OIM Assignment: Giovanni’s PastaReport

OIM Assignment: Giovanni’s PastaReport

Semester 3,2015-2016

? This is an individual assignment worth 50% of the module mark.
? Word length: equivalent of 3000 words in total (do not exceed each sectionword limit; a penalty will apply for assignments that exceed it by more than 10%).
? Do not include references in the word count.
The assignment must be uploaded to RKC’s OnlineCampus by midnight Zurich time, Sunday 17thJuly 2016

This assignment is in four parts.

Section Content Word Count Marks
Part A Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis 1,000 (equivalent to) 25
Part B Open Source Software Comparison Table 500 (equivalent to) 25
Part C Report 1,250 40
Part D Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion 250 10
Total 3,000 100

You should include all parts in a single document

Relates to Learning Outcomes:

• Critically analyse the theory, concepts and models of operations and information management and demonstrate an understanding of the strategic importance of information management in global organisations.
• Evaluate critically the fundamental principles of information systems and the significance of a socio-technical approach to their use in organisations.
• Select and apply appropriate problem-solving and improvement approaches for information systems in organisations.

Assessment Housekeeping:
You are required to follow the University’s regulations regarding plagiarism and citing sources and references used. Assignments may not be submitted late.Marking penalties for late submission will follow the University regulations for PMC and late submission.

Submission of Assessment:
The assignment is to be submitted electronically via RKC’s OnlineCampus. The electronic copy may be in either Word or PDF.

Assignment Brief

Case Study:

Giovanni’s Pasta

Ten years ago Giovanni inherited his family business and,with a small business loan from the bank, decided to invest and extend the business. Giovanni thought carefully about what people really like and decided to specialize in unusual home-made pasta of the very highest quality. He considered that in addition to selling from the single high street shop, he could also increase the volume sold by selling to people who need fast, healthy lunches. If he delivered, as well as selling from the café, Giovanni considered that he would be even more successful and would be able to open another four cafés in other cities.

Giovanni was very successful in making his own pasta, as his grandmother had taught him, and he mademany different kinds of “Artisan” Pasta which were extremely popular. For the first eight years Giovanni’s business was very successful and each year he made a small profit. In addition he was now running Pasta Making Classes in the evenings.

However, during the last two years, other cafés had also opened which were in direct competition with Giovanni. In addition Giovanni is aware of the current economic climate and would like to find a way to carefully plan the future of the business.

Giovanni is also a little concerned about delivery, how to recruit the best employees and how to ensure they find the correct address quickly and the best routes, especially during rush hours. He has chosen to deliver within a fifteen-mile radius from his café, and intends, in his new expansion, to employ thirty peopleas part time delivery staff.

Giovanni has traded now for ten years and has made a substantial profit. Giovanni knew that the first few years of any new business arealways difficult and so he is happy that he has been very successful. However, he knows that in order to now expand further and to ensure he is able to compete on speed of delivery, price and quality, he needs to think “outside the box” – he cannot afford to rent any more space on the high street, yet he knows that it is important for him to increase volume sold and hence turnover.

Your Task

You are a consultant who has been employed to advise Giovanni on the effective implementation of these strategic changes. You are required to produce the following:

Part A: Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis
In this section you should develop
1. A series of Business Process Models, which capture the existing and proposed business processes. The models should follow the BPMN notation (see Introduction to BPMN in Unit 4’s Resources). It is recommended that you use Microsoft Visio to create the models although you may if you prefer use Word, PowerPoint or appropriate alternatives.
2. Strategic analysis for Giovanni’s Pasta. You should use a recognised analysis technique such as SWOT, PESTLE etc.

Part B: Open Source Software Comparison Table
In this section you should conduct research into a suitable software solution for Giovanni. You should decide on the set of characteristics which you will use to evaluate the software and your research should consider 4-5 alternatives in detail. This section should be presented as a table.

Part C: Report
In this section you should write a report which provides an overview of the current situation together with a roadmap outlining how the proposed changes to the business can be achieved to the benefit of the business. This should draw on your analysis in Part A, include your recommendation for software, and provide recommendations for ensuring that the strategy is effectively implemented, including consideration of the challenges ahead.

This section should follow a standard report structure:
Title Page – Contents – Introduction – Main Section – Conclusions and Recommendations – References.
Part D: Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion

In this section you should submit a 250 word reflective summary, accompanied by your own self-assessment of your contribution to the online elements throughout the module, using the table labelled Reflection Self Assessment Proforma in Appendix A, to justify your assessment (copy and paste it into your assignment document). The reflective report should include your detailed reflection, supported with evidence from the online discussion.

