Fluent Essays

I have attached the requirements for the 4 pages paper below........................................................................ info_231___2020_case_study_description.doc Unformatted Attachment Preview School of Information Management INFO231: Management of IT Projects (2020) Assignment: Case Study Due date/time: 10am, 8 June 2020 (submit via Turnitin link on Blackboard) This assignment totals 30 marks (and worth 30\% of the course marks). Please answer the following questions, clearly indicating the question number for each question. The answers should be submitted as a Word file using standard fonts (e.g. Calibri) and font size 12. You should not need more than four pages, but I am willing to accept up to six pages. Learning to write succinctly, ensuring each statement adds value, and doesn’t just say something that does not add to what we already know or to the argument presented, takes practice and is highly valued. Lunch Order & Delivery Service (LODS) Background FoodCo is a catering company that has been in business in Wellington for many years. The business was built up by current owners Bruce and Joy, both trained as chefs, who prefer the slightly more sociable hours of catering (despite the 5am starts) to evening work in a restaurant. They have several full-time staff to help with food preparation and one driver who delivers the catered food to its destination. They also employ casual part-time staff as required to assist with large catering orders. They use an external accountant to manage the books and tax affairs. At present they have no technology infrastructure. Ordering and invoicing are done using a manual system. Their catering customers are mostly businesses, and they have a steady, loyal clientele who use them regularly for their office functions. Their speciality is fresh, light and healthy food supplied at a reasonable cost. They also cater for a range of special dietary requirements. Most of their catering business is done in Wellington, primarily in the central business district (CBD) and the inner-city suburbs. Through involvement with the schools that their children attend, they have become aware that there is a demand for packed lunches for students at a reasonable cost. They are also aware that in the suburbs, small businesses and institutions - such as schools and kindergartens - are often not very well served by local cafés, which tend to be concentrated in the CBD. Page 1 of 6 Bruce & Joy see an opportunity for an online lunch ordering business (called Lunch2U) that would have significant synergies with their existing business. They envisage using the existing kitchen and staff, initially, to fill the Lunch2U orders; but this may expand if the business grows. If it is successful, the cash flow will be somewhat more regular and predictable than catering orders, which Bruce & Joy see as an advantage. They have invested a considerable amount in developing the catering business, and they would like to be able to increase their own takings now. This would be easier to do with a steady income stream. Furthermore, if it works in Wellington, there is no reason why the idea could not be used in other parts of New Zealand, possibly using a franchise system. This would ultimately allow Bruce & Joy to have a good income without having to work in the kitchen anymore. To this end, they sought help, which came in the form of SaladCorp – a major restaurant chain (spanning both New Zealand and Australia) specialising in salads and other, healthy food options. The executives of SaladCorp – especially Anita, the General Manager of Food Logistics for SaladCorp – could see the potential with the creation of Lunch2U and agreed to help. First, FoodCo put together a business plan outlining how the business would work (described below). Then SaladCorp and FoodCo both put equity into the new business, with FoodCo retaining 51\% ownership. Anita oversaw the process, working closely with Bruce and Joy. Lunch2U – The Business Plan The main problem with running a food outlet in a suburban area is that the demand is often less predictable than in the inner city. There is a risk of either having unsold food at the end of the day, or of not being able to meet the demand. An online ordering system would manage this problem. If lunch orders were received by 10:00 am, staff would prepare only what they know would be sold, which would reduce wastage and enable the business to sell the food more competitively at a lower margin. However, there were two major issues that needed to be resolved. First, delivery costs have the potential to add considerably to the costs of Lunch2U. Also, the time window between when the orders are received (10:00), and when they all need to be delivered (12:30 at the latest) is quite tight. To manage this, the coverage will be restricted to a designated range of inner-city suburbs in Wellington that a driver can cover within a 45minute period, from 11:45 to 12:30. Given the tight delivery window, Lunch2U needs to minimise the number of different delivery points. Their initial figures suggest that they would need to get about $700 worth of business each week (on average) from