report

Assessment Brief: BIS2005 Enterprise Architecture

Trimester 1, 2021

Assessment Overview

Assessment 1: Case Study

Due date: Week 5

Group/individual: Group

Word count / Time provided: 3500

Weighting: 30% (Report: 25% Presentation: 5%

Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO3

Assessment Details:

This case study will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 contents) and to

identify further support needs. For successful completion of the case study, you are required to study

Assessment Task

Type Weighting Due Length ULO

Assessment 1: Case Study
Propose EA artifacts, taxonomy of
documentations that to be delivered for a
particular case study. In addition, to discuss the
operating model and types of IT initiatives.

Group

30% (Report:
25%
Presentation:
5%

Week
5

3500
words
(report

and power
point

slides with
embedded

audio)

ULO-1
ULO-2
ULO-3

Assessment 2: Report
Write a report to examine the architecture
function of a specific organisation and
determining the operating model for a multi-
profile company. The report should also cover
the core concepts of data and information
architecture and evaluate existing data and
information architecture designs, continuity
plans in the context of EA and role of audit and
compliance standards in EA (details in the
Assessment Brief).

Individual 40%

Week
12

3600
words

ULO-3
ULO-4
ULO-5

Assessment 3: Quiz
Every quiz will be conducted based on the
teaching and learning materials covered in
previous two weeks, for an example, quiz 1 in
week 3 will be based on week 1 and week 2
teaching and learning materials (details in the
Assessment Brief).

Individual 30%

Week
2, 4, 6,
8 & 10

30
Minutes
for each

quiz

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

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 information systems. This will help in achieving ULO4.

The case study will be completed and submitted in week 5.

Case Study:

Data#10 is a mid-size governmental department providing important services of a social nature to the

population of a large territory. From the technology perspective, the organization can be considered

as a late adopter of innovations and characterized by relative underinvestment in IT, which has certain

implications for both its IT landscape and respective management practices. On the one hand,

Data#10’s IT landscape is very heterogeneous and includes many legacy information systems and

technologies some of which have been in use for decades. On the other hand, its IT-related

management practices are also rather archaic. For instance, the relationships between business and

IT leaders in the organization exhibit evident signs of “us and them” mentality, while new investments

in IT are viewed by business mostly as a means to reduce costs of the existing operations.

Data#10 has a centralized IT department headed by the CIO and responsible for developing and

supporting information systems for all its business units. The IT department employs around 140

specialists and consists of three main functions: architecture, development and service. The

architecture function includes a few architects focused predominantly on specific IT solutions.

Data#10 previously tried to uplift the maturity of its EA practice and extend the scope of architectural

planning beyond separate initiatives, but these attempts did not succeed and respective architects

had been made redundant.

Then, the CIO decided to undertake another deliberate effort to evolve Data#10’s EA practice with the

involvement of external consultants. For this purpose, the organization engaged a rather well-known

boutique EA consultancy to help initiate a full-fledged EA practice. The consultancy formed a project

team consisting of four architects specialized in different subject areas. This consulting team acted

according to a detailed engagement plan agreed with Data#10’s senior IT leadership. The plan

stipulated in which sequence and when exactly various EA artifacts will be produced. In total,

consultants worked for 2-4 months, analyzed the organization, interviewed numerous stakeholders

and developed all the EA artifacts specified in the plan. Specifically, they started from analyzing

Data#10 in terms of current and desired maturity of its business capabilities and mapped existing

applications to respective capabilities. Then, they captured all relevant data entities, documented all

technologies used in the organization, depicted current and defined target application portfolios and

created more detailed CRUD (create, read, update and delete) relationship matrices.

1. Develop a comprehensive roadmap specifying what projects should be executed in the next

12 months. The of execution is very important, therefore you are also required to

develop a timeline the 12 months.

2. Based on your road map, discuss 4 key EA artifacts that would be delivered in first 2-3 months.

State 2 reasons why you have chosen to implement the 4 (four) EA artifacts

3. Discuss 5 (five) direct benefits and 5 (five) indirect benefits that Data#10 would have if the

Enterprise Architecture is successfully implemented in Data#10.

4. Discuss 5 (five) key roles that Enterprise Architecture Business Strategy Practice will play in

Data#10.

5. Discuss the operating model that you will implement in Data#10 and why you have chosen

the operating model.

6. Discuss the roles of Vision and Standard in implementation of Data#10’s EA?

7. Discuss 5 types of IT initiatives that you have considered very important to Data#10’s EA

Marking Information: The case study 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

Case Study Q1
(20% marks)

Not able to develop
a comprehensive
roadmap specifying
what projects
should be executed
in the next 12
months

Developed a roadmap
specifying what
projects should be
executed in the next 2
– 3 months, provided
solution is acceptable
but details missing

Most of the
roadmap are
identified but minor
points are missing

All the road map
identified, provides
very good solutions,
examines the EA
clearly

All the problems are
clearly identified,
provided excellent
solutions and EA very
clearly.

Q2 (10% marks) 4 key EA artifacts
that would be
delivered in 2-3
months discussed
and stated 2
reasons why
implementation of
the 4 (four) EA
artifacts important
in the first 2 – 3
months but not
properly discussed.

4 key EA artifacts that
would be delivered in
2-3 months discussed
and stated 2 reasons
why implementation
of the 4 (four) EA
artifacts important in
the first 2 – 3 months
but details missing

5 4 key EA artifacts
that would be
delivered in 2-3
months discussed
and stated 2
reasons why
implementation of
the 4 (four) EA
artifacts important
in the first 2 – 3
months presented
in detail.

4 key EA artifacts that
would be delivered in
2-3 months discussed
and stated 2 reasons
why implementation
of the 4 (four) EA
artifacts important in
the first 2 – 3 months
presented in detail,
comprehensively
examine the relation
of EA

4 key EA artifacts that
would be delivered in 2-
3 months discussed and
stated 2 reasons why
implementation of the 4
(four) EA artifacts
important in the first 2 –
3 months presented in
detail, very
comprehensively
examine the relation of
EA

Q3 (10% marks 5 (five) direct
benefits and 5 (five)
indirect benefits
that Data#10 would
have if the
Enterprise
Architecture is
successfully
implemented in
Data#10 discussed
but lots of missing
information

5 (five) direct benefits
and 5 (five) indirect
benefits that Data#10
would have if the
Enterprise
Architecture is
successfully
implemented in
Data#10 but details
missing

5 (five) direct
benefits and 5 (five)
indirect benefits
that Data#10 would
have if the
Enterprise
Architecture is
successfully
implemented in
Data#10 discussed
in details.

5 (five) direct benefits
and 5 (five) indirect
benefits that Data#10
would have if the
Enterprise
Architecture is
successfully
implemented in
Data#10
comprehensively
examine the relation
of EA

5 (five) direct benefits
and 5 (five) indirect
benefits that Data#10
would have if the
Enterprise Architecture
is successfully
implemented in Data#10
discussed in details, very
comprehensively
examine the relation of
EA

Q4 (10% marks 5 (five) key roles
that Enterprise
Architecture
Business Strategy
Practice will play in
Data#10 discussed
but lots of missing
information

5 (five) key roles that
Enterprise
Architecture Business
Strategy Practice will
play in Data#10 but
details missing

5 (five) key roles
that Enterprise
Architecture
Business Strategy
Practice will play in
Data#10 discussed
in details.

5 (five) key roles that
Enterprise
Architecture Business
Strategy Practice will
play in Data#10
comprehensively
examine the relation
of EA

5 (five) key roles that
Enterprise Architecture
Business Strategy
Practice will play in
Data#10 discussed in
details, very
comprehensively
examine the relation of
EA

Q5 (10% marks Operating model
that that the group
will implement in
Data#10 and why
the group has
chosen the
operating model
discussed but lots of
missing information

Operating model that
that the group will
implement in Data#10
and why the group
has chosen the
operating model
discussed but few
details missing

Operating model
that that the group
will implement in
Data#10 and why
the group has
chosen the
operating model
discussed in detail.

Operating model that
that the group will
implement in Data#10
and why the group
has chosen the
operating model
discussed and
comprehensively
examine the relation
of EA

Operating model that
that the group will
implement in Data#10
and why the group has
chosen the operating
model discussed in
details, very
comprehensively
examine the relation of
EA

Q6 (10% marks Roles of Vision and
Standard in
implementation of
Data#10’s EA not
properly discussed

Roles of Vision and
Standard in
implementation of
Data#10’s EA
identified properly,
but missing points

Roles of Vision and
Standard in
implementation of
Data#10’s EA
properly discussed,
provided

Roles of Vision and
Standard in
implementation of
Data#10’s EA
discussed and
detailed explanation.

Roles of Vision and
Standard in
implementation of
Data#10’s EA discussed
and with excellent
explanation.

