UP961633 anonymous marking

FIND A SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay

ITSM CW 2 UCB CASE STUDY
UP961633
anonymous marking enabled
Submission date: 18-May-2020 09:14PM (UTC+0100)
Submission ID: 128160466
File name: ITSM_CW_2_UCB_CASE_STUDY_UP961633_904360_911283494.docx (956.09K)
Word count: 5258
Character count: 28535
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
4%
SIMILARITY INDEX
2%
INTERNET SOURCES
0%
PUBLICATIONS
4%
STUDENT PAPERS
1 2%
2 1%
3 <1%
4 <1%
5 <1%
6 <1%
7 <1%
Exclude quotes On Exclude matches Off
ITSM CW 2 UCB CASE STUDY UP961633
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES
Submitted to Isle of Man International Business
School
Student Paper
mafiadoc.com
Internet Source
Submitted to Singapore Management University
Student Paper
Submitted to University of Sydney
Student Paper
searchstorage.techtarget.com
Internet Source
www.b2btrajectory.com
Internet Source
www.tandfonline.com
Internet Source
Exclude bibliography On
FINAL GRADE
82/100
ITSM CW 2 UCB CASE STUDY UP961633
GRADEMARK REPORT
GENERAL COMMENTS
Instructor
Question 1.1. Excellent answer based on a thorough
and exhaustive analysis of the case study. Good highlevel summary of what the tables show.
Question 1.2. Very good application of the integrated
performance management framework.
Question 2. Very good answers, only minor issues.
Question 3. A very carefully worded answer and you
are making a very good point. What you need to
improve your answer is one specific example of an IT
initiative that would create value.
Question 4. A very good, well researched answer.
Question 5. Excellent work again. I initially was a bit
concerned by some of your rankings, but your text does
a very good job of supporting them.
PAGE 1
PAGE 2
PAGE 3
PAGE 4
Comment 1
There is not such as thing as a free lunch…
There is not such as thing as a free lunch…
Comment 2
Good question.
PAGE 5
PAGE 6
Comment 3
Too informal.
PAGE 7
Comment 4
Very good point and use of question 1.1.
Comment 5
Ok!
Comment 6
Not sure about this.
PAGE 8
Comment 7
Drifting away from KM here.
Comment 8
Use the author’s name!
PAGE 9
Comment 9
Good idea.
PAGE 10
Comment 10
Very good idea, but show the hierarchy of objectives, and one example of the scale. You are saying
Very good idea, but show the hierarchy of objectives, and one example of the scale. You are saying
that the 3R portal is 5 times more important than Pharma research computing – a bit difficult to
justify?
PAGE 11
Comment 11
ok.
PAGE 12
RUBRIC: ITSM REPORT
QUESTION 1.1 (10%)
PERFECT
(100)
OUTSTANDING
(90)
EXCELLENT
(85)
BORDERLINE
(80)
VERY GOOD
(75)
BORDERLINE
(70)
GOOD
(65)
BORDERLINE
(60)
AVERAGE
(55)
BORDERLINE PASS
(50)
MARGINAL FAIL
(45)
BAD FAIL
(35)
VERY WEAK
(25)
NON SUBMISSION
(0)
QUESTION 1.2 (10%)
PERFECT
(100)
82 / 100
90 / 100
List of best practices and challenges
Insightful diagnostic of issues. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental
problem-solving method.
Insightful diagnostic of issues. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental
problem-solving method.
Insightful diagnostic of issues. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental
problem-solving method.
Insightful diagnostic of issues. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental
problem-solving method.
Very good diagnostic of issues. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental
problem-solving method.
Very good diagnostic of issues. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental
problem-solving method.
Good diagnostic of issues, with some minor omissions. Good use of a structured and/or
developmental problem-solving method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused.
Good diagnostic of issues, with some minor omissions. Good use of a structured and/or
developmental problem-solving method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused.
Average diagnostic of issues, with some key omissions. Use of a structured and/or
developmental problem-solving method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused.
Average diagnostic of issues, with some key omissions. Use of a structured and/or
developmental problem-solving method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused.
Basic and trivial diagnostic of issues, with several key omissions. Lacks logical flow and
structure.
The diagnostic of issues is poor and unconvincing. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure.
The diagnostic of issues is poor, unconvincing, or flawed. Very messy, lacking a clear
logical structure.
Non submission
90 / 100
Selection and application of maturity model
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
OUTSTANDING
(90)
EXCELLENT
(85)
BORDERLINE
(80)
VERY GOOD
(75)
BORDERLINE
(70)
GOOD
(65)
BORDERLINE
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, effective problem analysis. No generic material.
Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method. Extra
research is done where needed. Demonstrates a very good understanding of relevant
theories and debates. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and
rational position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, effective problem analysis. No generic material.
Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method. Extra
research is done where needed. Demonstrates a very good understanding of relevant
theories and debates. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and
rational position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but sometimes awkwardly. Acceptable problem analysis.
Some generic material. Good use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving
method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is attempted but is
unsuccessful. Demonstrates a good understanding of relevant theories and debates. The
discussion is sound and lack critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
(60)
AVERAGE
(55)
BORDERLINE PASS
(50)
MARGINAL FAIL
(45)
BAD FAIL
(35)
VERY WEAK
(25)
NON SUBMISSION
(0)
QUESTION 2 (20%)
PERFECT
(100)
OUTSTANDING
problem-solving technique, but sometimes awkwardly. Acceptable problem analysis.
Some generic material. Good use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving
method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is attempted but is
unsuccessful. Demonstrates a good understanding of relevant theories and debates. The
discussion is sound and lack critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but unconvincingly. Disappointing problem analysis. A lot of
generic material. Use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method, but
logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is misdirected. Demonstrates a
fair understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is basic and lack
critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but unconvincingly. Disappointing problem analysis. A lot of
generic material. Use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method, but
logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is misdirected. Demonstrates a
fair understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is basic and lack
critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are poorly utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique. Disappointing problem analysis and theoretical framing. A lot
of generic material. Lacks logical flow and structure. Extra research is misdirected or
missing. Demonstrates a weak understanding of relevant theories and debates. The
discussion is basic and lacks any critical quality.
Scholarly concepts and theories are used ineffectively. Lacks a genuine problem analysis
and theoretical framing. Mostly generic material. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure. Extra research is misdirected or missing. Flawed understanding of relevant
theories and debates leading to a poor discussion.
Scholarly concepts and theories are used ineffectively. Lacks a genuine problem analysis
and theoretical framing. Mostly generic material. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure. Extra research is misdirected or missing. Flawed understanding of relevant
theories and debates leading to a poor discussion.
Non submission
75 / 100
Cost pyramid, globalisation, innovation, and effort
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
(90)
EXCELLENT
(85)
BORDERLINE
(80)
VERY GOOD
(75)
BORDERLINE
(70)
GOOD
(65)
BORDERLINE
(60)
AVERAGE
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced
understanding of relevant theories and debates that would be found in a research
publication. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational
position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, effective problem analysis. No generic material.
Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method. Extra
research is done where needed. Demonstrates a very good understanding of relevant
theories and debates. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and
rational position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, effective problem analysis. No generic material.
Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method. Extra
research is done where needed. Demonstrates a very good understanding of relevant
theories and debates. These are discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and
rational position is taken.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but sometimes awkwardly. Acceptable problem analysis.
Some generic material. Good use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving
method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is attempted but is
unsuccessful. Demonstrates a good understanding of relevant theories and debates. The
discussion is sound and lack critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but sometimes awkwardly. Acceptable problem analysis.
Some generic material. Good use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving
method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is attempted but is
unsuccessful. Demonstrates a good understanding of relevant theories and debates. The
discussion is sound and lack critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
(55)
BORDERLINE PASS
(50)
MARGINAL FAIL
(45)
BAD FAIL
(35)
VERY WEAK
(25)
NON SUBMISSION
(0)
QUESTION 3 (20%)
PERFECT
(100)
OUTSTANDING
(90)
EXCELLENT
(85)
BORDERLINE
(80)
problem-solving technique, but unconvincingly. Disappointing problem analysis. A lot of
generic material. Use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method, but
logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is misdirected. Demonstrates a
fair understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is basic and lack
critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but unconvincingly. Disappointing problem analysis. A lot of
generic material. Use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method, but
logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is misdirected. Demonstrates a
fair understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is basic and lack
critical depth and contrast.
Scholarly concepts and theories are poorly utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique. Disappointing problem analysis and theoretical framing. A lot
of generic material. Lacks logical flow and structure. Extra research is misdirected or
missing. Demonstrates a weak understanding of relevant theories and debates. The
discussion is basic and lacks any critical quality.
Scholarly concepts and theories are used ineffectively. Lacks a genuine problem analysis
and theoretical framing. Mostly generic material. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure. Extra research is misdirected or missing. Flawed understanding of relevant
theories and debates leading to a poor discussion.
Scholarly concepts and theories are used ineffectively. Lacks a genuine problem analysis
and theoretical framing. Mostly generic material. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure. Extra research is misdirected or missing. Flawed understanding of relevant
theories and debates leading to a poor discussion.
Non submission
80 / 100
Value creation with IT
Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced understanding of relevant theories and debates
that would be found in a research publication. These are discussed critically, and a
convincing, justified, and rational position is taken.
Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced understanding of relevant theories and debates
that would be found in a research publication. These are discussed critically, and a
convincing, justified, and rational position is taken.
Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced understanding of relevant theories and debates
that would be found in a research publication. These are discussed critically, and a
convincing, justified, and rational position is taken.
Demonstrates an advanced and nuanced understanding of relevant theories and debates
that would be found in a research publication. These are discussed critically, and a
convincing, justified, and rational position is taken.
VERY GOOD
(75)
BORDERLINE
(70)
GOOD
(65)
BORDERLINE
(60)
AVERAGE
(55)
BORDERLINE PASS
(50)
MARGINAL FAIL
(45)
BAD FAIL
(35)
VERY WEAK
(25)
NON SUBMISSION
(0)
QUESTION 4 (20%)
PERFECT
(100)
OUTSTANDING
(90)
EXCELLENT
(85)
BORDERLINE
(80)
VERY GOOD
(75)
Demonstrates a very good understanding of relevant theories and debates. These are
discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational position is taken.
Demonstrates a very good understanding of relevant theories and debates. These are
discussed critically, and a convincing, justified, and rational position is taken.
Demonstrates a good understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is
sound and lack critical depth and contrast.
Demonstrates a good understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is
sound and lack critical depth and contrast.
Demonstrates a fair understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is
basic and lack critical depth and contrast.
Demonstrates a fair understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is
basic and lack critical depth and contrast.
Demonstrates a weak understanding of relevant theories and debates. The discussion is
basic and lacks any critical quality.
Flawed understanding of relevant theories and debates leading to a poor discussion.
Flawed understanding of relevant theories and debates leading to a poor discussion.
Non submission
80 / 100
New technologies
Original and insightful recommendations. Strong synergies between recommendations,
resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing set of solutions that could have been
produced by a junior consultant.
Original and insightful recommendations. Strong synergies between recommendations,
resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing set of solutions that could have been
produced by a junior consultant.
Original and insightful recommendations. Strong synergies between recommendations,
resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing set of solutions that could have been
produced by a junior consultant.
Original and insightful recommendations. Strong synergies between recommendations,
resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing set of solutions that could have been
produced by a junior consultant.
Original and insightful recommendations. Very good synergies between
recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing set of solutions but
their articulation can sometimes be stilted.
BORDERLINE
(70)
GOOD
(65)
BORDERLINE
(60)
AVERAGE
(55)
BORDERLINE PASS
(50)
MARGINAL FAIL
(45)
BAD FAIL
(35)
VERY WEAK
(25)
NON SUBMISSION
(0)
QUESTION 5 (20%)
PERFECT
(100)
OUTSTANDING
(90)
Original and insightful recommendations. Very good synergies between
recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing set of solutions but
their articulation can sometimes be stilted.
Unoriginal but sound recommendations. Weak synergies between recommendations,
resulting in a good idea of plan, although its justification and presentation are not fully
persuasive.
Unoriginal but sound recommendations. Weak synergies between recommendations,
resulting in a good idea of plan, although its justification and presentation are not fully
persuasive.
Unoriginal and generic recommendations that remain technically correct. Acceptable
focus on engineering areas. Poor synergies between recommendations and minor
conflicts. This results in an acceptable idea of plan, but with an unconvincing business
case.
Unoriginal and generic recommendations that remain technically correct. Acceptable
focus on engineering areas. Poor synergies between recommendations and minor
conflicts. This results in an acceptable idea of plan, but with an unconvincing business
case.
