Guidelines for the case study You will produce a case study, which will be a work of fact or fiction (or a combination of the two) of around 1,500-2000 words describing a situation where the five functional areas of network management (FCAPS) are not adhered to. The work may take any literary form you wish, from verse to a radio play to a straightforward report to a short story to a technical article. The story should be coherent, not just a set of different unrelated scenarios. This is because there are always dependencies between the different functional areas. Above all, remember that we are looking for is evidence of your understanding of the practical application of FCAPS management. You will show us this by telling us what happens if a network is not managed this way. The scenario: * should communicate technical issues clearly and concisely in a manner suitable for an inexperienced (though not novice) manager. * should refer to all five functional areas of network management and the effects of not managing them. * should display understanding of the technical causes and effects of the problem (e.g. it is not enough to say that the computer broke down- we need to know why, and how it relates to the issues of a lack of network management). * should display understanding of the application of the functional areas of network management (e.g. it is not enough to observe faults, it is important to demonstrate the effects of NOT managing those faults) * should demonstrate understanding of the interdependencies between different functional areas. We will not be marking you for literary prowess, though clarity and good reporting practice for whatever literary form you choose will count. As for all assessed work, the faculty standards will apply, so we welcome creativity in your approach, but not at the expense of rigour and care. Plagiarism will be dealt with very severely and you should not even consider using anyone else''s work without proper referencing. Those with a reasonable knowledge of networks (through previously taking networking modules or through having moderate levels of experience) are probably in the best position to provide a good piece of work, given enough thought, inspiration and analysis. Those who know too much and those who know too little are in danger of falling into either the & quot;technophile trap & quot; or the & quot;technophobe trap. & quot; The technophile trap. We will not be impressed with technical prowess unless it is entirely clear that you are aware of the consequences of mismanagement not just in technical terms but (at least as importantly) in what this means to the organisation and users. If you are familiar with the technology of networks it may be harder for you to step back and look at the bigger picture than those who are less familiar with the flashing lights. The technophobe trap. We will not be impressed with work which does not demonstrate some understanding of technical issues relating to networks, the kinds of things that can go wrong and their effects on the users of the system. If you are unfamiliar with network technologies you may find it harder to consider the range of possible consequences than someone who has been involved in running a network or who has absorbed the lessons of networking modules. You were warned! Guidelines for the reflective commentary The commentary should prove that you know what could be done to fix the problems that are illustrated in your scenario, as well as explain your reasoning and choice of scenario. It should also be in the range of around 1,500-2000 words. You are welcome and encouraged to consider the difficulties of the assignment, and to highlight any aspects that you feel you were unable to cover as well as you would have wished. If this reflective element is explored in sufficient depth to explain the cause of the difficulties you faced, then this may help to compensate for weaknesses in the first part of the assignment. Note however that the difficulties considered for such marks will be those that arise from the nature of the problem, not your own weaknesses! For example, because of the naturally connected nature of the functional areas, it is possible that you will find it hard to distinguish one functional area from another in your scenario. If you explain why this is so and the nature of the difficulty in a sufficiently reflective manner, you may regain marks that were lost because you failed to do so. Rough guide to achieving a good grade (indicative only - you may achieve excellence differently!):