Engineering law, 6000 words

Engineering analysis 6000 words not including quote case writer looking for due1/5 3pm

Reference needs to be in IEEE format. Generally speaking, 2000 words need 18-20 words and 6000 words are about 60

ELE00040H

ELE00040H Law for Engineering Management Assignment (100%) – 2019/20

Hand in electronically via the VLE using departmental standard process

The key objectives of this assignment are to explore the differences in legal system and law between your chosen country and the UK and to identify factual and conceptual ethical issues from an engineering manager’s perspective on a given case study.

There are two sections in this assignment:

Section 1: Using evidence based comparative analysis, identify and discuss any differences and similarities in the law between your chosen country and the UK. Your analysis should take into consideration how these identified parameters in law between the two countries influences the trading of a technical product or service and the management of engineering businesses. You must choose any two from the following areas for your analysis:

· Contract law

· Business forms

· Intellectual Property Law.

· Employment Law

· Importing and Exporting Law

Section 2: As an engineering manager, you have been assigned to evaluate a new innovation project (see given list). From an Engineering Ethics perspective, you need to write a reflective report identifying the factual issues and conceptual issues on any one of the following cases:

· Use of new Artificial Intelligence to replace human labour in an organization

· Use of genetically modified ingredients in supermarket food

· Disappearing drones: Drones that deliver payloads and then disappear into thin air

· Talking Barbie- A new Barbie doll that records conversations with your child

· Artificial wombs- A new scientific approach to grow a human foetus outside a woman’s body

· Lethal cyber weapons- A new computer program capable of causing a real explosion

You need to show the understanding and development of an awareness of ethical component of daily engineering decisions. You can use the Royal Academy of Engineering Ethical principles and any other relevant ethical guidance to determine the ethical obligations and responsibilities involved in this project and to assess relevant ethical values. Your discussion should be supported with facts and evidence to further the weight of the reflective opinions being expressed.

Important:

· All submitted work must be your own or fully accredited to the source from which you obtain it.

· Use IEEE referencing.

· You should provide evidence of careful and directed research, use and show evidence of using theoretical concepts from the module and others you have found through your own private study and demonstrate you have a firm master’s level of control and precision in the handling and analysis of material.

· Marks will be awarded for the comprehensiveness, quality of comparative analysis, criticality demonstrated in reflection, clarity of your writing and completeness and accuracy of referencing of your additional sources of information.

· The report needs to have a logical structure consisting of an abstract, table of content, main body, conclusion, references and appendix (if applicable).

· Your response to each question in the report sections must be clearly signposted.

· Word limit for the overall report is 6000 (not including abstract, table of content, references and appendix).

Course Tutors: Dr Bidyut Baruah & Dr John Issitt

Moderated by: Dr Noel Jackson

ELE00040H Law for Engineering Management 2019-20

Individual Report – Marking and Feedback Sheet

Student name/identifier: Marker: Mark:

Section 1: Critical Analysis between UK and chosen country

Area 1 (30%)

Mark:

Comments:

Area 2 (30%)

Mark:

Comments:

Section 2: Ethics based reflective analysis of chosen case study

Critical understanding of ethics in engineering and depth of reflection (20%)

Mark:

Comments:

Ability to use facts and evidence (10%)

Mark:

Comments:

Overall report structure, content, readability and quality of referencing (10%)

Mark:

Comments: