusion, and paragraph structure.
Use of APA style for References Page and citations. Refer to the APA Quick Reference Guide.

Be sure to review the Course Rubrics for details on how this Assignment will be graded.
Turnitin Analysis
A special feature is available to help you with reviewing your Unit 2 Assignment for plagiarism. When you submit your Assignment to the Unit 2 Dropbox, your Assignment will automatically be analyzed by the plagiarism detection tool, Turnitin. Soon after you submit your Assignment, you will be able to view the Turnitin Originality Report. Originality Reports provide a summary of matching or highly similar text found in a submitted paper. When an Originality Report is available for viewing, an icon will appear in the report column of the Assignment Inbox. Originality Reports are only available in the InBox. For this reason, you will need to download the report prior to the grading of the Unit 2 Assignment. To do this, click on the print icon at the bottom of the Originality Report. This will prepare a readable, PDF version of the Originality Report that you can save to your computer.
Submitting Your Assignment
Save your copy of the Assignment in a location and with a name that you will remember. Be sure to use the “Save As” option to include your first and last name in the title of the document. For example, your paper might be called Shawn_Edwards_Assignment2.doc
Please be professional.
Unit 2 discussion

Essay Writing at Online Custom Essay

5.0 rating based on 10,001 ratings

Rated 4.9/5
10001 review

Review This Service




Rating: