Fluent Essays

As a group, research and provide two case studies of organizations that have implemented the system that you have been assigned (ERP, CRM, SCM)Topic: SCMAssignments instructions: Group Project 1 Paper Analyzing and Summarizing Cases.docxGuide:Read carefully to avoid confusion and mistakesAll use sources must be cited in APA formatUse the GRADING RUBRIC, it will help us reach the assignment goal and points neededNEXT: I will submit the memo paper and Group project 2. This assignment is the base for assignment. group_project_1_paper_analyzing_and_summarizing_cases.docx common_approach_to_federal_ea.pdf practical_guide_to_fea.pdf zachman___the_framework_for_ea_background_description_and_utility.pdf dmv_case_study.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Group Project 1: Paper Analyzing and Summarizing Cases Purpose of this Assignment This assignment gives you the opportunity to demonstrate your ability to research, evaluate, and explain enterprise systems and to communicate effectively at the executive level. This assignment specifically addresses the following course outcomes: • • • analyze and examine how enterprise architecture and enterprise systems influence, support, and enable an organizations ability to contribute to strategic decision making and to respond and adapt to the business environment analyze enterprise system solutions to make recommendations based on benefits, limitations, and best fit within the enterprise environment analyze and explain the elements of a successful plan for implementing enterprise solutions, addressing structure, processes, culture and other considerations Assignment The chief information officer (CIO) of your organization has heard about enterprise systems and believes they could solve many of the problems in the organization. He has asked your team to do some research and prepare an analysis and recommendations about these types of systems. Your team will be assigned one of several types of enterprise systems (ERP, SCM, CRM, or others) to research and prepare a paper and an informational presentation for the CIO. The purpose of your task is to help him understand the type of enterprise system (assigned to your team), how other organizations have implemented such systems, and lessons learned from the implementations. As part of the presentation, your team will lay out the considerations that the CIO should think about—both positive and negative aspects—prior to suggesting that the organization consider implementing one of these systems. Your instructor will assign each group one of several types of enterprise systems to research and on which you’ll prepare both a paper (Group Project 1) and an executive-level informational presentation (Group Project 2). Your group should research and find two case studies relevant to your assigned system. You need to find these case studies as these are not provided to you by your instructor. For Group Project 1, your team will analyze the case studies that you have agreed to. Then, for Group Project 2, your team will use that information to develop an executive-level presentation that provides an analysis and recommendation for your CIO. You should review Group Project 2 in order to understand how Group Project 1 supports both Group Project 2 and the individual project to write a memo to the CIO on “Success Criteria” for implementing enterprise systems. Note: The individual research assignment, a memo to the CIO on Success Criteria, is due in the class schedule between your Group Project 1 and Group Project 2 due dates. This memo, which identifies at least seven success criteria for implementation of enterprise systems, is used in conjunction with the group projects to provide the CIO with the 03/15/2019 necessary analysis to make an informed decision on an enterprise system implementation. Details on the Success Criteria memo assignment are provided separately. Group Project 1 Review the case studies for two different organizations that implemented the type of enterprise system assigned to your group. For each, briefly describe: • • • • • the business they are in the problem they were trying to solve whether the enterprise system implementation was a success or not why it was or was not a success in terms of cost, schedule, quality, and performance (this is important – don’t forget it!) lessons learned Prepare a 2-3 page paper in Word format that provides this information and post it in your Group Assignment Folder. Each team member should use the Individual Assessment of Group Member Participation criteria (explained below) to evaluate contributions to this part of the group project. Individual grades will be based on the group product and adjusted appropriately according to the individual assessments. Individual Assessment of Group Member Participation At the conclusion of Group Project 1, each team member will rate the overall group participation of each of the team members, but not himself or herself. These ratings will be based on the person’s participation in the group project, using the instructions provided in the individual assignment, Group Project 1 Participation Assessment. The report will be submitted via the (individual) Assignments Folder as either a Word or Excel file and is due on the date Group Project 1 is due. Grading Rubric for Group Project 1 The group project will be graded based on the rubric below. The instructor will determine whether all members of a group will receive the same grade, or will have their grades influenced by the group members ratings of their individual participation. Criteria Introduction 90-100\% Far Above Standards 80-89\% Above Standards 70-79\% Meets Standards 60-69\% Below Standards < 60\% Well Below Standards Possible Points 5 Points 4 Points 3.5 Points 3 Points 0-2 Points 5 A sophisticated introduction sets the stage for the paper. A well-written introduction sets the stage for the paper. The introduction adequately sets the stage for the paper. The introduction does not adequately set the stage for the paper. No introduction included. 03/15/2019 Criteria 90-100\% Far Above Standards 80-89\% Above Standards 70-79\% Meets Standards 60-69\% Below Standards < 60\% Well Below Standards Possible Points 5 Points 4 Points 3.5 Points 3 Points 0-2 Points 5 The description of the organization for each case study is clearly presented, provides the applicable appropriate information, and is well written. A description of the organization for each case study is presented. The description of the organization for each case study may be somewhat unclear or partially presented. Minimal or no descriptions of the organizations are included. Or, only 1 case study is discussed. 9-10 Points 8 Points 7 Points 6 Points 0-5 Points The problem to be solved in each case study is fully explained; is clearly derived from the case; and demonstrates sophisticated understanding of course concepts, analysis, and critical thinking. The problem to be solved in each case study is clearly explained; is clearly derived from the case; and demonstrates understanding of course concepts, analysis, and critical thinking. The problem to be solved in each case study is explained; is aligned to the case; and demonstrates adequate understanding of course concepts, analysis, and/or critical thinking. The problem to be solved in each case study may not be clearly explained; may not be aligned to the case; and/or may not demonstrate adequate understanding of course concepts, analysis, and/or critical thinking. Extremely minimal or no problem descriptions included. Or, only 1 case study is discussed. 23-25 Points 20-22 Points 18-19 Points 15-17 Points 0-14 Points The assessment of whether the enterprise system implementation was a success in each case study is fully explained; is directly related to the case study; and demonstrates sophisticated The assessment of whether the enterprise system implementation was a success in each case study is clearly explained; is directly related to the case study; and The assessment of whether the enterprise system implementation was a success in each case study is explained and is related to the case study; demonstrates adequate The assessment of whether the enterprise system implementation was a success in each case study may not be clearly explained or may be only partially related to the case study; and/or Very minimal or no assessment of success is included. Or, only 1 case study is discussed. The description of the organization for each case study Descriptions is clearly and of the correctly Organizations presented, provides the applicable information, and demonstrates sophisticated writing. Problems to Be Solved Assessment 03/15/2019 10 25 Criteria Analysis Lessons Learned Report Format 90-100\% Far Above Standards 80-89\% Above Standards 70-79\% Meets Standards 60-69\% Below Standards < 60\% Well Below Standards Possible Points understanding of course concepts, analysis, critical thinking, and synthesis. demonstrates good understanding of course concepts, analysis, critical thinking, and synthesis. understanding of course concepts, analysis, critical thinking, and/or synthesis. demonstrates inadequate understanding of course concepts, analysis, critical thinking, and/or synthesis. 27-30 Points 24-26 Points 21-23 Points 18-20 Points 0-17 Points 30 The analysis of why the enterprise system implementation was a success or not for each case study is fully explained and convincing; is directly related to the case study; includes cost, schedule, quality and performance; and demonstrates sophisticated understanding of course concepts, analysis, and critical thinking. The analysis of why the enterprise system implementation was a success or not for each case study is clearly explained; is directly related to the case study; includes cost, schedule, quality and performance; and demonstrates sophisticated understanding of course concepts, analysis, and critical thinking. The analysis of why the enterprise system implementation was a success or not for each case study is explained and is related to the case study; includes cost, schedule, quality and performance; demonstrates adequate understanding of course concepts, analysis, and/or critical thinking. The analysis of why the enterprise system implementation was a success or not for each case study is not clearly explained or may be only partially related to the case study; may not include cost, schedule, quality and/or performance; and/or demonstrates inadequate understanding of course concepts, analysis, and/or critical thinking. Minimal or no analysis is provided. Or, only 1 case study is discussed. 9-10 Points 8 Points 7 Points 6 Points 0-5 Points Lessons learned are complete, fully explained, and directly drawn from the case studies, using sophisticated writing. Lessons learned are complete, clearly explained, and directly related to the case studies; and are wellwritten. Lessons learned are explained, and are related to the case studies. Lessons learned may be incomplete, not clearly explained, or not related to the case studies. Very minimal or no lessons learned are included. Or, only 1 case study is discussed. 13-15 Points 12 Points 10-11 Points 9 Points 0-8 Points 03/15/2019 10 15 Criteria 90-100\% Far Above Standards 80-89\% Above Standards Report reflects effective organization and sophisticated writing; correct sentence structure, grammar, and spelling; presented in a professional format using Word; any references used are effectively incorporated and cited/referenced using APA style. Report is well organized and clearly written; 70-79\% Meets Standards 60-69\% Below Standards Report has some Report is not organization; adequately may have some organized, and/or has few errors in errors in contains grammar sentence sentence or spelling errors, structure, structure, and/or does not grammar and grammar, and follow APA style spelling, and/or spelling; for any has minor errors presented in a references used. in using APA professional style for any format using references cited. Word; any references used are appropriately incorporated and cited/referenced using APA style. < 60\% Well Below Standards Report is extremely poorly written, has many grammar and/or spelling errors, or does not convey the information. TOTAL Points Possible 03/15/2019 Possible Points 100 THE COMMON APPROACH TO FEDERAL ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE May 2, 2012 Table of Contents Introduction…………………………………………………………….. 3 Overall Concept ……………………………………………………….. 4 Primary Outcomes …………………………………………………….. 5 Levels of Scope ………………………………………………………… 8 Basic Elements ………………………………………………………… 11 Documentation …………..…………………………………………….. 26 Reference Models ……………………………………………………… 31 Plans and Views ……………………………………………………….. 35 Appendices Terms and Definitions ……………..……………………………… 44 References …………………………………………......……………. 51 A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012 Page 2 INTRODUCTION This document provides guidance for a common approach to the practice of Enterprise Architecture (EA) throughout the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government. Federal law and policy require Agency Heads to develop and maintain an agency-wide enterprise architecture that integrates strategic drivers, business requirements, and technology solutions.1 2 The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture promotes increased levels of mission effectiveness by standardizing the development and use of architectures within and between Federal Agencies.3 4 This includes principles for using EA to help agencies eliminate waste and duplication, increase shared services, close performance gaps, and promote engagement among government, industry, and citizens. The target audience for this document is Federal Government employees who plan, approve, and execute Agency programs, and those in industry who support those activities. Within the Federal Government there are over 300 organizational entities of differing size, scope, and complexity which include departments, administrations, bureaus, commissions, agencies, and boards. These entities employ more than 2.6 million people and spend over $3.4 trillion each year to perform their mission functions, often through services that are directed to customer groups that include citizens, industry, academia, non-profits, and other government agencies in the U.S. and abroad. Over $80 billion of annual federal spending is devoted to various forms of information technology (IT) that enable thousands of mission and support services across the Executive Branch and with external groups. During the past several years many Agency budgets have gone from flat to declining, yet the public’s expectations of government continue to rise. In response, there has been a widespread call from Congress, the Administration, citizens, and industry for more costefficient Agency operating models and more transparency in tracking the performance of federal programs. Shrinking budgets increase the urgency for accomplishing these changes so that scarce resources can be directed to areas of the Agency that will contribute the most value. The Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture accelerates Agency business transformation and new technology enablement by providing standardization, design principles, scalability, an enterprise roadmap, and a repeatable architecture project method that is more agile and useful and will produce more authoritative information for intra- and inter-Agency planning, decision-making, and management. 1 Congressional mandates for IT architecture are contained in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106) which was updated and revised by the E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347) to reflect enterprise architecture. 2 Related implementation guidance from the Office of Management and Budget is contained in various documents, including Circulars A-11, A-130, Memoranda 97-16, 00-10, 05-22, 11-29, 12-10, and the Digital Government Strategy. 3 This document replaces document: “A Practical Guide to Federal Enterprise Architecture ”, February 2001. 4 The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-352) addresses agency strategic plans / priority goals. A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012 Page 3 The Common Approach supports the Office of Management and Budget’s IT Shared Services Strategy, Digital Strategy, and implementation of the Portfolio Stat process. OVERALL CONCEPT This document’s common approach to Federal EA provides principles and standards for how business, information, and technology architectures should be developed across the Federal Government so they can be used consistently at various levels of scope within and between agencies, as well as with external stakeholders. The common approach provides integration points with other governance areas including strategic planning, capital planning, program management, human capital management, and cyber security. The meta-model for The Common Approach to Federal EA is depicted in Figure 1 below: Figure 1. The Common Approach to Federal EA Standardization in the Common Approach to Federal EA is based on the following items: primary outcomes, levels of scope, basic elements, sub-architecture domains, reference models, current and future views, transition plans, and a roadmap. When implemented, this standardization promotes comparable architectures across the Federal Government A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012 Page 4 that will be more useful in managing change and enabling mission success with a lower total cost of ownership, faster time to market, and reduced duplication. PRIMARY OUTCOMES There are four primary outcomes that are enabled by the common approach to federal EA:  Service Delivery  Functional Integration  Resource Optimization  Authoritative Reference While there are many positive outcomes that EA contributes to, these four outcomes are “primary” in that they represent areas of direct, positive impact that architectures can make within and between agencies and with customers and partners external to government. EA is uniquely positioned as the management best practice which can provide a consistent view across all program and service areas to support planning and decision-making. EA standards also promote mission success by serving as an authoritative reference, and by promoting functional integration and resource optimization with both internal and external service partners. Service Delivery Federal Agencies5 exist to perform a wide spectrum of missions that meet our Nation’s ongoing needs through a variety of programs and services. These missions, programs, and services are provided in law, Administration policy, and Agency policy. Increasingly, these mission and support programs/services/systems require joint management and execution by multiple Agencies that are enabled through an IT shared service strategy and various embedded information-related technologies. This document’s use of the term “Federal Agency” includes Departments, Agencies, Commissions, Bureaus, and Boards and other types of organizations in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government. 5 A Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture, May 2, 2012 Page 5 Success in accomplishing an Agency’s mission and optimizing resources requires a coherent and consistent understanding of program and service performance, and agile planning and development processes. This coherent view and agility becomes more important in resource-constrained operating environments. EA ensures that IT enables the business and mission functions to achieve optimum performance. Functional Integration Functional integration means interoperability between programs, systems, and services, which requires a meta-context and standards to be successful. EA can provide both a metacontext across all functional domains (strategic, business, and technology) as well as related standards for the full lifecycle of activities in each domain. Program, systems, and services interoperability is founda ... Purchase answer to see full attachment