Q7 (10% marks 5 types of IT
initiatives that you
have considered
very important to
Data#10’s EA
discussed but with
wrong information

5 types of IT initiatives
that you have
considered very
important to
Data#10’s EA
discussed but with
missing information

5 types of IT
initiatives that you
have considered
very important to
Data#10’s EA
discussed with good
information

5 types of IT initiatives
that you have
considered very
important to
Data#10’s EA
discussed with
excellent information

5 types of IT initiatives
that you have
considered very
important to Data#10’s
EA discussed with
comprehensive and
excellent information

Structure,
grammar,
presentation
and Harvard
style
referencing
(10% marks).

Paper is poorly
organized and
difficult to read –
does not flow
logically from one
part to another.
There are several
spelling and/or
grammatical errors;
technical terms may
not be defined or
are poorly defined.
Writing lacks clarity
and conciseness.
Include few
references without
following Harvard
style reference
guidelines or no
reference.

Paper shows some
organization. At
times, difficult to read
and does not flow
logically from one
part to another. There
are some spelling
and/or grammatical
errors; technical
terms are generally
are poorly defined.
Includes Few
references with
errors.

Paper is generally
well organized and
most of the
argument is easy to
follow. There are
some spelling
and/or grammatical
errors; technical
terms are generally
are poorly defined.
Writing is mostly
clear but may lack
conciseness. All
references cited
correctly using
citation style with
some minor errors.

Paper is generally well
organized and most of
the argument is easy
to follow. There are
only a few minor
spelling or
grammatical errors, or
terms are not clearly
defined. Writing is
mostly clear. All
references cited
correctly using
citation style.

Paper is coherently
organized and the logic
is easy to follow. There
are no spelling or
grammatical errors and
terminology is clearly
defined.
Writing is clear and
concise and persuasive.
Harvard formatting style
and citation of
references in the body of
the report.

Presentation
slides
Visual Appeal
(4% marks)

There are too many
errors in spelling,
grammar and
punctuation. The
slides were difficult
to read, and slides
contained
information copied
onto them from
another source. No
visual appeal.

There are many errors
in spelling, grammar
and punctuation. Too
much information
was contained on
many slides.
Minimal effort made
to make slides
appealing.

There are some
errors in spelling,
grammar and
punctuation. Too
much information
on more than three
or more slides.
Presentation has
good visual appeal.

There are few errors
in spelling, grammar
and punctuation. Too
much information on
two or more slides.
Presentation has
significant visual
appeal.

There are no errors in
spelling, grammar and
punctuation.
Information is clear and
concise on each slide.
Presentation is
visually
appealing/engaging

Presentation
topic
knowledge/con
tent (4% marks)

Presenters did not
understand topic.
The presentation
was a brief look at
the topic, but many
questions were left
unanswered.
Majority of
information
irrelevant and
significant points
left out.

The presentation was
informative, but
several elements
went unanswered.
Much of the
information
irrelevant; coverage
of some of major
points.

The presentation
was a good
summary of the
topic. Major
information
covered;
presentation
contain some
irrelevant
information.

The presentation was
a very good summary
of the topic.
Almost all-important
information covered;
presentation contain
little irrelevant
information.

Presentation was
excellent and shows
extensive knowledge of
topic with
comprehensive and
complete coverage of
information.

Presentation
skills (5%
marks)

Unsatisfactory
presentation with
no clarity,
appropriate pause,
intonation and is
not capable to
engage listeners.

Satisfactory
presentation with
some clarity and
pause.

Good presentation
with clarity and
pause in majority of
speech.

Very good
presentation with
clarity and pause and
able to engage
listeners for most of
the time.

Excellent presentation
with clarity, pause,
intonation and is capable
to engage listeners all
the time.

Assessment 2: Report

Due date: Week 12

Group/individual: Individual

Word count / Time provided: 3600 words

Weighting: 40%

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

Assessment Details:

This assessment is designed to assess develop your skills in Enterprise Architecture (EA). You are

required to develop knowledge on EA methodology, EA Framework, data model and emerging EA. In

completing this assessment successfully, you will be able to know major widely accepted Enterprise

Architecture (EA) domains, layers, frameworks and governance, which will help in achieving ULO-3,

ULO-4, and ULO-5.

Report: Part-I (Case Study)
InnoTech is a large steel manufacturing company established several decades ago. Historically,

InnoTech grew largely via mergers and acquisitions of smaller companies occupying adjacent or

complementary market niches and underwent a number of corporate restructurings. Presently, at the

highest level the company is split into two major divisions: Division Alpha and Division Beta. Both

divisions are governed from the lean central head office and report their quarterly financial indicators

to top business executives for their consideration. However, operationally these divisions represent

essentially independent businesses with non-overlapping suppliers, products, customers and markets.

Each division is managed by an appointed executive director reporting directly to C-level corporate

leadership. Divisions are free to set their own agendas, pursue their own competitive strategies and

make their own investment decisions, though major investments must seek approval at the corporate

level.

Division Alpha is an established and large-scale, but highly centralized manufacturing shop. It

specializes on fabricating a single line of products, which are distributed directly to a narrow circle of

wholesale customers over stable supply chain network arrangements. The division has a rather

conservative IT investment strategy intended primarily to achieve better automation of existing

operations and enable smooth, uninterrupted and efficient business processes. It has a central

division-wide IT department employing around 150-180 in-house specialists and also involving about

100-120 external contractors working on a full-time basis. The IT department is responsible for

providing necessary IT support across all activities of Division Alpha’s value chain, e.g. production,

warehousing, sales and delivery as well as various supporting activities including HR, finance and legal

services.

Division Beta has a more complex, dynamic and diversified business model. It offers three core lines

of products focused largely on different market segments and customer groups. These product lines

require substantially different manufacturing processes, distribution channels, sales approaches and

marketing campaigns. However, all products are fabricated from similar raw materials and

components procured from the same suppliers. Moreover, customer bases of these products also

partially overlap, and the department’s leadership is planning to leverage cross-selling opportunities

more actively in the future. Organizationally, Division Beta is structured into three major units aligned

to its three product lines and an additional supporting unit providing shared division-wide services to

the main business, e.g. HR, finance, accounting and IT. Its IT department employs around 450-500 IT

staff qualified in different technologies used in the division’s IT landscape. To accommodate with the

quickly changing market conditions, Division Beta invests a significant share of its profits in new IT

systems and infrastructure. It has an aggressive IT investment strategy aimed at enabling innovative

ways of working.

Questions

1. How many architects does the InnoTech needs for each of the positions described above?
Provide detailed explanation to justify the needs.

2. Discuss 5 (five) major general skills requirements for architecture positions

3. Describe 5 role of the Architecture Manager in Innotech

Report: Part-II (Determining the Operating Model of a Multi-Profile Company)

ComTech is a diversified, multi-profile company. Essentially, it is a conglomerate company consisting

of three diverse strategic units acting as independent businesses under separate brands in different

industry sectors: Unit Alpha, Unit Beta and Unit Gamma. ComTech is governed from the central head

office, which oversights the three subsidiary business units and their financial performance

indicators, though without any operational interventions. Each strategic business unit has its own

managing director with full discretion and responsibility over its competitive strategy, investment

priorities, budget allocation and ensuing yearly profits.

Unit Alpha is in the food manufacturing business. The unit produces and distributes a variety of

goods including, but not limited to, vegetables, groceries, meat and dairy products. Each of these

product lines requires unique production processes, storage arrangements, transportation

approaches and underlying equipment and is organizationally implemented by a separate

specialized product department. However, these products are delivered largely to the same circle of

customers, including both major retailers and local food shops. All product lines are also served by a

number of common unit-wide functions, e.g. HR, finance, accounting, logistics, legal, marketing and

sales support.

Unit Beta competes in the restaurant business. Specifically, the unit controls a chain of small fast-

food restaurants occupying the low-cost market niche. In total, the chain includes more than 80

restaurants located in different geographies and more restaurants are planned to be opened in the

foreseeable future. All restaurants offer same interiors, menus, prices, meals and services to their

customers and imply standardized policies, working procedures and supporting equipment.

However, each restaurant is run separately by a chief manager responsible for its overall financial

well-being and all necessary business processes, e.g. recruiting, training, procurement, cooking,

servicing, cleaning and complaints management. With the exception of Unit Beta’s lean central

office, where chain-wide branding, marketing and other strategic decisions are made, the

restaurants operate independently from each other and even have their own profit and loss

statements.

Finally, Unit Gamma runs a chain of resort hotels. These hotels gravitate towards the high-end price

segment and offer premium-quality services to their customers. Unit Gamma’s competitive strategy

implies improving its brand recognition and achieving consistent customer experience. For this

purpose, the unit’s leadership plans to standardize all customer-facing and, to a lesser extent, back-

office processes across all hotels of the chain as well as all its suppliers and service providers.

Moreover, Unit Gamma also intends to become “closer” to its customers and build lifelong customer

relationships. This strategy requires collecting more information about customers, their individual

preferences and transaction histories, aggregating this information globally and leveraging it for

providing customized services, launching loyalty programs, developing special offers and promoting

personalized discounts.

Questions

1. What is an operating model of ComTech on each of its three strategic business units?

2. What business processes are standardized ComTech within each of its business units?

3. What specific types of data are integrated across ComTech within each of its business
units?

4. What is the highest-level structure of the IT landscape in ComTech in each of its business
units?

5. Recommend operating model that should be implement in ComTech. Provide 3 reasons for
your recommendation

Report: Part-III

MoneyInvectors is a mid-size financial company. 5 years ago MoneyInvectors decided to establish a

full-fledged EA practice to accommodate with the growing problems around non-transparency of its

IT investments and poor business and IT alignment in general. The establishment of EA practice was

successful and it was completed last 2 year. Due to recent advancement in technologies,

MoneyInvectors wants to implement Big Data technologies that would empower their staff and

customers for example, implementation of analytical Big Data Technologies would enable

MoneyInvestors staff to approve credit card application within 30 minutes of the submission of the

application.

However, MoneyInvectors’s CIO is pretty skeptical towards the implementation of Big Data

technologies. He believes that the company is only wasting money on the Big Data technologies as it

is essentially nothing more than a sophisticated collection of data.

As a newly promoted IT manager at MoneyInvestors, you are required to write a report that discusses

the following:

1. 5 (five) major difference between Big Data and EA.

2. 5 (five) challenges that MoneyInvestors may have with implantation of Big Data
Technologies and how the challenges should be resolved.

3. 5 (five) major difference between Big Data and Ordinary Data.

4. 5 (five) ways that MoneyInvestors would benefits from Big Data disruptive technologies
implementation.

5. What do you under with the term ‘cloud computing’? Discuss the important of cloud
computing in Enterprise architecture.

Marking Criteria and Rubric: The assessment will be marked out of 100% and will be weighted 40%

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

Report Part-I: Case
Study
(15% marks)

Not identifying the
problems, provided
solution is very weak.

Problems are
identified very
briefly, provided
solution is acceptable
but details missing,
briefly examine the
EA

Most of the
problems are
identified, provide
good solutions,
examine the EA but
major points are
missing

All the problems are
identified, provides
very good solutions,
examines the EA
clearly

All the problems are
clearly identified,
provided excellent
solutions and EA very
clearly

Report Part-II:
(30% marks)

Questions on Report
Part II is poorly
examine in the
relation of EA

Questions on Report
Part II is answered
but details missing,
comparison
presented briefly,
very briefly examine
the relation of EA

Questions on Report
Part II is adequately
addressed,
comparison
presented in detail,
briefly examine the
relation of EA

Shows sound
knowledge on
Operating model
identification,
comparison
presented in detail,
comprehensively
examine the relation
of EA

Shows full
knowledge on
Operating model
identification,
comparison
presented in detail,
very
comprehensively
examine the relation
of EA

Report Part-III:
(30% marks)

Big data, cloud
computing not
discussed properly,
Provide wrong
solutions

Big data, cloud
computing discussed
but missing points

More than adequate
design, most of the
solutions are
properly, provided

Comprehensive
analysis of situation
and Provide correct
solutions with
explanation.

Comprehensive
analysis of situation
and Provide correct
solutions with
excellent
explanation.

Structure,
grammar,
presentation and
Harvard style
referencing (10%
marks).

The report is poorly

organized and

difficult to read –

does not flow

logically from one

part to another. There

are several spelling

and/or grammatical

errors; technical

terms may not be

defined or are poorly

defined. Writing

lacks clarity and

conciseness. Include

few references

without following

Harvard style

reference guidelines

or no reference.

The report shows
some organization.
At times, difficult to
read and does not
flow logically from
one part to another.
There are some
spelling and/or
grammatical errors;
technical terms are
generally are poorly
defined. Includes
Few references with
errors.

The report is

generally well

organized and most

of the argument is

easy to follow. There

are some spelling

and/or grammatical

errors; technical

terms are generally

are poorly defined.

Writing is mostly

clear but may lack

conciseness. All

references cited

correctly using

citation style with

some minor errors.

The report is
generally well
organized and most
of the argument is
easy to follow. There
are only a few minor
spelling or
grammatical errors,
or terms are not
clearly defined.
Writing is mostly
clear. All references
cited correctly using
citation style.

The report is
coherently organized
and the logic is easy
to follow. There are
no spelling or
grammatical errors
and terminology is
clearly defined.
Writing is clear and
concise and
persuasive. Harvard
formatting style and
citation of references
in the body of the
report.

Assessment 3: Quiz

Due date: Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10

Group/individual: Individual

Word count / Time provided: 30 minutes

Weighting: 30%

Unit Learning Outcomes: ULO1, ULO2, ULO-3, ULO-4, ULO-5

Assessment Details:

This quiz will assess your knowledge of key content areas (Week 1 to Week 10 contents) and to identify

further support needs. 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 …