Information Technology and Strategic Management | My Assignment Tutor

Information Technology and Strategic Management2020-2021 Page 1 Academic Year 2020/21P31164- Information Technology and StrategicManagementItem 2 – Report (CW)Deadline For Submission:07/05/2021 (23:00)Submission InstructionsOnline on Moodle.Instructions for completing theassessment:This is an individual piece of coursework. The word limit is 3,000words equivalent. This means that if your report only containstext, it should be 3,000 words long (+/- 10%). If you are using anumber of tables and illustrations, your report can be shorter than3,000 words, provided that the amount of work is equivalent toproducing a 3,000 words report. You are encouraged to usetables and technical instructions. See questions and markingscheme on the following page.Examiners:Michel Leseure Information Technology and Strategic Management2020-2021 Page 2InstructionsThis coursework represents 80% of your final module mark.Read the case study entitled UCB: Data is the new drug, which is available to download onMoodle. Answer the five questions shown below. Remember to use examples and referencesto inform your answer and demonstrate your achievement of the learning outcomes. Eachquestion is worth 20 points.Question 1: Provide a project brief for an analytics-based project comparable in scope to the“sprints” described in the case study. This should include a specification of users’ needs, designspecifications, and a discussion of value creation. This can be based on an example from thecase study, external research, or your own idea. It must be an example that would be relevant toa company like UCB.Question 2: Using the DELTA(TA) maturity model, at which level of maturity would you rateUCB at the time of writing the case?Question 3: On page 7 of the case, De Prins is quoted for saying: “there is no such thing as adigital strategy, just business strategies for a digital world”. Explain what is meant by thisstatement and compare it with Nick Carr’s statement that ‘IT does not matter’.Question 4: Would you describe the approach used by UCB to introduce analytics as a “fullsteam ahead” strategic plan or a more careful “probe and learn” approach? In the context of thecase study, discuss the pros and cons of both.Question 5: Given your answers to the above questions, how would you approach theShanghai meeting if you were De Prins? What recommendations would you make?Assessment Criteria1. Ability to analyse the problems faced by the organisation through an accurate collectionof facts, a clear problem formulation, references to scholarly concepts and theories, andthe use of an adequate problem-solving technique.2. Quality, originality, and coherence of solution/recommendations: all aspects are lookedat and conflicts are discussed.3. Analytical content supported by the effective use of academic references.4. Professional presentation of report, quality of academic writing, referencing.Information Technology and Strategic Management2020-2021 Page 3Marking Scheme for Each Question Mark range(1) Project Brief(2) Maturity(3) Digital strategy(4) Implementation(5) Recom–mendations80%+Insightful project briefthat would be consideredas a project to thecompany. Professionallypresented project briefincluding a use case, DFD,or another designspecification illustration.Very good evidencemining of the case studyto provide a convincingrating of UCB against theframework. Presentedand discussed with flair.Very good criticalscholarly discussion ofthe relationship betweenIT, digitalisation, andvalue creation. Nuancedpoints are made to take aposition on the question.Excellent discussion ofthe pros of cons of bothapproaches supported byrelevant academicreferences. Thoroughanalysis presented in anoriginal fashion.Very good use of previousanswers to articulate areasoned and supportedset of recommendations.Recommendations matchwhat the real companywould do next.70% to 79%Very good idea, but thepresentation of theproject brief is not alwaysconvincing or detailedenough. Minor issuesonly.Well-presented projectbrief including a use case,DFD, or another designspecification illustration.Very good evidencemining of the case studyto provide a convincingrating of UCB against theframework. Minor issueswith presentation anddiscussions.Very answer to thequestion but the deliveryof the answer containsminor issues orcontradictions.Very good discussion ofthe pros of cons of bothapproaches supported byrelevant academicreferences. Detailedanalysis presented in anoriginal fashion. Minorissues only.Very good use of previousanswers to articulate areasoned and supportedset of recommendations.Recommendations matchwhat the real companywould do next.Minor issues only.60 to 69%Good idea: the projectbrief is interesting butnot detailed enough; noor disappointingsupporting illustrations.Good evidence mining ofthe case study to providea sound rating of UCBagainst the framework,but there are issues andomissions.The general idea behindthe answer is good butoverly intuitive. It is notdeveloped using keytheories and frameworks,or it is applying them inan awkward fashion.Good discussion of thepros of cons of bothapproaches supported byrelevant academicreferences.There are issues andomissions, and part of theanalysis is confusing.Good use of previousanswers to articulate areasoned and supportedset of recommendations.Recommendations aregenerally sound.There is issues with partof the answer. Information Technology and Strategic Management2020-2021 Page 4 Mark range(1) Project Brief(2) Maturity(3) Digital strategy(4) Implementation(5) Recom–mendations50 to 59%There is an idea, but itspresentation is confusingand unconvincing.The framework is usedbut there are many errorsin execution. Generalanswer is okay.Average answer thatreveals minormisconceptions; overlygeneric.Average discussion of thepros of cons of bothapproaches, supported bya few academicreferences.There are issues andomissions, and part of theanalysis is confusing.Poor organisation.Only displays an averageunderstanding of thequestion.The recommendationsare sensible but aredisconnected from theprior analysis of the caseand it is not clear thatthere are the result ofanalysis and criticalthinking.40 to 49%Unoriginal idea with avague project brief.Framework is not usedappropriately, and theanswer is over or underrating UCB.Too generic and leadingto an erroneous answer.There are issues andomissions, and most ofthe analysis is confusing.Poor organisation.Question not clearlyunderstood.Overly generic.Overly genericrecommendations that donot demonstrate anability to analyse a casestudy.30 to 30%Poor, unconvincingexample.Framework not used.Very generic answer.This is a genericdiscussion based on‘hype’ publications ratherthan scholarly sources.This is a genericdiscussion based on‘hype’ publications ratherthan scholarly sources.Very genericrecommendations thatare loosely connected tothe case study.Some recommendationsdo not work.Less than 30%Question not understood.Answer not related to thecase study.Answer does not make adirect reference to eitherDe Prins’ quote or NickCarr. Entirely genericanswer that does notanswer the question.Wrong, “bogus”references are used.And/orQuestion not understoodand not answered.No recommendations, orvery poorrecommendations.

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *