BIZ101 Business Communications: Assessment 2B Written Report

Context

Torrens University Australia delivers BIZ101 Business Communications as a core first-year subject in the Bachelor of Business and related degrees. Assessment 2B: Written Report carries a weighting of 35% and requires a 1200-word individual business report on a digital communication technology. The report builds directly on Assessment 2A, which required a report outline and source analysis on the same topic. The 2026 iteration retains the scaffolded 2A to 2B structure used in earlier trimesters while sharpening the requirement to justify platform selection against organisational fit rather than feature lists. The due date is 11:55pm AEST/AEDT on Sunday of Module 5.1, which falls in Week 9 of a standard trimester. Intensive classes submit in Week 5. Submission is through the BIZ101 Blackboard shell using the Turnitin link.

Summary

• Title: Assessment 2B: Written Report
• Due Date: 11:55pm AEST/AEDT, Sunday of Module 5.1 (Week 9); Week 5 for intensive classes
• Length: 1200 words (+/- 10%, excluding cover page, contents, and reference list)
• Weighting: 35%
• Format: Individual business report
• Submission: Turnitin via Blackboard

Subject Learning Outcomes Assessed

Successful completion demonstrates:

• SLO a: Demonstrate information literacy and critical analysis appropriate to the level of study.
• SLO b: Understand and demonstrate academic integrity and authentic engagement with information.
• SLO c: Examine the internal and external business environment to interpret messages in different business contexts.
• SLO d: Identify and apply effective communication skills within business environments, including the use of technology.

Task Description

Write a business report that analyses one digital communication technology and recommends its implementation in a named organisation. The report must compare at least two platforms or applications, assess their uses, advantages, and disadvantages, identify the factors that affect implementation, and reach a justified recommendation. The four sources analysed in Assessment 2A must be integrated into the report. Additional research is permitted and expected where the 2A sources do not cover a claim. The report is not a product review. It is an argument about whether a specific technology fits a specific organisational context.

Task Instructions

Use the full report format studied in BIZ101. Include a cover page, a table of contents, an introduction, headed body sections, a conclusion, recommendations, and a reference list. Headings and subheadings must communicate the report’s structure to a busy reader. The report must address the following elements.

Organisation and Context

Describe the chosen organisation and its communication needs. State the industry, size, and relevant operational features. Explain why the organisation needs the communication technology you have selected. The description should be brief but specific enough to support the later analysis.

Technology and Platform Comparison

Analyse the chosen communication technology. Compare at least two platforms or applications that deliver it. Address uses, advantages, disadvantages, cost implications, integration requirements, and any security or privacy considerations. Do not list features without explaining their relevance to the organisation.

Implementation Factors

Identify the factors that will affect implementation. Consider staff capability, training, organisational culture, IT infrastructure, change management, and any regulatory or compliance obligations. Explain how each factor could enable or obstruct adoption.

Recommendations

Recommend one platform or a staged implementation pathway. Justify the recommendation against the evidence presented. State the conditions under which the recommendation would need to be revised. Recommendations must be actionable and specific to the organisation.

Source Integration

Integrate the four sources from Assessment 2A into the report. Each source must support a specific claim or section. Do not append the sources as a separate list or cite them without using their content. Additional academic and industry sources may be added.

Marking Rubric

Sample Response: Comparing Platforms Against Organisational Fit

A platform comparison that stops at features misses the decision the report is meant to support. Consider a mid-sized professional services firm choosing between Microsoft Teams and Slack. Teams integrates with the Microsoft 365 suite the firm already licenses, which reduces training burden and simplifies identity management. Slack offers faster channel-based collaboration and a larger third-party app ecosystem, but it adds another subscription and another set of administrative controls. Neither platform is universally superior. The relevant question is which platform fits the firm’s existing infrastructure, its staff capability, and its client confidentiality obligations. Research on the systematic review of digital internal communication shows that platform adoption succeeds when the technology aligns with existing communication practices rather than requiring staff to rebuild those practices around the tool (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2024). That finding should shape the comparison criteria. A report that evaluates Teams and Slack against integration cost, training time, and security controls will produce a defensible recommendation. A report that evaluates them against feature counts will not.

Sample Response: Structuring the Report for a Decision-Maker

Report structure is an argument about what matters. The introduction should state the organisation, the communication problem, and the recommendation in brief, so a reader who stops after page one still knows the report’s position. The body should move from context to comparison to implementation factors, with each section building the case for the recommendation. Research on teaching business report writing through social media technologies shows that students who organise reports around a decision rather than around a list of topics produce clearer recommendations and stronger evidence integration (Mehra, 2023). Headings should name the analytical move, not the topic. A heading such as “Implementation Risks and Mitigation” tells the reader what the section argues. A heading such as “Implementation” tells the reader only what the section covers. The four sources from Assessment 2A should appear where their content does analytical work, not in a block at the end of the report. A source that supports the security analysis belongs in the security section. A source that supports the cost comparison belongs in the comparison section. The reference list confirms the sources exist; the body shows they were used.

Platform Choice Beyond Feature Lists

The strongest reports treat implementation as a sociotechnical problem rather than a procurement decision. A platform that staff find intuitive but that the IT team cannot secure will fail. A platform that meets every technical requirement but disrupts informal communication patterns will also fail. Research on digital internal communication emphasises that adoption depends on perceived usefulness, management support, and the fit between the tool and existing workflows (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2024). This means the implementation factors section carries as much weight as the platform comparison. Reports that list training, culture, and infrastructure as bullet points without analysing how they interact will meet the lower rubric bands. Reports that explain, for example, how a training deficit could undermine a technically sound rollout will demonstrate the analytical depth the rubric rewards. The recommendation should follow from that analysis, not precede it.

Common Misconception About Recommendations

Students often treat the recommendation as a summary of the comparison rather than a decision under uncertainty. A recommendation that says “both platforms have strengths, so the organisation should choose the one that suits its needs” is not a recommendation. The rubric asks for a justified position, not a balanced survey. A defensible recommendation names one platform, explains why it fits the organisation’s context better than the alternative, and states what would have to change for the recommendation to be reconsidered. That last element matters because it shows the reader that the recommendation is conditional on evidence rather than asserted. A report that recommends Teams because it integrates with existing Microsoft licensing should state that the recommendation would weaken if the organisation planned to migrate away from Microsoft 365. That kind of conditional reasoning distinguishes a professional report from a student essay.

Rubric Priorities and Research Depth

The rubric weights understanding and critical analysis at 25% each, which means the report cannot pass on description alone. The 2A source analysis exists to prevent last-minute research. Students who completed 2A properly already have four sources that speak to their topic. The task in 2B is to use those sources where they do analytical work, not to demonstrate that they were collected. Additional research should fill specific gaps: a claim about cybersecurity risk needs a security source, not a general business communication textbook. A claim about training cost needs an industry or government source. The reference list should show range without padding. Four well-integrated sources and two or three targeted additions will outperform ten sources that appear only in the reference list. The report format criterion also rewards restraint. A 1200-word report cannot cover every implementation factor in depth. Select the factors that matter most for the chosen organisation and analyse those thoroughly.

Conclusion

This report rewards a clear decision and a disciplined evidence trail. The platform comparison establishes the options; the implementation analysis establishes the constraints; the recommendation resolves the two. Students who write a balanced survey without a position will lose marks on critical analysis. Students who recommend a platform without explaining the conditions under which that recommendation holds will also lose marks. The 1200-word limit forces prioritisation. Choose the organisation, choose the platforms, choose the implementation factors that matter, and argue for a decision. The four 2A sources are the foundation, not the ceiling.

References

Dwyer, J. (2020). Communication for business and the professions: Strategies and skills (7th ed.). Pearson.

Mehra, P. (2023). Feature on teaching and technology: Teaching MBA students business report writing using social media technologies. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231165569

Tkalac Verčič, A., Verčič, D., Čož, S., & Špoljarić, A. (2024). A systematic review of digital internal communication. Public Relations Review, 50(1), 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102400

Torrens University Australia. (2024). Academic integrity policy. Torrens University Australia. https://library.torrens.edu.au/academic-integrity

====================================================

Digital Communication Technology Report: Microsoft Teams for Meridian Advisory Group

Executive summary

Meridian Advisory Group, a hypothetical mid-sized Australian professional services firm with 180 employees, requires a central communication platform to coordinate client work across offices and hybrid teams. The firm currently relies on email, telephone calls and separate file-sharing accounts, which slows project coordination and increases the risk that client information is stored outside controlled systems. This report compares Microsoft Teams and Slack as enterprise communication platforms and recommends Microsoft Teams for staged implementation. Teams is preferred because it aligns with Meridian’s existing Microsoft 365 environment, reduces administrative complexity, supports document-centred client work, and provides enterprise security controls. The recommendation remains conditional on adequate staff training, executive support, clear communication norms and ongoing monitoring of security and adoption.