a specific delivery destination to make it economical to stop there. Initially, they will let prospective clients know that this is the minimum level of which it is cost effective to provide the service, and this will be closely monitored for the next few months. The other major problem that needs to be resolved cost-effectively is the technology infrastructure. Bruce and Joy are not interested in developing hands-on IT skills. They want a reliable system that will enable clients to enter orders and Lunch2U to receive them; they do not want to become webmasters or to have to employ a web developer. The cost of employing someone to look after the system would probably make it unprofitable anyway. It is important that once the initial development is completed the ongoing costs of maintaining it are minimal. SaladCorp agreed there is a need for an information system (IS) to address order and delivery management, and have agreed to provide the resources to both create and Page 2 of 6 maintain the IS. However, they were unsure whether they should look for an appropriate package or build their own software (making it easier, and more profitable, if they should expand Lunch2U operations). In the end, SaladCorp asked for a business case to be made for the build option, and provided two members of their own IT staff (Jim, a senior business analyst, and Ulf, the Deputy Finance Officer) to help FoodCo set it up. Ulf was part of this exercise because it was SaladCorps’ policy to have a senior manager from the Finance Department involved in every IT project. Business Case for LODS: Requirements The Business Case provides some of the arguments in favour of developing the software for the new IS, referred to as LODS (Lunch Order & Delivery Service). The Business Case includes the following functional requirements: RQ1: A school organises student requests for lunches for the day and places its collective order through a web-based interface. RQ2: FoodCo receives the orders and works to fulfil the orders (creating the products in their kitchen). RQ3: Once an order has been fulfilled, the order status is updated accordingly, the order products are packaged, and a label with the school address and drop off point is printed and attached to the package. RQ4: An algorithm is used to determine an efficient route to take for deliveries and a time by which the driver must leave to ensure deliveries are received by the schools before 12:30. RQ5: The Head Chef receives an overall list of the day’s orders and a breakdown of lunch ingredients so that they can organise the ingredients and kitchen labour accordingly. RQ6: Weekly and monthly reports summarising the orders by product, including a breakdown by school, will be provided for Bruce and Joy, as well as the Customer Support Manager (see below). It was agreed that if, after 1 year of operation, this system is effective, and sufficient schools (and sufficient students within the schools) choose this service, then the LODS system will be expanded to incorporate a payment system, and allow for multiple kitchens and delivery vans to operate. Note that the work in the kitchen starts well before orders are received because they are confident, based on experience, of a minimum number of products that are likely to be required for the day. LODS Project Approval The proposal was approved by Anita (as SaladCorp’s representative), subject to some key conditions: (1) A modest budget was provided – Anita, Bruce and Joy agreed the system would be a basic one, with an emphasis on quality in terms of reliability, accuracy and ease of use. (2) A relatively tight timeframe for the project was set at 3 months, finishing by the end of November, so that there was time to market the new service to schools (and through them, the students’ parents) before the start of term in early February. Page 3 of 6 (3) A Customer Support Manager was to be appointed (part-time, at least initially) in November to provide both a sales function (convincing schools to try the service) and liaise with existing customers to help with any problems that may occur with the software, deliveries, etc. A Project Board (PB) was set up, who then contracted Rajiv, as an externally appointed project manager. SaladCorps agreed to provide three capable employees to make up the project team. Two are very experienced developers: Justine (who will handle the front end web interface) and Wei (who will handle the back end order processing and delivery service). The third is Wiremu, who will handle the technical support. Rajiv is highly experienced and professional in his approach, and so quickly established the project plan. A preliminary work breakdown structure (WBS) was created at the start to check that the project could be completed within the 3-month timeframe and begin the process of identifying necessary resources (described below). Preliminary Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for the LODS Project LODS Project 1. Planning & Preparation 2. Analysis & Design 3. Development 4. System Testing 5. Implementation 1.1 Establish technology platform 2.1 Define user requirements 3.1 Develop customer/order database 4.1 Test delivery system 5.1 Train kitchen staff & drivers 1.2 Set up server 2.2 Design web page layouts 3.2 3.2 Develop Develop webweb interface for orders 4.2 Test LODS system 5.2 Train school administrators 3.3 Test web pages & links 4.3 Conduct user acceptance testing 5.3 Implement system 6. Project Closure 3.4 Establish/test delivery algorithm 3.5 Develop delivery system The WBS was discussed with the project team and a preliminary Activity Table was developed in order to indicate who would do the work and estimate how long the tasks would take (see below). They also discussed dependencies between tasks, and noted the following: i. Wiremu said the technology platform could not be established until the server had been set up. ii. Designing web page layouts and the database would be based on the user requirements. iii. Once (i) and (ii) were done, the web interface for orders could be developed, and then the web pages and links could be tested. Page 4 of 6 iv. Meanwhile, once the delivery algorithm was ready (this would also depend on information from user requirements), the delivery system could be tested. v. When the developers had finished testing the web interface and delivery system, the entire LODS system could be tested – first by the project team, and then finally by the users. vi. The system is formally implemented after training, and then the project is signed off and closed. Preliminary activity table incorporating task time estimates Task Description 1. Planning Description 1.1 Establish technology platform 1.2 Set up server 2. Analysis & Design 2.1 Define user requirements 2.2 Design web page layouts 3. Development 3.1 Develop customer/order database 3.2 Develop web interface for orders 3.3 Test web pages and links 3.4 Establish/test delivery algorithm 3.5 Develop delivery system 4. System testing 4.1 Test delivery system 4.2 Test LODS system 4.3 Conduct user acceptance testing 5. Implementation 5.1 Train kitchen staff & drivers 5.2 Train school administrators 5.3 Implement system 6. Project closure Time(days) Who 4 3 Wiremu Wiremu 3 5 Rajiv Rajiv Wiremu, Wei, Justine 6 10 4 4 5 Justine Justine Wei Wei 4 4 4 Wei, Rajiv Wei, Justine, Rajiv Rajiv, Bruce, Joy 2 Rajiv, Bruce, Joy Customer Support Manager, Rajiv Wiremu, Rajiv Rajiv 8 4 2 LODS Project Execution Even with relatively simple projects like this, problems often occur, and LODS was no exception. For example, Bruce and Joy had a habit of getting too deeply involved in the project, effectively interfering with Rajiv’s ability to keep the project moving by challenging some of his decisions or, at times, trying to manage the project team themselves. Rajiv found this interference difficult to address. Another worry was that the Wellington City Council had commissioned an engineering report to assess the safety of the kitchen FoodCo was working in, and whether it would require earthquake strengthening or not. The report was due in late October, right in the middle of the project. Page 5 of 6 Questions: 1. [2 Marks] Describe the scope of the LODS system. 2. [3 Marks] Identify the stakeholders and their roles in the project (please use a table). 3. LODS will need to have IT project governance arrangements in place. a. [2 Marks] Who would be best qualified as the Project Sponsor? Why? b. [2 Marks] Identify 4 people you think should be on the Project Board. Briefly explain your selection. 4. [2 Marks] Consider the project team. What sort of leadership style should Rajiv use given the circumstances of this project? Why? 5. [2 Marks] What should Rajiv do about the occasional interference from Bruce & Joy? Why? 6. Ignoring any resource constraints, perform the following: a. [3 Marks] Create a Precedence Diagram, including estimated completion times [NOTE: There are many options to draw such diagrams, e.g. Visio, Powerpoint, even Word!] b. [1 Mark] Identify the critical path and critical path length 7. Suppose resource constraints were now taken into account: a. [2 Marks] How would that change the critical path and its length? b. [3 Marks] Suppose within the first two days of starting the project, SaladCorps suddenly pulled Justine off the project, and Wei had to perform all her work as well. How would that affect the critical path and its length? c. [2 Marks] Based on your answer to (d) above, should Rajiv consider asking the Project Board for another developer to replace Justine (either from SaladCorps or externally hired)? Explain. 8. Consider the risk that the engineering report would require them to vacate the kitchen for earthquake strengthening during the project. a. [1 Mark] When analysing the risk, where would you rate it – think of a continuum between “No Risk <--> Very High Risk”. Why? b. [2 Marks] What risk strategy would you adopt? Why? 9. Sometimes stakeholders need to sign off on different stages of the project. a. [1 Mark] Would these be considered project deliverables, milestones, or something else? b. [1 Mark] At what point in the WBS would Bruce & Joy, as representatives of the users, finally sign off? c. [1 Mark] Where, in the WBS, would the project as a whole be signed off, and who would do it? Page 6 of 6 ... Purchase answer to see full attachment