Evaluating a Solution
One possible approach to solving the problem is the creation of a digital infrastructure upgrading model that covers the expected challenges and proposes solutions. The approach originated from the research conducted by Gulliver et al. (2020) on the use of technology infrastructure by policymakers and social scientists. The research also conducts case studies of the E-Verify online system and the COVIDSafe app created in Australia (Gulliver et al., 2020). The rationale of the solution is that creating a model can help elicit all the challenges expected in sustainable, secure, and equitable digital infrastructure and provide solutions for them.
It is essential to analyze the solution from a different standpoint to elicit its advantages and shortcomings. If this solution is analyzed using the article by Tanczer et al. (2019), it shows several advantages. The article considers the security issues that result from digital infrastructure expansion, including online surveillance, encryption, and censorship. The proposed solution is advantageous since it provides some solutions for the above challenges. The model includes some solutions such as strong data encryption, data integration, and data transparency and replicability.
Analyzing the solution from the perspective of the article by Culumbia ThreadNeedle (2020), one can see some disadvantages. The authors considered the relevant solutions needed for problems such as energy use which has increased exponentially between 2010 and 2019. The proposed approach is disadvantageous since it doesn’t give a solution for such problems in the model.
A look at the solution from the perspective of Allen & Sarkis (2021) shows that it is practical and feasible. The solution is practical because it may be achieved by putting the minds of stakeholders together and coming up with the model and refining it to create a good transformation. It is economically feasible because of the high returns of technological infrastructure; it creates a circular economy and develops strong sustainability (Allen & Sarkis, 2021).
Overall, this is an effective solution for the problem even though there are some challenges. It is considered effective because its advantages outweigh its drawbacks, and it has the benefit of economic feasibility and practicality.
Allen, S. D., & Sarkis, J. (2021). How can the circular economy-digitalization infrastructure support transformation to strong sustainability? Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 1(3), 033001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac2784
Culumbia ThreadNeedle. (2020, October 20). A sustainable perspective on digital infrastructure. UK – EN – Institutional. https://www.columbiathreadneedle.co.uk/en/inst/insights/sustainable-infrastructure-a-sustainable-perspective-on-digital-infrastructure/
Gulliver, R., Fahmi, M., & Abramson, D. (2020). Technical considerations when implementing digital infrastructure for social policy. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 269-287. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.135
Tanczer, L. M., Deibert, R. J., Bigo, D., Franklin, M. I., Melgaço, L., Lyon, D., Kazansky, B., & Milan, S. (2019). undefined. International Studies Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekz016
Who should hold leaders accountable for failures in financial reporting and budget
Failures in financial reporting and budgeting affect shareholders immensely regardless of whether the organization is a government institution or a private company (Bhaskar & Flower, 2019). Given the responsibility of any government to protect its citizens, the government, through its agencies, should hold leaders accountable for these failures. Financial reporting failures such as misstatements and lack of accountability, disclosure, and responsibility affect stakeholder investment decisions, and the government should protect people from such (Dener et al., 2011). Poor budgeting discipline results in misappropriation of funds, poor planning, theft, and project failure; governments should hold leaders accountable on behalf of stakeholders.
How can an agency mitigate damages from an unethical monetary situation?
Unethical monetary situations damage the image and lower confidence & trust in organizations (Dener et al., 2011). Companies should mitigate the damage of such occurrences by first acknowledging the situation followed by activities that include direct communication to stakeholders, investigations to uncover truths, compensation of injured parties, and punishment of culprits (Bhaskar & Flower, 2019). Telling the truth about the situation and holding people accountable proves that the organization is serious about regaining public trust (Dener et al., 2011). In addition, a firm should follow the laid down guidelines (governmental laws and regulations) on resolving such situations.
How does an agency build trust after poor public stewardship of monies?
Building trust requires the organization to rebrand itself to communicate to stakeholders/ public that it has successfully changed. It shows the public that the firm has acknowledged its errors and mistakes and is seeking a better future (Dener et al., 2011). In addition, speaking the truth to the situation and communicating leadership changes after the failure shows dedication to future success.
Bhaskar, K., & Flower, J. (2019). Financial failures and scandals: From Enron to Carillion. Routledge.
Dener, C., Watkins, J., & Dorotinsky, W. L. (2011). Financial management information systems: 25 years of World Bank experience on what works and what doesn’t. World Bank Publications.