Organisation and communication context

Meridian Advisory Group provides accounting, taxation and business advisory services to small and medium-sized enterprises across Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. The firm employs approximately 180 staff, including accountants, advisers, administrators, IT personnel and client-service teams. Its work is document-heavy and deadline-driven; staff regularly share financial records, tax files, engagement letters and client plans. Hybrid work has increased the need for reliable virtual meetings, instant messaging and shared project spaces.

The firm’s current communication arrangements create avoidable friction. Email remains useful for formal client correspondence, but internal project updates are scattered across email threads, personal messaging applications and shared drives. Staff may spend time locating the latest version of a document or clarifying decisions made in separate conversations. These problems affect service quality because advisers need timely access to accurate client information.

A unified communication platform could reduce this fragmentation. It could provide persistent team channels, video meetings, file sharing, task notifications and searchable communication history in one environment. The purpose is not simply to add another application. The platform must support existing workflows, protect confidential client information and be manageable by a small IT function.

Dwyer (2020) argues that effective business communication depends on choosing channels that match the message, audience and organisational purpose. For Meridian, the central requirement is therefore a platform that supports both rapid internal coordination and controlled collaboration around sensitive documents. Microsoft Teams and Slack both offer these functions, but their fit with Meridian’s existing systems differs.

Technology and platform comparison

Microsoft Teams and Slack are both business collaboration platforms that combine messaging, meetings, file sharing and integrations. They can support project channels, direct messaging, screen sharing, mobile access and third-party applications. Their differences become important when an organisation considers cost, administration, security and the way employees already work.

Microsoft Teams is embedded in the Microsoft 365 environment. For Meridian, this alignment is significant because staff already use Outlook, Word, Excel, OneDrive and SharePoint. Teams allows employees to open, edit and co-author documents without leaving the communication platform. It also uses the same identity and permission structure as Microsoft 365, which simplifies user management for the IT team. Microsoft positions its enterprise productivity environment around integrated security, identity protection and compliance controls (Microsoft, 2025).

Slack, in contrast, is a standalone collaboration platform known for channel-based messaging and a broad third-party application marketplace. It can integrate with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace and many project-management tools. Slack may suit organisations that value informal, fast-moving communication and use a diverse set of cloud applications. Its channel structure can make cross-functional discussion visible and searchable.

The cost difference matters for a mid-sized firm. If Meridian already holds Microsoft 365 licences that include Teams, adopting Teams avoids a major new subscription. Slack would require a separate licence, administrator training and integration work. These costs are not limited to software fees; they include IT configuration, security review, user support and the time staff spend learning a new system.

Security is equally important. Professional services firms handle confidential financial and personal information, so the platform must support access controls, auditability and data-retention policies. Chen et al. (2022) found that both Teams and Slack rely heavily on third-party app integrations, which can create security risks if permissions are granted without review. For Meridian, either platform would require a controlled approach to external apps, guest access and file sharing. Teams has an advantage because its security settings can be managed through the same administrative environment as the firm’s Microsoft 365 accounts.

Slack provides enterprise security features, including audit logs that can connect with security monitoring tools (Slack, 2025). However, these controls do not remove the need for Meridian to manage another vendor relationship, another identity system and another set of compliance settings. The comparison therefore favours Teams not because Slack is insecure, but because Teams fits Meridian’s existing technology and administrative capacity more closely.

Implementation factors

Successful implementation depends on more than selecting the technically superior platform. Digital workplace adoption is shaped by usability, management support, training, infrastructure and the degree to which a tool fits established work practices (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2024). For Meridian, these factors will determine whether Teams becomes a useful communication system or another unused application.

Staff capability is the first constraint. Many employees will already understand Outlook, Word and Excel, which lowers the learning burden associated with Teams. Even so, advisers may need training in channel etiquette, meeting scheduling, file version control and permission settings. A short training program should distinguish between basic use and the practices required for client confidentiality.

Organisational culture presents a second challenge. Professional services staff may view messaging platforms as distracting if notifications are poorly managed. Teams should therefore be introduced with clear norms: project channels for client work, direct messages for urgent matters, and email for formal external communication. Without these rules, employees may duplicate conversations across platforms or feel pressured to respond outside working hours.

IT infrastructure and governance also affect adoption. Meridian’s IT team must configure single sign-on, multi-factor authentication, guest-access rules, retention policies and mobile-device controls before rollout. A phased implementation is appropriate. The firm could begin with internal project teams, test file-sharing permissions and meeting functions, then extend access to client-facing staff once governance settings are confirmed.

Change management should be visible from senior leadership. Managers need to use Teams consistently for announcements, project coordination and hybrid meetings. If leaders continue to rely on email or informal messaging, employees are unlikely to change their habits. Tkalac Verčič et al. (2024) emphasise that management support and alignment with existing communication practices are central to adoption. Meridian should appoint channel owners, publish a short usage guide and review adoption after the first three months.

Regulatory and privacy obligations add a further requirement. Australian professional services firms must protect client information and retain records in accordance with professional and privacy obligations. The chosen platform must support controlled sharing, audit trails and appropriate data retention. Teams’ integration with Microsoft 365 compliance tools gives Meridian a practical advantage, provided the firm configures those controls correctly rather than assuming default settings are sufficient.

Recommendation and conditions

Meridian Advisory Group should implement Microsoft Teams as its primary internal communication and collaboration platform. Teams is the stronger fit because it builds on the firm’s existing Microsoft 365 environment, reduces the need for separate licensing and administration, and supports the document-centred nature of accounting and advisory work. It enables staff to coordinate projects, hold hybrid meetings and collaborate on client files within a controlled system.

The recommendation should be implemented in stages. In the first month, Meridian should configure security settings, migrate key project teams and train a small group of channel owners. In the second and third months, the firm should extend Teams to all internal staff, establish communication norms and monitor usage. Client-facing teams should adopt Teams only after the IT team has tested guest access, external sharing and retention settings. This staged approach limits disruption while allowing the firm to correct problems before full rollout.

The recommendation would need revision if Meridian decided to move away from Microsoft 365, adopted a different productivity suite, or required communication features that Teams does not provide adequately. Slack would become more attractive if the firm prioritised highly informal cross-functional messaging, extensive third-party integrations or a communication culture centred on lightweight channels. The decision should therefore be reviewed if licensing costs, security requirements or work practices change materially.

Mehra (2023) notes that business reports are more persuasive when they are organised around a decision rather than a list of topics. Accordingly, the recommendation is not that Teams has more features than Slack. It is that Teams better matches Meridian’s existing systems, confidentiality needs, administrative capacity and document-based work.

Conclusion

Microsoft Teams is the most defensible communication platform for Meridian Advisory Group because it aligns with the firm’s Microsoft 365 infrastructure, supports controlled document collaboration and reduces implementation complexity. Slack remains a credible alternative, particularly for organisations seeking flexible channel-based communication, but it would introduce separate costs and administrative demands. Successful adoption will depend on leadership support, staff training, clear communication norms and properly configured security controls. If these conditions are met, Teams is likely to improve internal coordination, reduce version-control problems and support more consistent client service.

References

Chen, Y., Gao, Y., Ceccio, R., Chatterjee, R., & Fernandes, E. (2022). An experimental security analysis of the app models in Slack and Microsoft Teams. University of Wisconsin–Madison. https://www.earlence.com/assets/papers/slack-teams-security22.pdf

Dwyer, J. (2020). Communication for business and the professions: Strategies and skills (7th ed.). Pearson.

Mehra, P. (2023). Feature on teaching and technology: Teaching MBA students business report writing using social media technologies. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294906231165569

Microsoft. (2025). Secure AI and data security for productivity. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/enterprise/secure-productivity

Slack. (2025). Security at Slack: How Slack protects your data. https://slack.com/blog/collaboration/security-at-slack-how-slack-protects-your-data

Torrens University Australia. (2024). Academic integrity policy. https://library.torrens.edu.au/academic-integrity

Tkalac Verčič, A., Verčič, D., Čož, S., & Špoljarić, A. (2024). A systematic review of digital internal communication. Public Relations Review, 50(1), 102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2023.102400