Components of an information system (IS)

Identify the components of an information system (IS) using the five-component framework, and provide a brief summary of each.Explain Porter’s five forces model.Management IS (MIS)…

Identify the components of an information system (IS) using the five-component framework, and provide a brief summary of each.Explain Porter’s five forces model.Management IS (MIS) incorporate software and hardware technologies to provide useful information for decision-making. Explain each of the following IS, and use at least one example in each to support your discussion:a collaboration information system,a database management system,a content management system,a knowledge management/expert system,a customer relationship management system,an enterprise resource planning system,a social media IS,a business intelligence/decision support system, andan enterprise IS.Identify and discuss one technical and one human safeguard to protect against IS security threats.There are several processes that can be used to develop IS and applications such as systems development life cycle (SDLC) and scrum (agile development). Provide a brief description of SDLC and scrum, and then discuss at least one similarity and one difference between SDLC and scrumSum up your paper by discussing the importance of MIS.

Sample Solution
The conventional cultural doctrine that states, ‘more weapons mean more violations’ is never again relevant these days. The violations keep on moving because of life’s corrupting quality and society’s weakening ethical quality. The proportionality of weapon possession and the expansion in wrongdoing rate are as of now unwarranted. Late perceptions and studies contrast nations and prohibiting guns arrangements and nations with qualified weapon proprietorship finding that restricting firearms doesn’t influence the status of wrongdoing rates. While it is the basic point of view that firearms bring about expanding wrongdoing rates, late figures of wrongdoing levels uncover the deception of this authoritative opinion and reveal the way that weapon possession can help battle the general public’s wrongdoing information. The pervasiveness of the weapon proprietorship among people rehearsed in the United States is an exceptional circumstance among the industrialized countries. The present strategy of the US to enable its residents to possess weapons has worked up nearby and worldwide discussions making the issue as one of the most fervently discussed concerns around the world. There are individuals who conflict with this decision by righteousness of the customary perspective on the quick relationship of firearm proprietorship to expand wrongdoings because of its simple access and accessibility. There are likewise groups that consent to the approach disproving the conventional way of thinking of the firearm wrongdoing relationship. They emphatically accept that firearms can secure them against crooks and even forestall the culmination of the criminal’s awful expectations. The issue of weapon restricting approach causes a huge division among the US residents. The guideline of firearms is fervently bantered between the weapon control supporters and firearm rights activists. There is an administrative back-and-forth for legislators whether to support the individuals who guarantee firearm proprietorship as their privileges or whether to remain on the lobbyist’s proclamations on the results of potential business as usual move. Presently, there are two out of five Americans who secure weapons in their homes. At a certain point, these firearm proprietors are qualified as reputable residents who represent their privileges of owning weapons for their wellbeing. Then again, the vast majority contend that the answer for fighting wrongdoing rates is to have fitting and powerful firearm control approaches for the land. A portion of the individuals firmly accept that the firearms may go to an inappropriate hands. Subsequently, the issue of firearm control stays a disputable issue (Jacobs, 2000). Late examinations uncover that the mantra of firearms likened to wrongdoings and passings is a major misinterpretation. Emily Miller discusses this issue during her meeting with Piers Morgan expressing that reviews distributed in Harvard uncover the unwarranted connection of weapon possession with wrongdoing rates. There are worldwide examination relationships between’s countries having a weapon boycott approaches demonstrating the truthful blunders and unrepresentative outcomes. Truth be told, there are nations with stringent approaches towards weapon control that have higher homicide and wrongdoing rates contrasted with the US. Mill operator brings up that there is no immediate association with wrongdoing rates in the administrative arrangements of permitting or prohibiting qualified residents in firearm possession. She further fights that owning firearms is a right. Mill operator’s book, ‘Emily Gets Her Gun’But Obama Wants to Take Yours’, drives perusers to claim weapons. Her awful involvement in burglars inspired her to compose the book and incite to the American personalities to get a firearm for self-protection. She accepts that it is her entitlement to possess one thus wrap up of the Americans. She trusts that she could never need to utilize it, yet demands owning one in instances of ambushes and wrongdoings that she may experience. She announces the requirement for all Americans to have firearms for self-protection since none of the weapon control strategies executed in the past everywhere throughout the world has ever prevailing with regards to decreasing wrongdoings (InternetFreedomNews, 2013). John Lotte (2013) concurs with this thought. He expresses that those spots that have prohibited firearms are seen to have expanded the homicide rates. He sets the case of Wales, England during its weapon boycott approach in 1997. As needs be, the pace of crimes in the nation bobbed essentially after the execution of the approach as contrasted and the earlier year. The pace of crime possibly died down in the years 2003 and 2004 when the nation expanded their number of police. Be that as it may, regardless of the expansion in the police, the pace of the wrongdoings stayed to have a higher worth contrasted with the pre-boycott period. In a cross-sectional examination of firearm possession and murder rates, correlations between nations are unwarranted because of the different elements and factors that should be considered. The factors for correlation must be limited and progressively characterized. Just the guns permitted by the specialists must be tallied. Also, the part of murder changes in incredible length. On account of England, there were changes in their thought of manslaughter cases, which prohibited cases that don’t bring about conviction, or when the case didn’t have self-protection arraignments. In this way, the complete number of manslaughters was diminished to around 13 to 15 percent. This decrease thought isn’t valid in the USA. In America, the insights are not balanced. Figures of manslaughter incorporate all instances of crimes, self-protection, police killings, and some more. Subsequently, the examination of insights of crime cases in the USA is moderately lower than the genuine killings occurring in different nations with firearm boycott approaches, for example, England (Lotte, 1998). In a genuine meeting with a cop, Shane Sexton of Dallas, the setting of weapon possession ends up being successful in lessening wrongdoings. When inquired as to whether the firearm control strategies are required, he answers, ‘No. In all reality, crooks will consistently figure out how to get weapons. I accept that present strategies, for example, the Brady Bill give adequate screening procedures to the rest of the populace.’ He likewise fights that urban communities, for example, New York and Chicago having weapon limitations caused major issues identifying with rough acts alleviations. For him, ‘The law itself doesn’t hurt crooks all things considered as far as I can tell. Most, if not all, don’t have a covered grant. The current covered license laws just make it harder for reputable residents to convey a weapon. This thus makes them progressively powerless against fierce wrongdoings’ (Sexton, 2015). This thought of Sexton is identified with John Lotte’s ‘More Guns, Less Crimes’. Lotte expresses that wrongdoings in Chicago expanded after the weapon boycott approach execution. Notwithstanding the overall enactments of disallowing individuals from weapon proprietorship, lawbreakers still discovered methods for securing them. As a result, the authoritative approach made the individuals difficult to procure weapons, incapacitating them to protect themselves. The certainty level of the lawbreakers expanded since they have the best favorable position over their unfortunate casualties since nobody is permitted to claim weapons. Henceforth, the country will undoubtedly be risky for residents because of firearm laws. The discussion over the firearm control approaches and weapon responsibility for has finished since the Brady Bill in 1993. This strategy cleared route for the private responsibility for with arrangement to control their illicit use. The circumvention of the arrangement’s experience still returns profoundly worry that as of recently has not been settled between two repudiating parties. Does firearm possession truly lessen violations? Assuming this is the case, to what extent will such condition last? Has the administration arranged some counter measures if the firearm possession expands the wrongdoing rates as opposed to lessening it? These and different issues keep on waiting in this discussed concern. For casualties of violations and endeavored wrongdoings, for example, Emily Miller, she battles having weapons of her own as her essential right. Being an upstanding resident, she has the right to guard herself and her family from the ambush of individuals. She additionally battles that she may not utilize it at any rate, as she trusts, however the very nearness of weapons in her ownership can make a dread to those lawbreakers. Hoodlums would mull over ambushing others who can safeguard themselves against violations. As a result, the certainty level of crooks would be diminished and may even be the reason for them not doing the wrongdoings any longer. This is the thing that the firearm proprietorship approach is representing. With the correct usage of the firearm proprietorship, going through stringent capability forms, it is conceivable that the weapons would just be given to the individuals who are qualified upstanding and develop. Weapon control strategy need not be discussed any longer, when the individuals are as of now ready to shield themselves and battle off crooks whenever.>GET ANSWER Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Do you need any assistance with this question?
Send us your paper details now
We’ll find the best professional writer for you!


error: Content is protected !!