Select Page

Learning Goal: I’m working on a business discussion question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.
Learning Goal: I’m working on a business writing question and need support to help me learn.
It is very important that you are utilizing the dissertation checklist and format guide. It is absolutely crucial that your format is correct. Currently, you are not following the required form. I am not sure of the purpose or the reasoning of the content that is before the literature review. This is content that should be in chapter 1. Therefore the feedback that I’m providing for you starts with the literature review at the end of page 4
you started with a strong statement that virtual organizations emerged in 1990 and were previously known as digital organizations however you have not provided any support. It is absolutely critical that any statement of fact such as what you have made here has full support. It was not branding and salt from 2000 that stipulated this. Therefore there is significant development of authorship needed for this statement throughout the first section, you do a fine job of having multiple authors for support going back the last 20 years. However I also want to make sure that you are not limiting yourself to the idea of virtual organizations and that if you are going to differentiate between institutions as you do on page 6 that you give a forward organizer as to the different types of virtual organizations and that you’re going to be focusing on healthcare institutions. Because you are looking at knowledge transfer and virtual organizations’ communication channels, you have a significant amount of organization that needs to happen so that you are not jumping from topic to topic there is no forward organizer identified throughout this entire section. You will need to have some forward organizing. Then you have claims on page 7 that says, according to research, leverage communication channel should depend… This entire section has no support. You then get into the 2010 recommendations on page 7, which are myopic in view, coming from only one author that exceeds more than one page. There needs to be much more support here and cross-intertwined support from multiple authors you stipulate on page 9 what Chris drew from 2022 points out… However, there are components in this paragraph that need additional support.
On page 10, you start a new section, and you start by looking at Allen Golden and Shockley… But you start the session by stating a different study… That is a redundant claim and fluff this whole section needs to be rewritten and reworded. At the bottom of page 11, you stipulate in the article you do not need to say “in.”
On page 12, you discuss the concept of the most popular and frequently cited concepts and knowledge management… But how do you know their the most popular and the most frequently cited… You’ll need to have the meta-analysis article that stipulates that this is true. I would highly suggest that you do not start paragraphs with the wording in, according to, or any statements of the like… We can talk about this specifically. In the same paragraph at the bottom of page 12, you use the example of zoom that the receiver should be able to evaluate the credibility of information this claim is coming back to I assume the 2020 article however, this is not adequately supported because it is myopic in the view from the 2020 author. More support is needed
when you get into the theoretical framework, you do this all author support to show media richness authorship… I am quite shocked that this is not clearly stipulated right away in the very first words of the theoretical framework section
almost the entire section is adequately explained, but there are no support mechanisms to define, develop or provide reference to the original author of the media richness theory
When we look at culture language for the two components that you will develop further, there is a very limited amount of literature for your support mechanisms. You have one author on cultural differences this is not adequate for a literature review to be bold breath and depth of true understanding of the topic. The same is true of your area of language. Here, however, you have much more support mechanisms.
Ensure you have approx 30 peer reviewed article plus existing one. take information from lit rivew paper to dissertation template. moreover, Do not change any existing info, but just update the info and give more references as per comment and add more supportive article review. any issue please clarify.