ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL STRATEGIES

ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL STRATEGIES

INTRODUCTION

Recently, I came across a computer science magazine, “algorithms to determine information system risk management maturity improvement plan. Appling, the case studies”, written by Soumaya Amraoui, Mina Elmaallam, and Hicham Bensaid, I read it and opted to use it for my rhetorical analysis assignment. The article is written in times when users need to develop and advance their activity capabilities making the Maturity Model a valuable technological tool. Nevertheless, the Maturity Model has an essential and pertinent risk management role, such that it offers protection to the information structures and systems from any prospective threats. Making use of these theories usually presents the challenges or issues of the evaluated improvement strategy, and the algorithm “Path Management” attempts to address this concern. The document was published on July 31, 2019. The target audience is the science community and scholars trying to develop and advance the Maturity Model as well as dealing with evaluation problems. The author wrote this research paper to provide the reader with a strategy to progress the maturity model. Based on the area of concern, the authors use an algorithm called “path prerequisites” to document the enhancement of information system risk organization maturity. I will examine the rhetorical approaches of the maturation model in the subsequent sections. The paper examines rhetorical appeal, presentation, development of ideas, and process analysis as used by the author.

ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL STRATEGIES

Rhetorical Appeals

Logos

Since it is a scientific article, the trademark should be a critical rhetorical appeal, as it is applied to influence others with the writer’s logic. The authors of the journal have built a robust logical structure through a lot of information system risk management experiments and researches that allow them to convince others reasonably. For example, the authors believe that there is no practical way to improve the algorithm “Path Algorithm” when evaluating two interdependent active elements, so they focus the edition on the application area concept to run the “path prerequisite” process. They used simulations to make experiments easier to document and interpret. Therefore, the content provided by the author is logical for the reader.

Also, the author utilizes the steps of information risk management to build the article. This paper is separated into four parts. The first part concentrates on the focus region model and puts forward the “path prerequisite” algorithm. The subsequent section is the research method; the third part offers the design as well as the development of the “path prerequisite” algorithm. The next part is the demonstration and assessment of the process application. The four elements are linked in order, and the organization forms a compelling logic to influence the audience.

Ethos

            The author applies the Data Science Research methodology and states that it focuses on the development of new artifacts. The process that the study followed included problem identification and motivation, the definition of the objectives for the solutions, design, and development, demonstration and evaluation, and lastly, communication. The researchers also use table and color variations to present and compare the results.  The author applies scientific methodology in the research as well as the presentation of results. “The   Design   Science   Research (DSR) methodology (Hevner et al., 2004) focuses on the development of a new artifact. It is particularly suitable for research on the process assessment discipline (1051). In the result section, the author mentions, “In this section,  we present the exhaustive result of applying the “Path  Prerequisites”  algorithm on the ISR3M maturity model. Table 7 provides all the required CO to achieve the target set given in Table 6 (1052)”. The scholars rightfully apply scientific methodologies and techniques in the research process and result presentation building on the credibility of the paper to the science community and scholars.

Presentation

In this research paper, the writers use official scientific report formats to make their information risk management experiments and theories more reliable and more specialized, such as to add to the research of their peers on the Maturation Model. This expectation may bring the issue of information systems risk management to more peer attention as the journal was found at a big computer science setting. Scientific journals must be as these expert charts, experimentations, and article structures make it easier to convince readers to follow and trust the writers. As an example, the authors write, to precise, each criterion has a score in the range beyond a, B, and C. It depends on the development of the standard. This set of scores provides the complete maturity score of the functional area. Also, the focus area measures are well-defined using dependencies; for example, some criteria do not receive a score V except when the other means have reached absolute values. The exceptional layout and precise wording give the audience a simple understanding of the concept. More importantly, there are different headings to differentiate the parts from processes. The author also used italics and boldface to grab the reader’s attention. That’s an intelligent design.

In my opinion, the author utilizes this method to meet the publishing requirements because the journal is published in an expert setting. Also, they might similarly apply formats to meet audience prospects. The audience wants to research and examine the “secrets” of the information system risk management maturity improvement program, and the author can help the audience find the information they expect.

Development of Ideas

Definition

Since this is a professional research paper in the computer science field, authors define a couple of professional terms that audiences may not be familiar with. Those definitions layout an excellent foundation to help the audience understand the main ideas. For instance, at the beginning of this research paper, the author pointed out an unfamiliar word and then explained it. “We propose an algorithm called “Path Prerequisites” to help users define a graduate improvement plan, smoothly and efficiently, from a given maturity level to a target one, while handling criteria dependencies constraints.”  Other than that, one example is on page 1052, “Risk management can be defined as the set of coordinated activities to lead and control an organization toward risk” (ISO, 2009b). Moreover, IS risk management is an ongoing business of identifying and mitigating risks (Alter and Sherer, 2004). Using different types of definition offer the audience a better understanding of the terms.

Division/classification

Division, as a rhetorical strategy, takes one great concept and divides it into some small parts. By using this strategy, audiences can easily focus on their piece and create new insights, even if the topic is complex to read. For example, authors divide design science process analysis into six phases, Phase1; Problem identification and motivation, phase2; Define the objectives for a solution, phase3; Design and development, phase4 and 5; Demonstration and Evaluation, phase6; Communication (1050). For each part, audiences can know what they do and which strategy they use in each part. Importantly, audiences are easily able to remember every phase since they focus on those divisions while reading. Moreover, while dividing one science process into small parts, authors can write details about the process and provide new insight into a new way that they might consider.

Process analysis

I believe the most prominent rhetorical approach in this paper is the process analysis. Process analysis is a systematic analysis of what and how one knows, thinks, and feels. When letting the audience know the experimental process, the author used different charts to analyze the experiment process and used words to make the viewer easily understand what the algorithm is and how does it operate. The foremost process analysis involves how the working system works. The author combines expectation words and diagrams to show the reader how different working systems interact. Process analysis addresses the current occurrences and interactions between infrastructure, strategies, and environment in the complex work system. Even so, the claims are sometimes too abstract, but the appearance of relevant diagrams makes the whole process clearer and more vivid. Then, the focus area model is analyzed.

The information risk management algorithm can be classified into four steps, as shown in the chart above (Fig 2):

1. Identification and scope;
2. Identify critical areas, competences, dependencies, and positional proficiencies in the matrix; 3. Create assessment tools and determine the improvement measures
3. Implemented the maturity model, iterated the improvement matrix, and conveyed the outcomes.

Every step has a comprehensive analysis of the experimental data table. Also, there is an inclusive flow diagram. Put it all together, and the audience will know what is happening. There are numerous other instances of process analysis, along with charts in this editorial. The author includes process analysis since an excellent process analysis must show all the necessary experimental steps of the author, which ensures that the audience captures all the empirical content in the right order. As with all good writing, a research essay must have a theme that tells the reader the prominence of the process. A comprehensive process analysis provides the reader with a deep insight into how the author does something and the effectiveness and implication of the effort. I think the author’s use of process analysis with diagrams is the right choice.

Conclusion

In short, this research paper is a very professional source as it possesses both expert content and expert writing. A “path premise” algorithm is proposed, which proves that this algorithm is the best-suited maturity design for risk management maturity valuation of information systems centered on the focus area theory. I believe the process examination or analysis approach was active as the author combined visuals as well as data tables with word examination to give the audience an intense experience of the whole experiment. This approach not only catches the audience’s attention in the entire process but also enhances the consistency and persuasiveness of the editorial. If the author can add some real applications, so much the better. For example, add a case of a “Path prerequisite” algorithm executing in the corporation and collect data that it has worked on specific events for a year or more; then, utilize the facts to substantiate the concept. This is just my recommendation; this editorial is still a leading scientific article.