Unoriginal and generic recommendations that reveals misconceptions about IT/IS in
engineering settings. Lack of focus on engineering areas. Conflicting ideas. In real work
settings, the recommendations would be dismissed.
The recommendations are so generic that they fail to address the case study. Important
misconceptions about IT/IS in engineering settings. Lack of focus on engineering areas.
Conflicting ideas.
The recommendations are either fundamentally flawed or so generic that they do not focus
on the case study at all.
Non submission
85 / 100
Project selection and ranking
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Original and insightful recommendations. Strong
synergies between recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing
set of solutions that could have been produced by a junior consultant.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Original and insightful recommendations. Strong
synergies between recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing
EXCELLENT
(85)
BORDERLINE
(80)
VERY GOOD
(75)
BORDERLINE
(70)
GOOD
(65)
BORDERLINE
(60)
AVERAGE
(55)
set of solutions that could have been produced by a junior consultant.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Original and insightful recommendations. Strong
synergies between recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing
set of solutions that could have been produced by a junior consultant.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Original and insightful recommendations. Strong
synergies between recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing
set of solutions that could have been produced by a junior consultant.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Original and insightful recommendations. Strong
synergies between recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing
set of solutions that could have been produced by a junior consultant.
Scholarly concepts and theories are effectively utilised to describe the case and/or identify
a problem-solving technique. Concise, highly effective problem analysis. No generic
material. Effective use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method.
Extra research is done where needed. Original and insightful recommendations. Strong
synergies between recommendations, resulting in a well-planned, rational, and convincing
set of solutions that could have been produced by a junior consultant.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but sometimes awkwardly. Acceptable problem analysis.
Some generic material. Good use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving
method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is attempted but is
unsuccessful. Unoriginal but sound recommendations. Weak synergies between
recommendations, resulting in a good idea of plan, although its justification and
presentation are not fully persuasive.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but sometimes awkwardly. Acceptable problem analysis.
Some generic material. Good use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving
method, but logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is attempted but is
unsuccessful. Unoriginal but sound recommendations. Weak synergies between
recommendations, resulting in a good idea of plan, although its justification and
presentation are not fully persuasive.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but unconvincingly. Disappointing problem analysis. A lot of
generic material. Use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method, but
logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is misdirected. Unoriginal and
generic recommendations that remain technically correct. Acceptable focus on
engineering areas. Poor synergies between recommendations and minor conflicts. This
BORDERLINE PASS
(50)
MARGINAL FAIL
(45)
BAD FAIL
(35)
VERY WEAK
(25)
NON SUBMISSION
(0)
results in an acceptable idea of plan, but with an unconvincing business case.
Scholarly concepts and theories are utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique, but unconvincingly. Disappointing problem analysis. A lot of
generic material. Use of a structured and/or developmental problem-solving method, but
logic of approach is sometimes confused. Extra research is misdirected. Unoriginal and
generic recommendations that remain technically correct. Acceptable focus on
engineering areas. Poor synergies between recommendations and minor conflicts. This
results in an acceptable idea of plan, but with an unconvincing business case.
Scholarly concepts and theories are poorly utilised to describe the case and/or identify a
problem-solving technique. Disappointing problem analysis and theoretical framing. A lot
of generic material. Lacks logical flow and structure. Extra research is misdirected or
missing. Unoriginal and generic recommendations that reveals misconceptions about IT/IS
in engineering settings. Lack of focus on engineering areas. Conflicting ideas. In real work
settings, the recommendations would be dismissed.
Scholarly concepts and theories are used ineffectively. Lacks a genuine problem analysis
and theoretical framing. Mostly generic material. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure. Extra research is misdirected or missing. The recommendations are so generic
that they fail to address the case study. Important misconceptions about IT/IS in
engineering settings. Lack of focus on engineering areas. Conflicting ideas.
Scholarly concepts and theories are used ineffectively. Flawed problem analysis and
theoretical framing. Almost entirely generic material. Very messy, lacking a clear logical
structure. No extra research. The recommendations are either fundamentally flawed or so
generic that they do not focus on the case study at all.
Non submission

YOU MAY ALSO READ ...  A New Type of Cancer
Order from Academic Writers Bay
Best Custom Essay Writing Services

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPERNO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER