Assessment Details:
This case study will assess your knowledge of key content areas and to identify further support needs. For successful completion of the case study, you are required to study the material provided (lecture slides, tutorials, and reading materials), engage in the unit’s activities, and in the discussion forums. The prescribed textbook is the main reference along with the recommended reading material. By completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to identify key aspects of information systems. This will help in achieving.
Case Study:
GovDept is a mid-size governmental department providing important services of a social nature to the population of a large territory. From the technology perspective, the organization can be considered as a late adopter of innovations and characterized by relative underinvestment in IT, which has certain implications for both its IT landscape and respective management practices. On the one hand, GovDept’s IT landscape is very heterogeneous and includes many legacy information systems and technologies some of which have been in use for decades. On the other hand, its IT-related management practices are also rather archaic. For instance, the relationships between business and IT leaders in the organization exhibit evident signs of “us and them” mentality, while new investments in IT are viewed by business mostly as a means to reduce costs of the existing operations.
GovDept has a centralized IT department headed by the CIO and responsible for developing and supporting information systems for all its business units. The IT department employs around 250 specialists and consists of three main functions: architecture, development and service. The architecture function includes a few architects focused predominantly on specific IT solutions. GovDept previously tried to uplift the maturity of its EA practice and extend the scope of architectural planning beyond separate initiatives, but these attempts did not succeed and respective architects had been made redundant.
Then, the CIO decided to undertake another deliberate effort to evolve GovDept’s EA practice with the involvement of external consultants. For this purpose, the organization engaged a rather well- known boutique EA consultancy to help initiate a full-fledged EA practice. The consultancy formed a project team consisting of four architects specialized in different subject areas. This consulting team acted according to a detailed engagement plan agreed with GovDept’s senior IT leadership. The plan stipulated in which sequence and when exactly various EA artifacts will be produced. In total, consultants worked for 2-3 months, analyzed the organization, interviewed numerous stakeholders and developed all the EA artifacts specified in the plan. Specifically, they started from analyzing GovDept in terms of current and desired maturity of its business capabilities and mapped existing applications to respective capabilities. Then, they captured all relevant data entities, documented all technologies used in the organization, depicted current and defined target application portfolios and created more detailed CRUD (create, read, update and delete) relationship matrices.
Questions
1.You are required to develop a comprehensive roadmap specifying what projects should be executed in the next 2-3 years.
2.Discuss 5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented.
3.Discuss 5 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in 2-3 months.
4.Explain the taxonomy of documentations that you will implement and why you have considered it important to GovDept.
5.Discuss the operating model that you will implement and why you have chosen the operating model.
6.Discuss the roles of standard and landscapes in implementation of GovDept’s EA?
7.Discuss 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered very important to GovDept’s EA
8.Explain considerations as EA Artifacts that will be delivered in GovDept’s EA
9.Discuss 5 subtypes of visions that you used in EA artifacts implementation.
Marking Information
|
Marking Criteria
|
Not satisfactory
(0-49%) of the criterion mark)
|
Satisfactory
(50-64%) of the criterion mark
|
Good
(65-74%) of the criterion mark
|
Very Good
(75-84%) of the criterion mark
|
Excellent
(85-100%) of the criterion mark
|
|
Case Study Q1 (20% marks)
|
Not able to develop a comprehensive roadmap specifying what projects should be executed in the next 2-3 years
|
Developed a roadmap specifying what projects should be executed in the next 2 – 3 months, provided solution is acceptable but
details missing
|
Most of the roadmap are identified but minor points are missing
|
All the road map identified, provides very good solutions, examines the EA clearly
|
All the problems are clearly identified, provided excellent solutions and EA very clearly
|
|
Q2. 5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented (15% marks)
|
5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented not identified properly.
|
5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented identified but details missing
|
5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented presented in detail.
|
5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented presented in detail, comprehensively examine the relation of EA
|
5 key roles that IT will play in the GovDept if implemented presented in detail, very comprehensively
examine the relation of EA
|
|
Q3 – Q6 (20%
marks)
|
5 key EA artifacts, taxonomy of documentations operating model, roles of standard and landscapes identified properly, provide wrong
solutions
|
5 key EA artifacts, taxonomy of documentations operating model, roles of standard and landscapes identified properly, but missing points
|
5 key EA artifacts, taxonomy of documentations operating model, roles of standard and landscapes properly, provided
|
5 key EA artifacts, taxonomy of documentations operating model, roles of standard and landscapes correct solutions with explanation.
|
Comprehensive analysis of situation and Provide correct solutions with excellent explanation.
|
