We can work on Network Enterprise Architecture Analysis

The overall Network Enterprise Architecture Plan will consist of the following deliverables:
• Week 1: Project Outline
• Week 1: Network Enterprise Architecture Review
• Week 2: Network Enterprise Architecture Layers
• Week 3: Network Enterprise Architecture Analysis
• Week 4: Network Enterprise Architecture Design
• Week 5: Network Enterprise Architecture Plan
The following is the project outline for the complete deliverable:
• Network Enterprise Architecture Plan shell
o Use Word
o Title page
 Course number and name
 Project name
 Your name
 Date
o Table of contents (TOC)
 Use an autogenerated TOC.
 This should be on a separate page.
 This should be a maximum of 3 levels deep.
 Be sure to update the fields of the TOC so that it is up-to-date before submitting your project.
o Section headings
 Project Outline
 Network Enterprise Architecture Review
 Network Enterprise Architecture Layers
 Network Enterprise Architecture Analysis
 Network Enterprise Architecture Design
 Network Enterprise Architecture Plan
Case Study: Problem 5
TheSolarGroup (TSG) wants to employ an enterprise architecture planning (EAP) strategy. This strategy defines a blueprint for subsequent design and implementation by placing planning and defining stages into the framework of the enterprise architecture (EA) approach. The planning stages include the following:
• Layer 1: Getting started
• Layer 2: Where TSG is today
• Layer 3: Vision of where it wants to be
• Layer 4: How it plans to get there
Can this strategy be used for re-engineering roles as well as technology?
Part 1: Final Deliverable for Key Assignment
Week 5: Network Enterprise Architecture Plan
In the last few weeks, you have prepared the foundation for the Network Enterprise Architecture Plan document. The final step is to include the implementation plan for the new network enterprise architecture

Sample Solution

find the cost of your paper
facebookShare on Facebook


FollowFollow us

leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after >

Is this question part of your Assignment?

We can help

Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.

We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals

Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples