applied project

Assessment Brief: BIS2003 IS Project Management

Trimester 1, 2021

Assessment Overview

Assessment Task

Type Weighting Due Length ULO

Assessment 1: Quiz 30 minutes test comprising of multiple-choice questions

Individual 40% Weeks 1- 10

30 mins

ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 ULO-5

Assessment 2: Case Study with presentation Undertake an analysis of the case, discuss reasons for failure and propose a solution how project management techniques can solve problems.

Group

30% Week 6 3000 words

ULO-1 ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4

Assessment 3: Applied Project Apply and integrate project management concepts and tools to a specific IS development project.

Individual 30%

Week 12

3500 words

ULO-2 ULO-3 ULO-4 ULO-5

Assessment 1: Quiz

Due date: Weeks 1-10

Group/individual: Individual

Word count / Time provided: 30 minutes

Weighting: 40%

Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4, ULO-5

Assessment Details:

The weekly quizzes will assess your knowledge and understanding of key concepts in the Project

Management Knowledge Areas. For successful completion of the quiz, 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 the best project management practices. This will then help in achieving ULO1, this in turn will help

you in achieving CLO-1, which collectively with other unit learning outcomes will help in achieving

GA2.

Marking Information: The quiz will be marked out of 100 and will be weighed 40% of the total unit

mark.

Assessment 2: Case Study and Presentation

Due date: Week 6

Group/individual: Group

Word count / Time provided: 3000 words

Weighting: 30%

Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-1, ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4

SystemTech Case Study

Background

SystemTech is an Australia-based travel agency that specializes in the rental of high-quality self-

catering accommodation in Australia. For the summer months, it offers a wide selection of gîtes

(holiday cottages) and, for the winter, apartments and chalets in various ski resorts. The company was

founded by three friends who still own it, Emeka Steven, Daniel Okw and Ric Nelson, and the company

has been in business since 2000. It has grown rapidly to achieve a turnover of some AU$25.75 million

per annum and employs more than 170 staff at three offices, one in the Greater Sydney area, one in

Melbourne and one in Melbourne. SystemTech has a website, but it is not functionally effective.

SystemTech currently uses three main sales channels:

• Direct selling to customers through mailshots of its brochures and customer support centres

(60 per cent of sales).

• Sales via high street travel agents (22 per cent of sales).

• Sales via phone calls (18 per cent of sales)

However, the company is aware from press coverage and from surveys on its own customers that

there is a growing public demand to be able to book holidays via the internet. This is particularly true

as its customers are precisely the sort of people who are ‘net aware’. SystemTech does have a

website, but this is just its latest brochure in electronic format, and it does not have links to up-to-

date availability data or the facilities for customers to make secure bookings online. Consequently,

SystemTech has decided to implement a new internet-based booking system. This will be linked to its

existing computerized booking system, which contains data on the availability of properties, and to its

customer database as well as having secure links over which credit card data can be received. In

addition, the company wants its management information system (MIS) enhanced so that it can trawl

its databases and send targeted information to customers on properties that are likely to be of interest

to them.

SystemTech organization

The current organizational structure of the company is shown in Figure 1.1. The three founders have

divided the business among themselves. Emeka Steven (who has a sales background) looks after the

sales and operations side, Daniel Okw, an accountant, takes care of finance and administration and

Ric Nelson who is a lawyer and experience in IT takes care of the IT and company’s legal matters. The

small IT department within the administration function consists of the IT manager, Peter Clay, three

analyst/programmers and a computer operator/trainee programmer.

Figure 1.1 Organization of SystemTech

The project

Because of the small size of its IT department, and since the department lacks skills in the design of e-

commerce applications, SystemTech has decided to entrust the development of its internet service to

a consultancy company, Eagles iTechnology. This firm has tendered for the following services:

• Analysis of the requirements.

• Production of a detailed requirements specification.

• Design, development and implementation of the internet systems, including a new website

and secure communications links.

• Training SystemTech staff in the use of the new systems.

• Specification of the interfaces required from SystemTech’s existing customer database and

booking system (the development of the links at the SystemTech end to be done by its own IT

department).

• Specification of the additional hardware required to support the new system (to be obtained

from SystemTech’s usual suppliers, the procurement to be managed by the IT department).

• ‘Skills transfer’ to SystemTech’s IT department, so that ongoing maintenance and

development of the new system can be handled in-house. The development of the MIS

aspects of the new system will be dealt with by SystemTech’s IT department.

The date now is 1 November 2020 and SystemTech wants to have the new system up and running for

the start of the winter season’s bookings at the end of June 2021.

The internet booking project is a result of a recent strategic review of SystemTech undertaken by its senior managers – the three directors and their direct reports. The SWOT analysis showed that SystemTech has a good reputation in its marketplace and a lot of

‘brand recognition’ by its target market. However, this target market (reasonably affluent

professionals) does make extensive use of the internet and it was felt that being unable to offer this

service would increasingly become a weakness. At least one of SystemTech’s competitors already has

an internet booking service (albeit not a very good one) and others are sure to follow soon. Applying

the internet to SystemTech’s position using Porter’s five forces model also produced some interesting

results. The internet tends to increase the power of buyers (as they can shop around more easily) and

lowers the cost of entry for new competitors. In addition, the suppliers (the owners of the gîtes and

chalets) can also set up their own websites, thereby cutting out brokers like SystemTech and increasing

their own relative power. The conclusion of the strategy review was, therefore, that not setting up an

internet service was not a viable option. Also, since the competitors’ sites were not very good at

present, it was felt that creating a very good and user-friendly site would provide a source of

competitive advantage (at least in the short to medium term).

The SWOT analysis conducted by SystemTech has already shown that not having an internet service is

not a viable scenario, since so many of the company’s customers now regularly use the internet.

However, the issue still arises as to how much it would be worth investing in the project, and this

means that the company has had to develop a business case for undertaking the internet

development. Ric Nelson, as the accountant, has undertaken production of the business case and he

has identified three main business options that could be considered:

1. Building an internet booking system for SystemTech and interfacing that with the company’s

existing systems.

2. Building a standalone internet system and operating the internet booking as, in effect, a

separate subsidiary business.

3. Finding a partner organization with an internet booking system and interfacing SystemTech’s

system with that.

The third option is unattractive as the customers of the booking system would not be SystemTech’s

own and this is considered very important. Daniel also rejected the second option as it is likely that

the company’s customers would sometimes use the internet and sometimes book over the telephone

and having two sales channels would go against the principle of being a ‘one-stop shop’ for all the

customers’ requirements.

Consequently, the business case has been built around the first option, adding a web-based booking

front-end to the existing booking system.

Daniel has used SystemTech’s salesforce to conduct a telephone survey of existing customers, and

that has suggested that an additional AU$80,000 of business might be secured each year via the

internet. Assessing the likely amount of additional business (from new customers) is more difficult but

a recent travel industry survey concluded that firms could attract 10–15 per cent new customers

through e-commerce. If true, this would mean that SystemTech could obtain between AU$78,000 and

AU$120,000 per annum more business through web bookings, but the directors, wishing to be

cautious, have opted for the lower figure. In total, then, it seems as if the internet booking system

should secure an additional AU$178,000 worth of business annually. The directors want to break even

on their investment in three years and so this suggests a maximum cost for the internet development

of AU$384,000. Initial discussions with various potential software vendors, including their preferred

partner Eagles iTechnology, suggest that a system could be developed for AU$376,000. On that basis,

the directors approve the business case.

Eagles iTechnology, the consultancy firm engaged by SystemTech to develop its internet-based

system, has recommended the use of a PRINCE2®-type structure to manage the project.

The project board will be made up of:

• Emeka Steven, one of SystemTech’s directors, as executive

• James Vic SystemTech’s customer services manager, as senior user

• Grace Moore, Eagles iTechnology’s account manager, as senior supplier.

The project board will meet on a Thursday afternoon every two weeks during the project.

There was some argument about how the role of project manager should be filled. Simon Nick,

SystemTech’s IT manager, thought that he should take this position, with the Eagles iTechnology

project manager being a team manager. However, Eagles iTechnology argued that, as it was doing

most of the development work, it would make more sense for Eagles iTechnology to provide the

project manager. In the end, Emeka Steven agreed with Eagles iTechnology and so the project

manager will be Paul Johnson, an Eagles iTechnology principal consultant. He will manage two teams,

one led by Simon Nick which will develop the MIS aspects of the new system and the other led by

Eagles iTechnology’s Tim Cook which will develop the internet software.

Eagles iTechnology will also provide the project support functions, as it has a project support office

that works with all its projects.

The project assurance functions will be discharged by a small team comprising:

• James Vic, one of Jean Hunt’s sales supervisors

• Tim Jones, one of the IT managers

• Rage Munde, SystemTech’ management accountant

• Jack Lukas, Eagles iTechnology’s quality assurance manager.

Assessment Details:

As a project management student at APIC, you are required to perform tasks and answer the following

questions:

1. Draw the SystemTech’s IT project organizational chart that will be implementing the project?

2. What is the IT Project Management structure (functional, project and matrix)? Explain.

3. What is the Project Proposal Life Cycle? Who is involved and how in the Cycle?

4. Who are the stakeholders involved in the Information System Development project?

5. How you would you describe the Initiating and Planning Information System Project

Management Process Groups in relation to the Project Management Knowledge Areas?

6. Provide a SWOT analysis of the Information System Development project.

Two documents should be submitted:

1. MS Word document. You must follow the Harvard style sources references.

2. MS Power Point presentation (up to 20 slides), One submission for each group

In your work on the assignment you need to use the following sources:

• SBM4305 Lecture Notes

• The prescribed textbook (Schwalbe 2018)

Please remember that this is a practical assessment and you are NOT required to write any general

information, definitions and references to another books and articles. These items will not be

marked.

Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment 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

Analysis of the FV (SystemTech) profile and business processes (5%)

Inadequate analysis of the FV profile and business processes

Basic understanding of FV profile and business processes

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of FV profile and business processes

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of understanding of the FV profile and business processes

Displays exceptional understanding of the FV profile and business processes

Analysis of FV Project management structure (10%)

Inadequate understanding of FV Project management structure

Basic understanding only of FV Project management structure

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of FV Project management structure

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of understanding of FV Project management structure

Displays exceptional understanding of FV Project management structure

Demonstrate understanding of What is the Project

Inadequate understanding of Project Proposal

Basic understanding of Project Proposal Life Cycle and

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth

Displays exceptional understanding of Project Proposal Life

Proposal Life Cycle? Who is involved and how in the Cycle and stakeholder requirements (20%)

Life Cycle and Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder Analysis

Project Proposal Life Cycle and Stakeholder Analysis

of understanding of Project Proposal Life Cycle and Stakeholder Analysis

Cycle and Stakeholder Analysis

Demonstrate understanding of mapping of FV PM Process Groups on to Project Management Knowledge Areas(30%)

Inadequate understanding of mapping of PM Process Groups on to Project Management Knowledge Areas

Basic understanding of mapping of PM Process Groups on to Project Management Knowledge Areas

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of mapping of PM Process Groups on to Project Management Knowledge Areas

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of understanding of mapping of PM Process Groups on to Project Management Knowledge Areas

Displays exceptional understanding of mapping of PM Process Groups on to Project Management Knowledge Areas

Demonstrate understanding of SWOT analysis and reasons of the project failure. (15%)

Inadequate understanding of SWOT analysis and reasons of the project failure.

Inadequate understanding of SWOT analysis and reasons of the project failure.

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of SWOT analysis and reasons of the project failure.

Exhibits accurate and detailed understanding of SWOT analysis and reasons of the project failure.

Displays exceptional understanding of SWOT analysis and reasons of the project failure.

Presentation Content. Understanding of the selected project case and of the project scope components (10%)

Lack of evidence of adequate understanding of the selected project case. Majority of information irrelevant and significant points left out

Evidence of basic knowledge and skills of developing project scope statement.

Has given a factual and/or conceptual knowledge and skills base in developing project scope statement and give a brief about the project background

Reasonable knowledge and skills of developing project scope statement.

Has excellent skills in developing project scope statement. The presentation was a concise summary of the selected project. All questions answered. Comprehensive and complete coverage of information

Presentation visual appeal. Presentation slides, clarity, grammar, spelling and engaging (10%)

Lack of evidence of written presentation skills (no visual appeal). The slides were difficult to read and too much information had been copied onto them. There are many errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation

Evidence of basic skills of communicating (writing) in project environment. Minimal effort made to make slides appealing

Has given a factual and/or conceptual skill base in communication (writing) in project environment. There are some errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. In some slides, too much information on two or more slides. good visual appeal.

Has very good skills in communicating (writing) a project report There are few errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. very visual appeal.

Has excellent skills in communicating (writing) in project environment There are no errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Information is clear and concise on each slide. Excellent visually appeal that is engaging.

Assessment 3: Applied Project

Due date: Week 12

Group/individual: Individual

Word count / Time provided: 3500 words

Weighting: 30%

Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO-2, ULO-3, ULO-4, ULO-5

In this assignment, you will continue working on the SystemTech project.

The Applied Project assignment includes the following tasks:

1. Based on case study provided, explain phases of the Project Life Cycle (PLC)

2. Create a Stakeholder Register (SR) and Communication Management Plan (CMP)

3. Create a Project Charter (PC) that would approved/signed

4. Create a Project Network Diagram (PND)

5. Calculate the project cost and the Net Present Value (NPV) – download the project costs and

examples from Canvas

6. Create the Project Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

The submission should include 2 files:

• MS Word file that includes items 1 – 4, 6

• MS Excel file with the calculations of the project cost and NPV

Please remember that this is a practical assessment and you are NOT required to insert any

general information, definitions and references to books and articles. These items will not be

marked.

Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment 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

Demonstrate an understanding of project life cycle (10%)

Inadequate understanding of the life cycle

Basic knowledge only of the understanding of project life cycle

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of the project life cycle

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of understanding of project life cycle

Displays exceptional understanding of project life cycle

Produce a Cost analysis document and NPV using Excel spreadsheet (30%)

Inadequate understanding of cost calculation and NPV; cannot use Excel for producing NPV

Basic understanding of cost calculation, NPV and Excel features

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of cost calculations, NPV and Excel features

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of understanding of cost calculations, NPV and Excel features

Displays exceptional understanding of cost calculations, NPV and its practical application. Produces exceptional knowledge of Excel features to calculate NPV.

Demonstrate understanding of communication management and ability to create PC, PS and CMP (40%)

Inadequate understanding of appropriate techniques and tools for creating Project Charter, Project Stakeholder and Communication Analysis

Basic knowledge only of appropriate techniques and tools for creating Project Charter, Project Stakeholder and Communication Analysis

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of appropriate techniques and tools for creating Project Charter, Project Stakeholder and Communication Analysis

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of understanding of appropriate techniques and tools for creating Project Charter, Project Stakeholder and Communication Analysis

Displays exceptional understanding of concepts and their practical application of appropriate techniques and tools for creating Project Charter, Project Stakeholder and Communication Analysis

Produce a PND and WBS (20%)

Inadequate understanding of PND diagram cannot discuss concepts in own words

Basic knowledge only of PND diagram; limited depth of basic concepts

Exhibits breadth and depth of understanding of MND diagram

Exhibits accurate and detailed breadth and depth of MND diagram

Displays exceptional understanding of concepts and their practical application of PND diagram