STIDK1013 Article Review: How to Write Both Reviews for UUM Assignment 1
Quick answer: A STIDK1013 article review at UUM is two short pieces, each capped at two double-spaced pages in font 12. Spend about one page critically reviewing the assigned articles and one page giving your own idea, backed by a case. Each review is worth 4%, and a 2% hands-on quiz checks that you understood your own work.
You have opened the brief, seen five long article titles and a two-page limit, and wondered how anyone fits Deming, TQM, normalisation and ISO documentation into that space. You are not alone. The STIDK1013 article review looks easy because it is short. That is exactly why it catches people out.
Short on time? Talk to an information systems expert about your STIDK1013 reviews. Submit your brief for a free quote.
What the STIDK1013 article review actually asks for
Individual Assignment 1 in STIDK1013 Information System in Organization is worth 10% and is due in Week 4. It covers Chapter 1 (Information Systems in Global Business Today) and Chapter 2 (Global E-business and Collaboration).
There are two reviews. The first links TQM and quality data to the MIS perspective. The second links data documentation, normalisation and ISO documentation to MIS and transaction processing systems (TPS). Both ask for personal comment, ideally supported by a relevant case study.
| Component | Marks | What earns them |
|---|---|---|
| Review 1 – critical article review | 2% | About one page judging the TQM and quality data articles |
| Review 1 – self own idea | 2% | About one page of your own argument, double-spaced |
| Review 2 – critical article review | 2% | About one page on the documentation and TPS articles |
| Review 2 – self own idea | 2% | About one page of your own argument, double-spaced |
| Originality (hands-on quiz) | 2% | A test of your understanding of your own reviews |
Read that last row twice. The quiz is the lecturer’s way of checking that the review is genuinely yours. If you cannot explain your own argument in class, you lose those marks, whatever the document looks like. The full task list, including Assignments 2 and 3, is on the STIDK1013 Information System in Organization assignment brief page.
Critical review vs own idea: the split that decides your mark
A critical article review judges the article; it does not retell it. In STIDK1013, the safest structure is one page that summarises the argument in two or three sentences, then evaluates its strengths, limits and relevance to MIS, followed by one page of your own idea with a case.
Most weak reviews spend a page and a half summarising. Markers see this constantly, and it leaves no room for the half of the rubric that rewards your own thinking. Keep the summary to a short paragraph. Spend the rest of the first page asking three questions: what does the author get right, what is missing, and what does this mean for an information system?
Useful lenses for each review
| Review | Concept to apply | How it links to MIS or TPS |
|---|---|---|
| Review 1 | Deming’s enumerative vs analytic study (Kang, 2011) | Descriptive reports are enumerative; control charts that separate common and special causes are analytic |
| Review 1 | Data quality dimensions (Wang and Strong, 1996) | Users judge data on intrinsic, contextual, representational and accessibility qualities |
| Review 1 | Deming’s Taylor comparison and the PDSA cycle | An MIS can record a problem, the change made and the result, closing the feedback loop |
| Review 2 | Normalisation (Codd’s relational model) | Removes duplicated and conflicting records in transaction files |
| Review 2 | ISO 9001:2015 documented information (clause 7.5) | Controlled, versioned procedures and records make TPS data auditable |
| Review 2 | TPS as the base of the MIS pyramid (Laudon and Laudon) | Errors captured at transaction level flow into every management report |
How to write the STIDK1013 article review, step by step
- Read each assigned article once quickly, then again with a pen. Note the author’s main claim in one sentence.
- Find the MIS connection before you write. Ask how the theory changes what a system records, reports or decides.
- Draft the critical half: a short summary, two strengths, one or two limitations, and one MIS implication.
- Choose a case for your own idea. A real company you can cite, or a clearly labelled illustrative scenario, both work.
- Write your own idea as an argument, not a list. Take a position and defend it.
- Set the document to font 12 and double line spacing before you start, so you see the real page count.
- Add in-text citations and a reference list. Follow whatever referencing style your lecturer specifies; Harvard is common.
- Rehearse explaining your review aloud in two minutes. That is your quiz preparation.
For a worked example of this structure, see our STIDK1013 article review sample on TQM and quality data. It is for reference only – use it to understand the approach, not as text to submit.
Where students lose marks on this review
Having seen many first-year information systems reviews, the same problems come up again and again. Most are about time and confidence, not ability.
| Mistake | Why it happens | The fix |
|---|---|---|
| Two pages of summary, no critique | Summarising feels safe when the theory is unfamiliar | Cap the summary at three sentences; judge the rest |
| No MIS or TPS link | The articles are about quality and filing, not software | End each paragraph by asking “so what for the system?” |
| Generic own idea | Fear of being “wrong” with a personal view | Take one clear position; the brief invites personal comment |
| Ignoring one theme in Review 2 | Normalisation feels technical, so it gets skipped | Give data quality, normalisation and ISO documentation a paragraph each |
| Breaking the page limit | Writing in single spacing, then converting late | Format to font 12, double spacing from the start |
| Copying a friend’s or AI’s wording | Panic near Week 4 | The quiz exposes it; write in your own words and practise explaining |
One honest opinion: Review 2 is harder than Review 1, and it deserves more of your time. The brief bundles three ideas into one question, and students who answer only the “documentation” part rarely reach the higher band.
Want a second pair of eyes? Our IT and information systems assignment helpers can explain the articles and check your structure. Send your brief for guidance.
Mark-maximising checklist before you submit
- Each review is no more than two pages, font 12, double-spaced
- Roughly one page of critique and one page of own idea per review
- Every critical paragraph ends with an MIS or TPS implication
- Review 1 answers “how could quality and data theory improve the MIS perspective?”
- Review 2 covers data quality, normalisation and ISO documentation
- At least one relevant case study supports your own idea
- In-text citations match the reference list
- You can explain both reviews aloud without notes
- Softcopy ready for Week 4, first lesson
What comes after Assignment 1
Assignment 1 sets up the rest of STIDK1013. Individual Assignment 2 (15%) includes another article review alongside Excel, pivot table and Google Form tasks, and Group Assignment 3 (15%) asks for a website with integrated tools. The habits you build now – short summary, sharp critique, clear own view – carry straight into the Assignment 2 review. Browse other Universiti Utara Malaysia assignment questions to see how the same lecturers frame later tasks.
Next step
Week 4 arrives faster than it looks, and the quiz means a last-minute rewrite will not save the marks. Draft the critical half of Review 2 first, because that is where most students run short. If the normalisation or ISO link still feels unclear, get it explained now rather than the night before.
Get expert guidance on your STIDK1013 reviews. Confidential support from an information systems specialist: article explanations, model answers for reference and structure checks. Read what students say about us, then submit your STIDK1013 brief.
About the expert
Kelvin T. holds an MSc in Software Engineering from Multimedia University (MMU). He works on DBMS, full-stack and app development assignments, and his profile lists 95% student satisfaction and 99% on-time delivery.
Frequently asked questions
How long should each STIDK1013 article review be?
Each review should be no more than two A4 pages, double-spaced, in font 12. That is roughly 450 to 550 words. Aim for about one page of critical review and one page of your own idea, because the rubric gives 2% to each half.
Do I have to review every article named in the brief?
Yes, you should engage with all the articles listed for each review, even briefly. You do not need equal space for each. Pick the article that best supports your argument as the anchor, and use the others to add evidence, contrast or a limitation.
What counts as a “relevant case study” for my own idea?
A relevant case shows the theory working, or failing, in a real setting. It can be a published company example you can cite, or an illustrative scenario that you clearly label as such. Keep it short – one paragraph – and tie it back to the MIS question.
Which referencing style should I use for STIDK1013?
Use the style your lecturer specifies. Many students use Harvard, which puts the author and year in the text and a full list at the end. Whatever style you choose, stay consistent and cite only sources you actually read.
What is the hands-on quiz in Assignment 1?
It is a 2% test of your understanding of your own article review. It checks originality by asking you to show you know what you wrote. Prepare by summarising each review aloud in two minutes and explaining your case study.
Can I get help with my STIDK1013 article review?
Yes. Our experts provide guidance, model answers and structure feedback for STIDK1013 reviews. You remain responsible for writing and submitting your own work under UUM’s rules, and the support is designed to help you understand the material well enough to pass the quiz.
References
Codd, E.F. (1970) ‘A relational model of data for large shared data banks’, Communications of the ACM, 13(6), pp. 377–387.
International Organization for Standardization (2015) ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems – Requirements. Geneva: ISO.
Kang, E.T. (2011) ‘Quality research framework: enumerative study versus analytic study from Deming’s perspective’, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), pp. 126–131.
Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2022) Management information systems: managing the digital firm. 17th global edn. Harlow: Pearson.
Wang, R.Y. and Strong, D.M. (1996) ‘Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers’, Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(4), pp. 5–33.
Emma Thompson
Hi, I’m Emma Thompson, a professional academic writer in Canada with over a decade of experience helping students with assignments, essays, case studies, and dissertations. Currently working as an academic consultant, I specialize in education policy and cross-cultural learning strategies. My mission is to support Canadian and international students with structured, plagiarism-free content tailored to meet the standards of top Canadian universities. Whether it's a tight deadline or a complex topic, I’m here to guide you through academic challenges with reliable, student-focused solutions.