SWOT Analysis And Strategy Formulation For Catering Services R Us

CSRU would like to use the services of Business Requirements Analysts (you) to help them understand the current state of their business and explore a viable technology solution. Your objective is to conduct some independent research on the topic and the domain under study. There are two tasks:
1. Modelling task. Based on your student number, you must choose a modelling technique/approach to be used in your submission. the case study and explore it in depth. Finally, create a model that illustrates and explains the (wisely) selected aspect of the case. 
2. Propose an approach to requirements elicitation. To do this, you need to suggest a technology solution, identify end users and propose an approach to gathering users’ requirements. 

In the process, use information extracted from the case study description and make assumptions if you need additional details. Document your assumptions.How to choose one specific technique/approach for modelling the case Use one specific technique, which is to be chosen from the following list based on your Deakin student number. Your student number is in the following form Depending on the last two digits of your student number (X and Y) you have a choice of one of two modelling approaches.
X Technique/approach
1 Current SWOT analysis and strategy formulation (Week 2)
2 Stakeholder chart and importance-influence chart (Week 3)  
3 House of quality (Week 4)
4 Use cases diagram and event flow description for one complex use case (Week 5)   
5 Use cases diagram and sequence diagram for one complex use case (Weeks 5 and 6)    
6 Domain class diagram (Week 6) 
7 BPM using BPMN 2.0 (Week 7)
8 Business opportunities matrix (Week 8)
9 Develop eight user stories with themes and epics (Week 9)  
0 Develop and evaluate four user stories using INVEST (Week 10)

The proposal should outline an approach to collecting and eliciting users’ requirements in undertaking the business analysis exercise for CSRU. The proposal should include the following aspects: 
• Name and describe the proposed technology solution for Mark and Caroline 
• Identify the users of the proposed system and their characteristics 
• Describe and justify a method (or a mix of methods) to collect and elicit their requirements 
• Highlight potential requirements elicitation issues and how to overcome. 

Model being Developed for the Selected Aspect of the Case

In context to the case study of Catering Services R Us (CSRU), the Current SWOT analysis and strategy formulation has been chosen as the modelling approach based on the student number. The organization is a catering company that consists of 50 employees owned by Mark Harper and Caroline Harper. CSRU mainly caters 150 business functions as well as private parties having 20 to 200 each. The main aspect that has been identified in the case study is that a technology solution have to be implemented in the business for supporting the ordering as well as buying process. The implementation of the technology solution can be implemented only after current SWOT analysis and strategy formulation. Hence the selected aspect of the case can be explained well with the help of SWOT analysis on the organization.

 SWOT analysis and strategy formulation: SWOT analysis comprises of determining the objective behind a business project or even a project as well as identification of the various factors (internal or external) that may be favorable or unfavorable for achieving the determined objective. This analysis helps in development of a strong strategy for business by considering the strengths, weaknesses as well as opportunities and threats that may be faced by the business in marketplace.

1.1 Model being developed for the selected aspect of the case

The SWOT analysis in context to the case of Catering Services R Us (CSRU) has been prepared as below: 

                                                   SWOT analysis for Catering Services R Us (CSRU)

 Explanation on the selected aspect of the case

The SWOT analysis has been carried out on the case study as explained below:

Strengths

• Strong relationships
• Excellent staff
• Superior service offerings
• High customer loyalty
• Limited start-up risk

Weaknesses

• Miscalculation of business plan
• Struggle to build brand equity
• Limited marketing budget

Opportunities

• Growth in market
• Increasing demand
• Freedom to develop service
• Implementation of change

Threats

• Existence of bigger companies
• Costs of training
• Change in regulation
• Increase in price units

2. Approach to requirements elicitation

2.1 Proposed technology solution for Mark and Caroline

The technology that is being proposed for Mark and Caroline in context to the Catering Services R Us is a Catering business management system which will cater the business needs of the organization. The proposed system will help the organization to cost, plan, monitor and order for a quality service. This system can be used to manage client events, employee time cards, invoicing, and billing.

The primary point of the framework is to give benefit savvy security to the clients. This framework will give great and effective data and subsequently making the administration more astute. It is an interface for clients to peruse the administrations and book on the web (Fleischmann et al. 2014). Utilizing the energy of Internet various intrigue gatherings can arrange with finish security and control. The providing food administration framework will keep up and handle all kind of data relating to the request sort alternatives control the life cycle of a request. It gives a conclusion to end answer for offer and oversee. By taking after this new approach the data can be gotten to from anyplace just with a mouse click. This helps the clients by sparing parcel of time and furnishing the client with progressive data.

SWOT analysis and strategy formulation

2.2 Users of the proposed system and their characteristics

The users of the proposed system along with their characteristics are listed in the table as below:

2.3 Description and justification of method(s) to collect and elicit their requirements

Requirements are a standout amongst the most essential pieces to guaranteeing the accomplishment of a framework or project. To guarantee the ideal necessities are gotten, the techniques in which those prerequisites are acquired are similarly imperative. Poor prerequisites significantly affect the final products of frameworks or activities (Yamaguchi et al. 2016). Necessities are the "diagrams" that everybody required on the project uses to work from.

At the point when there are poor prerequisites, this can prompt poor plans and tests, which thusly will cause delays being developed and testing. The prerequisites must be overhauled; henceforth, these postpones add to a late project. Poor item quality can come about because of poor prerequisites in circumstances where key parts are disregarded and forgotten inside and out. Testing is likewise organized to concentrate on that is vital. Besides that the necessities are imperfect or vague, testing is not legitimately executed and will inevitably prompt low quality (Randell et al. 2014). To stay away from poor prerequisites, it is profoundly essential that the examination period of the SDLC is altogether finished, without being ignored.

The examination stage can be broken into to two procedures: prerequisite assembling and breaking down the necessities. Prerequisites, thusly, are separated into practical necessities and non-utilitarian necessities. Useful prerequisites are characterized as procedures, data, and communications (Rais and Pecinovsky 2015). These are the coveted usefulness that the customer needs assembled and portray the connection between the framework and its condition. Utilitarian prerequisites for the most part depict what the framework needs to do. Non-utilitarian prerequisites are nonfunctional attributes that address operational and specialized necessities. The methods that can be used for collecting and elicitation of the user’s requirements are as below:

One-on-One Interviews: One-on-one meetings are the most well-known system for social affair necessities, and additionally one of the essential wellsprings of prerequisites. To help get the most out of a meeting, they ought to be well thoroughly considered and arranged before sitting with the interviewee (Wiegers and Beatty 2013). The expert ought to recognize partners to be met. These can be clients who associate with the present or new framework, administration, extend financers or any other individual that would be included in the framework. While setting up a meeting is it vital to ask open-finished inquiries, and in addition shut finished inquiries. Open-finished inquiries for the most part help in getting profitable data, in light of different people and the way the diverse way they interface with, or see, the framework.

Users of the Proposed System and their Characteristics

Group Interviews: Group interviews are like one-on-one meeting, aside from there is more than one individual being met. Gather interviews function admirably when the interviewees are at a similar level or position. A gathering meeting likewise has leeway when there is a period limitation (Smith, Ugolini and Neri 2014). More considerations and exchange can be created, as somebody in the gathering may state or recommend a thought that may have been disregarded by others, which thus can prompt a talk or give more data on a specific issue. The questioner can gage which issues are all the more for the most part settled upon, and which will be which issues vary. A noteworthy inconvenience can be booking the meeting.

Questionnaires/Surveys: Questionnaires or surveys enable an investigator to gather data from many individuals in moderately short measure of time. This is particularly useful when partners are spread out geologically, or there are dozen to several respondents whose information will be expected to help set up framework necessities (Mitakides, Spanoudakis and Delias 2015). When utilizing questionnaires, the inquiries ought to be engaged and composed by an element or venture objective. Surveys ought to be not be too long, to guarantee that clients will finish them.

User Observation: The direct methodologies of talking and questionnaires give profitable client input in view of the inquiries asked of them; be that as it may, there are times when coordinate perception might be more qualified in necessity gathering. To show signs of improvement comprehension of a client in their in current workplace, the investigator may watch the client themselves (Castro, Kolp and Mylopoulos 2013).

Client perception is useful in helping the expert by getting a full handle of how the client associates with the framework, firsthand. At the point when the goal is to enhance an undertaking, the expert can watch the client and how their environment influence their association with the framework. Client perception may likewise be valuable in approving information that had been already gathered (Kikushima 2016). Be it in situations where clients give misdirecting data, or cannot completely recall the majority of their undertakings by the way they utilize the framework.

Client perception ought to be wanted to guarantee that all components are consistent encompassing the perception. This will aid vulnerability, and the expert can concentrate on the client and help with recognizing what to search for. The expert will not be occupied and record, or note, unessential issues (Frank 2013). The more helpful data assembled, the less time it will take to the expert to dismember and assess a short time later.

Methods for Collecting and Eliciting User Requirements

An agenda can give to be helpful, with key focuses officially noted and the advisor checking occasions on their rundown. For instance, they can check if a client uses certain elements, the recurrence of occasions, triggers that cause distinctive employments. Taking point by point notes is useful in recording unforeseen occasions. There might be occasions obscure to the expert early, they can be caught by taking notes of the occasion and why it happened (Niu et al. 2014). Video recorders might be utilized, however should dependably be endorsed with the client and their organization.

2.4 Potential requirements elicitation issues and resolution

2.4.1 Potential issues in requirements elicitation

The list of common requirements elicitation problems have been classified as below:

Problems of scope: The limit of the framework is badly characterized, so that pointless outline data might be given, or vital plan data forgotten. Necessities elicitation must start with an authoritative and setting examination to decide the limit of the objective framework and in addition the goals of the framework. Less yearning elicitation procedures, not completely tending to this worry, risk delivering necessities which are fragmented and possibly unusable, on the grounds that they do not hold fast to the client's or associations actual objectives for the framework (Cox 2016). Playing out an authoritative and setting investigation enables these objectives to be caught, and afterward later used to confirm that the necessities are to be sure usable and right. Elicitation systems can be overambitious too.

Elicitation must concentrate on the formation of necessities and not plan exercises with a specific end goal to sufficiently address clients' worries. Elicitation systems which deliver prerequisites as abnormal state plans risk making necessities which are uncertain to the client group (Westfall 2014). These necessities may not be evident by the clients since they do not sufficiently comprehend the plan dialect. Likewise, prerequisites communicated as a plan are considerably more prone to join extra choices not reflecting client or support needs, i.e., the prerequisites would not be exact and important.

Problems of understanding: Clients have fragmented comprehension of their needs; investigators have poor learning of the issue area; client and expert talk distinctive dialects (truly or allegorically); "self-evident" data might be excluded; diverse clients may have clashing necessities or view of their needs; prerequisites are frequently ambiguously communicated, e.g., "easy to use" or "hearty". Issues of comprehension amid elicitation can prompt necessities which are equivocal, fragmented, conflicting, and even mistaken in light of the fact that they do not address the prerequisites elicitation partners' actual needs (Ariaeinejad et al. 2016). Absence of client info emerges when clients are not completely mindful of their needs or cannot impart them.

Common Problems in Requirement Elicitation

It additionally emerges when examiners and engineers neglect to ask the important inquiries. At the point when a framework should be characterized, a progression of addressing should be held comprising of partners. These partners incorporate customers, clients, programming engineers, framework investigators, area specialists, and chiefs and so on. It has been expected that having more number of individuals in a meeting helps refining the framework necessities and conceptualizing turns out to be much compelling and less demanding. Be that as it may, there is one potential issue having more partners in a meeting (Becker et al. 2016). The dialect boundary is thought to be a noteworthy issue. At the point when there is no appropriate regular convention to convey the entire motivation behind getting together is conquered.

Problems of volatility: Requirements develop after some time, either in view of changing needs or due to changing observations by the partners. One essential driver of prerequisites instability is that "client needs advance after some time". The necessities designing procedure of evoking, indicating, and approving ought not to be executed just once amid framework advancement, but instead ought to be come back to so that the prerequisites can mirror the new information picked up amid determination, approval and resulting exercises (Fosso Wamba 2016).

A necessities designing philosophy ought to be iterative in nature, "with the goal that arrangements can be revised in the light of expanded learning". Another reason for prerequisites unpredictability is that the necessities are the result of the commitments of numerous people, and these people frequently have clashing requirements and objectives. For instance, there is regularly more than one client, with every client having diverse and frequently opposing perspectives and interests.

Unpredictability additionally emerges when customers or clients do not completely comprehend the capacities and points of confinement of the innovation being advertised. They regularly have unlikely desires of either the usefulness that can be given, or of the time scale in which the framework can be produced (Langer 2016). In the event that these desires are not remedied as ahead of schedule as conceivable in the elicitation procedure, the particular will consolidate them and should be changed later, at significant cost.

2.4.2 Solutions to resolve the issues

The potential issues associated with requirements elicitation can be resolved by the implementing the following techniques as below:

Provide training sessions: To maintain a strategic distance from the issues of "absence of client information" and poor client understanding, toward the start of necessities elicitation, partners should be prepared or educated about the engineers' aptitudes, computational capacities, the earth under which designers and different partners will work and what designers can offer to the clients (Wiegers and Beatty 2013). This significantly decreases the issue of farfetched desires concerning usefulness and due dates.

Recording of keywords: Numerous framework improvement disappointments happen in light of the fact that the clients cannot characterize their necessities absolutely, or on the grounds that designers and area specialists miss "self-evident" words that contribute basically to framework prerequisites. These issues can be maintained a strategic distance from to a great extent by recording every watchword talked by every partner (Mitakides, Spanoudakis and Delias 2015). Partners will likewise list catchphrases on a layout frame with various segments for each class of keywords.

Mapping of keywords: Notwithstanding framing operational definitions, watchword mapping procedure will generally maintain a strategic distance from the issue of missing "self-evident" data, which later may explode to a phase where framework improvement must be halted.

Operational definition extraction: In view of the keywords utilized by the partners, space specialists can remove each one of those keywords that are particular to the area. At last shape an operational definitions in light of them (Frank 2013). Once these definitions about the needs and needs are encircled deliberately, designers recognize what they ought to do which by executing the all-around characterized particulars will fulfill the clients.

References

Ariaeinejad, M., Archer, N., Stacey, M., Rapanos, T., Elias, F. and Naji, F., 2016, July. User-Centered Requirements Analysis and Design Solutions for Chronic Disease Self-management. In International Conference on HCI in Business, Government and Organizations (pp. 3-15). Springer International Publishing.

Becker, T., Curry, E., Jentzsch, A. and Palmetshofer, W., 2016. Cross-sectorial Requirements Analysis for Big Data Research. In New Horizons for a Data-Driven Economy (pp. 263-276). Springer International Publishing.

Castro, J., Kolp, M. and Mylopoulos, J., 2013. A requirements-driven development methodology. In Seminal contributions to information systems engineering (pp. 265-280). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Cox, K., 2016. Strategic Requirements Analysis: From Interviews to Models. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

Fleischmann, A., Schmidt, W., Stary, C., Obermeier, S. and Brger, E., 2014. Subject-oriented business process management. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.

Fosso Wamba, S., 2016. Relative Importance of Key Requirements of Business Analytics 3.0.: An Empirical Study. Browser Download This Paper.

Frank, U., 2013. Domain-specific modeling languages: requirements analysis and design guidelines. In Domain Engineering (pp. 133-157). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Kikushima, Y., 2016, December. A Digital Business Analysis Method. In Requirements Engineering Toward Sustainable World: Third Asia-Pacific Symposium, APRES 2016, Nagoya, Japan, November 10-12, 2016, Proceedings (Vol. 671, p. 123). Springer.

Langer, A.M., 2016. Assessing Business Requirements. In Guide to Software Development (pp. 21-36). Springer London.

Mitakides, N., Spanoudakis, N. and Delias, P., 2015, May. Validating Business Requirements Using MAS Analysis Models. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 1693-1694). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.

Niu, N., Da Xu, L., Cheng, J.R.C. and Niu, Z., 2014. Analysis of architecturally significant requirements for enterprise systems. IEEE Systems Journal, 8(3), pp.850-857.

Rais, A.A. and Pecinovský, R., 2015, November. Interface-based software requirements analysis. In Federated Conference on Software Development and Object Technologies (pp. 302-310). Springer International Publishing.

Randell, A., Spellman, E., Ulrich, W. and Wallk, J., 2014. Leveraging Business Architecture to Improve Business Requirements Analysis. Business Architecture Guild Whitepaper.

Smith, E., Ugolini, M. and Neri, A., 2014, November. The business requirements and technical fabric for the Smart City. In Euro Med Telco Conference (EMTC), 2014 (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Westfall, L., 2014. What, Why, Who, When, and How of Software Requirements. In Handbook of Research on Emerging Advancements and Technologies in Software Engineering (pp. 1-18). IGI Global.

Wiegers, K. and Beatty, J., 2013. Software requirements. Pearson Education.

Yamaguchi, I., Furukawa, M., Aoyama, M. and Kikushima, Y., 2016. A Digital Business Analysis Method: A Business Requirements Engineering Process by the Cooperation of Management, Business Operation and IT Department. In Requirements Engineering Toward Sustainable World: Third Asia-Pacific Symposium, APRES 2016, Nagoya, Japan, November 10-12, 2016, Proceedings 3 (pp. 123-131). Springer Singapore.