Multi Profile Company

Assessment Brief : SBM4303 Enterprise Architecture Trimester 1, 2021 Assessment Overview Assessment 1: Case Study Due date: Week 5 Group/individual: Group Word count / Time provided: 3500 Weighting: 30% (Report: 25% Presentation: 5% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3 Assessment Details: This case study will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 con tents) 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, Assessment Task Type Weighting Due Length ULO Assessment 1: Case Study Propose EA artifacts, taxonomy of documentations that to be delivered for a particular case study. In addition, to discuss the operating model and types of IT initiatives. Group 30% (Report: 25% Presentation: 5% Week 5 3500 words (report and power point slides with embedded audio) ULO -1 ULO -2 ULO -3 Assessment 2: Report Write a report to examine the architecture function of a specific organisation and determining the operating model for a multi -profile company. The repo rt should also cover the core concepts of data and information architecture and evaluate existing data and information architecture designs, continuity plans in the context of EA and role of audit and compliance standards in EA (details in the Assessment B rief). Individual 40 % Week 12 36 00 words ULO -3 ULO -4 ULO -5 ULO -6 Assessment 3: Quiz Every quiz will be conducted based on the teaching and learning materials covered in previous two weeks , for an example, quiz 1 in week 3 will be based on week 1 and week 2 teaching and learning materials (details in the Assessment Brief). Individual 30 % Week 2, 4, 6, 8 & 10 30 Minutes for each quiz ULO -1 ULO -2 ULO -3 ULO -4 ULO -5 ULO -6 and in the discussion forums. Th e 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 ULO4. The case study will be c ompleted and submitted in week 5. Case Study: Data#10 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 relativ e underinvestment in IT, which has certain implications for both its IT landscape and respective management practices. On the one hand, Data#10 ’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 i nvestments in IT are viewed by business mostly as a means to reduce costs of the existing operations. Data#10 has a centralized IT department headed by the CIO and responsible for developing and supporting information systems for all its business units. Th e IT department employs around 140 specialists and consists of three main functions: architecture, development and service. The architecture function includes a few architects focused predominantly on specific IT solutions. Data#10 previously tried to upli ft 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 effor t to evolve Data#10 ’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 consis ting of four architects specialized in different subject areas. This consulting team acted according to a detailed engagement plan agreed with Data#10 ’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 -4 months, analyzed the organization, interviewed numerous stakeholders and developed all the EA artifacts specified in the plan. Specifically, they started from analyzing Data#10 in terms of current and desir ed 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 port folios and created more detailed CRUD (c reate, read, update and delete ) relationship matrices. 1. Develop a comprehensive roadmap specifying what projects should be executed in the next 12 months. The order of execution is very important, therefore you are a lso required to develop a timeline the 12 months. 2. Based on your road map, discuss 4 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in first 2-3 months. State 2 reasons why you have chosen to implement the 4 (four) EA artifacts 3. Discuss 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10. 4. Discuss 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in Data#10. 5. Discuss the operating m odel that you will implement in Data#10 and why you have chosen the operating model. 6. Discuss the roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA? 7. Discuss 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered very important to Data#10’s EA Marking Information: The case study will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark. 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 12 months 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 so lutions, examines the EA clearly All the problems are clearly identified, provided excellent solutions and EA very clearly. Q2 (10% marks) 4 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in 2 -3 months discussed and stated 2 reasons why implementation of the 4 (four) EA artifacts important in the first 2 - 3 months but not properly discussed. 4 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in 2-3 months discussed and stated 2 reasons why implementation of the 4 (four) EA artifacts important in the first 2 - 3 months but details missing 5 4 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in 2 -3 months discussed and stated 2 reasons why implementation of the 4 (four) EA artifacts important in the first 2 - 3 months presented in detail. 4 key EA artifacts that would be deliver ed in 2-3 months discussed and stated 2 reasons why implementation of the 4 (four) EA artifacts important in the first 2 - 3 months presented in detail, comprehensively examine the relation of EA 4 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in 2 - 3 months dis cussed and stated 2 reasons why implementation of the 4 (four) EA artifacts important in the first 2 - 3 months presented in detail, very comprehensively examine the relation of EA Q3 (10% marks 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10 discussed but lots of missing information 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10 but details missing 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10 discussed in details. 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10 comprehensively examine the relation of EA 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10 discussed in details, very comprehensively examine the relation of EA Q4 (10% marks 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in Data#10 discussed but lots of missing information 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in Data#10 but details missing 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in Data#10 discussed in details. 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in Data#10 comprehensively examine the relation of EA 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in Data#10 discussed in details, very comprehensively examine the relation of EA Q5 (10% marks Operating model that that the group will implement in Data#10 and why the group has chosen the operating model discussed but lots of missing information Operating model that that the group will implement in Data#10 and why the group has chosen the operating model discussed but few details missing Operating model that that the group will implement in Data#10 and why the group has chosen the operating model discussed in detail. Operating model that that the group will implement in Data#10 and why the group has chosen the operating model discussed and comprehensively examine the relation of EA Operating model that that the group will implement in Data#10 and why the group has chosen the operating model discussed in details, very comprehensively examine the relation of EA Q6 (10% marks Roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA not properly discussed Roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA identified properly, but missing points Roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA properly discuss ed, provided Roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA discussed and detailed explanation. Roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA discussed and with excellent explanation. Q7 (10% marks 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered very important to Data#10’s EA discussed but with wrong information 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered very important to Data#10’s EA discussed but with missing information 5 types of IT initiatives tha t you have considered very important to Data#10’s EA discussed with good information 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered very important to Data#10’s EA discussed with excellent information 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered v ery important to Data#10’s EA discussed with comprehensive and excellent information Structure, grammar, presentation and Harvard style referencing (10% marks). Paper is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. Inclu de few references without following Harvard style reference guidelines or no reference. Paper shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; t echnical terms are generally are poorly defined. Includes Few references with errors. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorl y defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. All references cited correctly using citation style with some minor errors. Paper is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear. All references cited correctly using citation style. Paper is coherently organized and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Presentation slides Visual Appeal (4% marks) There are too many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. The slides were difficult to read, and slides contained information copied onto them from another source. No visual appeal. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information was contained on many slides. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much information on more than three or more slides. Presentation has good visual appeal. There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Too much info rmation on two or more slides. Presentation has significant visual appeal. There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Presentation is visually appealing/engaging Presentation topic knowledge/ con tent (4% marks ) Presenters did not understand topic. The presentation was a brief look at the topic, but many questions were left unanswered. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out. The presentation was informative, but sever al elements went unanswered. Much of the information irrelevant; coverage of some of major points. The presentation was a good summary of the topic. Major information covered; presentation contain some irrelevant information. The presentation was a very good summary of the topic. Almost all -important information covered; presentation contain little irrelevant information. Presentation was excellent and shows extensive knowledge of topic with comprehensive and complete coverage of information. Presentation skills (5% marks) Unsatisfactory presentation with no clarity, appropriate pause, intonation and is not capable to engage listeners. Satisfactory presentation with some clarity and pause. Good presentation with clarity and pause in majority of speech. Very good presentation with clarity and pause and able to engage listeners for most of the time. Excellent presentation with clarity, pause, intonation and is capable to engage listeners all the time. Assessment 2: Report Due date: Week 12 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 36 00 words Weighting: 40% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO -3, ULO -4, ULO -5 Assessment Details: This assessment is designed to assess develop your skills in Enterprise Architecture (EA). You are required to develop knowledge on EA methodology, EA Framework, data model and emerging EA. In completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to kn ow major widely accepted Enterprise Architecture (EA) domains, layers, frameworks and governance , which will help in achieving ULO -3, ULO -4, and ULO -5. Report: Part -I (Case Study) InnoTech is a large steel manufacturing company established several decades ago. Historically, InnoTech grew largely via mergers and acquisitions of smaller companies occupying adjacent or complementary market niches and underwent a number of corporate restructurings. Presently, at the highest level the company is split into two major divisions: Division Alpha and Division Beta. Both divisions are governed from the lean central head office and report their quarterly financial indicators to top business executives for their consideration. However, operationally these divisions repr esent essentially independent businesses with non -overlapping suppliers, products, customers and markets. Each division is managed by an appointed executive director reporting directly to C -level corporate leadership. Divisions are free to set their own ag endas, pursue their own competitive strategies and make their own investment decisions, though major investments must seek approval at the corporate level. Division Alpha is an established and large -scale, but highly centralized manufacturing shop. It spec ializes on fabricating a single line of products, which are distributed directly to a narrow circle of wholesale customers over stable supply chain network arrangements. The division has a rather conservative IT investment strategy intended primarily to ac hieve better automation of existing operations and enable smooth, uninterrupted and efficient business processes. It has a central division -wide IT department employing around 150 -180 in -house specialists and also involving about 100 -120 external contracto rs working on a full -time basis. The IT department is responsible for providing necessary IT support across all activities of Division Alpha’s value chain, e.g. production, warehousing, sales and delivery as well as various supporting activities including HR, finance and legal services. Division Beta has a more complex, dynamic and diversified business model. It offers three core lines of products focused largely on different market segments and customer groups. These product lines require substantially different manufacturing processes, distribution channels, sales approaches and marketing campaigns. However, all products are fabricated from similar raw materials and components procured from the same suppliers. Moreover, customer bases of t hese products also partially overlap, and the department’s leadership is planning to leverage cross -selling opportunities more actively in the future. Organizationally, Division Beta is structured into three major units aligned to its three product lines a nd an additional supporting unit providing shared division -wide services to the main business, e.g. HR, finance, accounting and IT. Its IT department employs around 450 -500 IT staff qualified in different technologies used in the division’s IT landscape. T o accommodate with the quickly changing market conditions, Division Beta invests a significant share of its profits in new IT systems and infrastructure. It has an aggressive IT investment strategy aimed at enabling innovative ways of working. Questions 1. Ho w many architects does the InnoTech need s for each of the positions described above ? Provide detailed explanation to justify the needs. 2. Discuss 5 (five) major general skills requirements for architecture positions 3. Describe 5 role of the Architecture Manage r in Innotech Report : Part -II (Determining the Operating Model of a Multi -Profile Company ) ComTech is a diversified, multi -profile company. Essentially, it is a conglomerate company consisting of three diverse strategic units acting as independent busines ses under separate brands in different industry sectors: Unit Alpha, Unit Beta and Unit Gamma. ComTech is governed from the central head office, which oversights the three subsidiary business units and their financial performance indicators, though without any operational interventions. Each strategic business unit has its own managing director with full discretion and responsibility over its competitive strategy, investment priorities, budget allocation and ensuing yearly profits. Unit Alpha is in the food manufacturing business. The unit produces and distributes a variety of goods including, but not limited to, vegetables, groceries, meat and dairy products. Each of these product lines requires unique production processes, storage arrangements, transportat ion approaches and underlying equipment and is organizationally implemented by a separate specialized product department. However, these products are delivered largely to the same circle of customers, including both major retailers and local food shops. Al l product lines are also served by a number of common unit -wide functions, e.g. HR, finance, accounting, logistics, legal, marketing and sales support. Unit Beta competes in the restaurant business. Specifically, the unit controls a chain of small fast - foo d restaurants occupying the low -cost market niche. In total, the chain includes more than 80 restaurants located in different geographies and more restaurants are planned to be opened in the foreseeable future. All restaurants offer same interiors, menus, prices, meals and services to their customers and imply standardized policies, working procedures and supporting equipment. However, each restaurant is run separately by a chief manager responsible for its overall financial well -being and all necessary bus iness processes, e.g. recruiting, training, procurement, cooking, servicing, cleaning and complaints management. With the exception of Unit Beta’s lean central office, where chain -wide branding, marketing and other strategic decisions are made, the restaur ants operate independently from each other and even have their own profit and loss statements. Finally, Unit Gamma runs a chain of resort hotels. These hotels gravitate towards the high -end price segment and offer premium -quality services to their customer s. Unit Gamma’s competitive strategy implies improving its brand recognition and achieving consistent customer experience. For this purpose, the unit’s leadership plans to standardize all customer -facing and, to a lesser extent, back - office processes acros s all hotels of the chain as well as all its suppliers and service providers. Moreover, Unit Gamma also intends to become “closer” to its customers and build lifelong customer relationships. This strategy requires collecting more information about customer s, their individual preferences and transaction histories, aggregating this information globally and leveraging it for providing customized services, launching loyalty programs, developing special offers and promoting personalized discounts. Questions 1. What is an operating model of ComTech on each of its three strategic business units? 2. What business processes are standardized ComTech within each of its business units? 3. What specific types of data are integrated across ComTech within each of its business units? 4. What is the highest -level structure of the IT landscape in ComTech in each of its business units? 5. Recommend operating model that should be implement in ComTech. Provide 3 reasons for your recommendation Report : Part -III MoneyInvectors is a mid -size financial company. 5 years ago MoneyInvectors decided to establish a full -fledged EA practice to accommodate with the growing problems around non -transparency of its IT investments and poor business and IT alignment in general. The establishment of EA practice was successful and it was completed last 2 year. Due to recent advancement in technologies, MoneyInvectors wants to implement Big Data technologies that would empower their staff and customers for example, impleme ntation of a nalytical Big Data Technologies would enable MoneyInvestors staff to approve credit card application within 30 minutes of the submission of the application. However, MoneyInvectors ’s CIO is pretty skeptical towards the implementation of Big Dat a technologies . He believes that the company is only wasting money on the Big Data technologies as it is essentially nothing more than a sophisticated collection of data. As a newly promoted IT manager at MoneyInvestors, you are required to write a report that discusses the following: 1. 5 (five) major difference between Big Data and EA . 2. 5 (five) challenges that MoneyInvestors may have with implantation of Big Data Technologies and how the challenges should be resolved . 3. 5 (five) major difference between Big Data and Ordinary Data . 4. 5 (five) ways that MoneyInvestors would benefits from Big Data disruptive technologies implementation . 5. What do you under with the term ‘ cloud computing ’? Discuss the important of cloud computing in Enterprise architecture. Marki ng Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100% and will be weighted 40 % of the total unit mark 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 Report Part -I: Case Study (15 % marks) Not identifying the problems, provided solution is very weak. Problems are identified very briefly, provided solution is acceptable but details missing, briefly examine the EA Most of the problems are identified, provide good solutions, examine the EA but major points are missing All the problems are identified, provides very good solutions, examines the EA clear ly All the problems are clearly identified, provided excellent solutions and EA very clearly Report Part -II: (30 % marks) Questions on Report Part II is p oorly examine in the relation of EA Questions on Report Part II is answered but details missing, com parison presented briefly, very briefly examine the relation of EA Questions on Report Part II is adequately addressed , comparison presented in detail, briefly examine the relation of EA Shows sound knowledge on Operating model identification, comparison presented in detail, comprehensively examine the relation of EA Shows full knowledge on Operating model identification, comparison presented in detail, very comprehensively examine the relation of EA Report Part -III: (30% marks) Big data, cloud computing not discussed properly, Provide wrong solutions Big data, cloud computing discussed but missing points More than adequate design, most of the solutions are properly, provided Comprehensive analysis of situation and Provide correc t solutions with explanation. Comprehensive analysis of situation and Provide correct solutions with excellent explanation. Structure, grammar, presentation and Harvard style referencing (10% marks). The report is poorly organized and difficult to read – does not flow logically from one part to another. There are several spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms may not be defined or are poorly defined. Writing lacks clarity and conciseness. Include few references without following Harvard style reference guidelines or no reference. The report shows some organization. At times, difficult to read and does not flow logically from one part to another. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Includes Few references with errors. The report is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are some spelling and/or grammatical errors; technical terms are generally are poorly defined. Writing is mostly clear but may lack conciseness. All references cited correctly u sing citation style with some minor errors. The report is generally well organized and most of the argument is easy to follow. There are only a few minor spelling or grammatical errors, or terms are not clearly defined. Writing is mostly clear. All refere nces cited correctly using citation style. The report is coherently organized and the logic is easy to follow. There are no spelling or grammatical errors and terminology is clearly defined. Writing is clear and concise and persuasive. Harvard formatting style and citation of references in the body of the report. Assessment 3: Quiz Due date: Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 Group/individual: Individual Word count / Time provided: 30 minutes Weighting: 30% Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2 , ULO -3, ULO -4, ULO -5 Ass essment Details : This quiz will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1 to Week 10 contents) and to identify further support needs. For successful completion of the quiz, you are required to study the material provided (lecture slides, tutorials, and reading mat erials), 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 Enter prise Architecture. Marking Information : The quiz will be marked out of 100 and will be weighted 30% of the total unit mark .