COIT20248 Information Systems Analysis and Design

Assignment 1: Systems Development Investigation

Due Date: Week 6, Friday, 08:00 PM AEST

Weighting: 30%

Length: 1500 words (+/- 10%)

Format: Individual Assessment Report

Course Objectives

This assessment relates directly to course learning outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 4 as documented in the e-course profile. You must demonstrate the knowledge acquired between weeks 1 and 5 regarding the various facets of systems development.

Academic Integrity Notice

All submitted reports are processed through a computerized copy-detection system. Plagiarism or unauthorized copying will incur severe penalties, ranging from immediate deduction of marks to failing the course or exclusion from the University. Submit your own original work. Review the Academic Misconduct Procedures via the university portal prior to submission.

Assignment Context

You act as a consultant appointed to manage the system analysis responsibilities for the Australia Wide System Integration Group (AWSIG) in the Broadway Book Shop project outlined in the provided case study. You are required to plan the project, investigate its parameters, and document the specific system requirements. Produce a structured report addressing the tasks detailed below.

Assessment Tasks

Task 1: Approaches to Systems Development (10 Marks)

• Detail how the Broadway Book Shop should proceed with developing its information systems. (5 Marks)
• Justify your selection of the specific approach to systems development. (5 Marks)

Task 2: Systems Requirements (15 Marks)

• Define the primary functional requirements for the system described in the case study. (10 Marks)
• Define the non-functional requirements for the system described in the case study. (5 Marks)

Task 3: Project Cost-Benefit Analysis (15 Marks)

• Discuss the rationale behind your Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. (7.5 Marks)
• Provide a detailed Microsoft Excel spreadsheet outlining the specific financial metrics of your Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. (7.5 Marks)

Task 4: Project Schedule (20 Marks)

• Provide a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and a corresponding project schedule formulated as a Gantt Chart. Explain both elements and discuss their relationship. (10 Marks)
• Evaluate whether the project schedule is reasonable given the currently understood system goals, requirements, and scope. Support your position with logical arguments. (10 Marks)

Task 5: System Information Requirement Investigation Techniques (25 Marks)

• Identify the stakeholders involved in the project. (5 Marks)
• Explain your selection of the three most useful investigation techniques for this scenario. (10 Marks)
• Justify the practical usefulness of these three investigation techniques in gathering accurate system requirements. (10 Marks)

Report Layout and Submission Guidelines

Use the provided template file (“COIT 20048 Assessment1TemplateFile.docx”). Structure your report using the exact headings below and observe the recommended word counts.

• Title Cover Page: Include course title, student name, student number, lecturer, and tutor details.
• Introduction (~100 words): Clearly define the aims of the report and identify the specific project objectives.
• The Approach to Systems Development – Task 1 (~250 words): Detail the proposed methodology and justify the choice.
• Systems Requirements – Task 2 (~250 words): List functional and non-functional requirements.
• Project Cost/Benefit Analysis – Task 3 (~200 words): Analyze the financial viability.
• Project Schedule – Task 4 (~200 words): Present the WBS, Gantt Chart, and feasibility evaluation.
• System Information Requirement Investigation Techniques – Task 5 (~250 words): List stakeholders, explain, and justify the three selected techniques.
• Reflections and Conclusions (~100 words): Present reflections on project achievements and constraints, followed by a brief summary of findings.
• References: Provide a complete reference list utilizing appropriate in-text citations.

Grading Rubric

Marks are allocated across the following criteria, totaling 100 marks (scaled to 30% of the final grade):

1. Introduction (5 marks): Clear definition of report aims (2.5) and project objectives (2.5).
2. Task 1 (10 marks): Methodology application (5) and methodological justification (5).
3. Task 2 (15 marks): Functional requirements accuracy (10) and non-functional requirements accuracy (5).
4. Task 3 (15 marks): Cost-benefit discussion depth (7.5) and spreadsheet accuracy (7.5).
5. Task 4 (20 marks): WBS and Gantt Chart clarity (10) and schedule feasibility analysis (10).
6. Task 5 (25 marks): Stakeholder identification (5), technique explanation (10), and technique justification (10).
7. Conclusions (5 marks): Reflections (2.5) and findings summary (2.5).
8. References (5 marks): Academic rigor and correct citation formatting.

Sample Answer Content

Agile methodologies provide a highly adaptable framework suitable for the rapidly shifting requirements often seen in modern retail projects like the Broadway Book Shop system. Frequent iterations allow developers to incorporate stakeholder feedback continuously. Such an approach reduces the risk of delivering a final product that fails to meet actual user needs. Traditional predictive models often lock in requirements too early, resulting in costly late-stage revisions. Adopting iterative practices significantly improves both project delivery alignment and overall stakeholder satisfaction (Kasauli et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110444). Selecting an iterative approach ensures the development team can pivot when new business rules emerge during the implementation phase.

I often remind my students that theoretical models might look perfect on paper, but real-world execution introduces unpredictable variables. Selecting the right investigation techniques, such as targeted stakeholder interviews or direct observation, could mitigate many of these early-phase alignment issues. A poorly scoped functional requirement appears minor initially, yet it has the potential to derail an entire project schedule weeks down the line. We must ground our system analysis in empirical evidence rather than assumptions.

References / Learning Materials

• Gemino, A., Horner Reich, B., & Serrador, P. (2021). Agile, Traditional, and Hybrid Approaches to Project Success: Is Hybrid a Poor Second Choice? Project Management Journal, 52(2), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972820973082
• Kasauli, R., Knauss, E., Nilsson, A., & Klug, S. (2020). Adding value every sprint: A case study on large-scale agile requirements engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 159, 110444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2019.110444
• Pacheco, C., Garcia, I., & Reyes, M. (2018). Requirements elicitation techniques: a systematic literature review based on the maturity of the techniques. IET Software, 12(4), 365-378. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-sen.2017.0144

 Assessment

Course Code/Title: COIT20248 Information Systems Analysis and Design

Task: Assignment 2 – System Modeling and Design Specifications

Overview: Following the requirements gathering in Assignment 1, students will transition into the design phase. You are required to translate the previously identified functional requirements into logical data models. Create a comprehensive Entity-Relationship Diagram (ERD) and a set of Level 0 Data Flow Diagrams (DFDs) representing the proposed system state. Justify all data structures and logic flows against the business rules established in the initial case study.