You should use appropriate theories, frameworks and models,that we have covered in the module, to inform and justify your recommendations.

Using the Forum to Help With Your Assignment
It is recommended that you use the RKC Forum threads to:
? Share papers and articles that you have found on relevant topics, focusing on peer-reviewed sources (remember to include links / reference / pdfs)
? Discuss the changes to the ways of working for Giovanni’s Pasta – i.e. discuss what processes will change, and explore how these might work in practice. You might also consider the changing information needs of the business
? Discuss and share examples of Open Source software that could be of use for Giovanni’s Pasta.
Please don’t be shy about using the Forum threads – the purpose is to give you experience of using collaborative technologies.

Appendix A: Reflection Self Assessment Proforma


Example (Fictional student and subject) Before I started researching the subject of open source, I assumed that support was not available for small businesses (see A Student’s posting “No support available” of 16 Oct). In writing my report I realised that there are a variety of models of support ( see my posting of 19 Oct).

Grade 80+ 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-40
Quality of contributions Made several good contributions and one or more outstanding contribution. Made several good contributions. Made a few good contributions Made a few valid contributions Made 1 or 2 postings, of poor quality Did not contribute.
Attribution of references Clear referencing of well-chosen and highly relevant sources Clear referencing of all sources, some relevant. Clear referencing of all sources. Sources generally referenced. Used ideas/ words of others without attribution. Cut and paste, or absent contributions.
Evidence of collaboration/ facilitation skills Skill shown in weaving contributions into the Forum discussions, and following up on contributions of others. Skill shown in weaving contributions into the Forum discussions, or following up on contributions of others Some evidence of links to contributions of others. Basic recognition of contributions of others. Little or no recognition of contributions of others. None
Reflection on onlinecontributions (in reflective summary) Deep reflection shown, with clear and substantial evidence from the Forum discussions Good reflection, with clear evidence from the Forum discussions Reflection and evidence offered, limitations in one of these Reflection and evidence offered, limitations in both of these Superficial reflection, very limited evidence Very little or no reflection/evidence.

Criterion / Mark range
90-100 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 0-39
Overall level
(indicative – not for grading) Standard comparable to journal publication Standard comparable to conference paper publication Distinctive work for Masters level Merit work for Masters level Acceptable for Masters Below Masters pass standard Significantly below Masters pass standard
Scope Outstanding clarity of focus, includes what is important, and excludes irrelevant issues. Excellent clarity of focus, boundaries set with no significant omissions or unnecessary issues. Clear focus. Very good setting of boundaries, includes most of what is relevant. Clear scope and focus, with some omissions or unnecessary issues. Scope evident and satisfactory but with some omissions and unnecessary issues. Poorly scoped, with significant omissions and unnecessary issues. Little or no scope or focus evident.
Understanding of subject matter
Outstanding with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Excellent with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Excellent expression of ideas. Very good with critical awareness of relevance of issues. Outstanding expression of ideas. Good with some awareness of relevance of issues. Ideas are expressed, with some limitation. Basic with limited awareness of relevance of issues. Limited expression of ideas. Poor with little awareness of relevance of issues Little or no understanding of subject matter is demonstrated.
Comprehensive literature review. Evaluation and synthesis of source material to produce an outstanding contribution. Excellent independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce an excellent contribution. Very good independent secondary research. Sources are evaluated and synthesized to produce a very good contribution. Good secondary research to extend taught materials. Evidence of evaluation of sources, with some deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Limited secondary research to extend taught materials. Limited evaluation of sources, deficiencies in choice and synthesis. Little or no extension of taught materials. Poor choice and synthesis of materials. Poor use of taught materials. No synthesis.
Critical analysis based on evidence Standard of critical analysis – showing questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought Excellent standard of critical analysis – excellence in questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought A very good standard of critical analysis. Sources are questioned appropriately, and a very good understanding of bias, showing independence of thought Critical analysis with some questioning of sources, understanding of bias, independence of thought. Analysis evident but uncritical. Sources are not always questioned, with limited independence of thought. Little or no analysis. No valid analysis.
Structure of argument, leading to conclusion Well structured, compelling and persuasive argument that leads to a valuable contribution to the field of study, paving the way for future work. Argument has excellent structure and persuasiveness, leading to very significant insights and relevant future work. Well-structured and persuasive argument Insightful conclusion draws together key issues and possible future work. Structured and fairly convincing argument leads to conclusion that summarises key issues. Argument has some structure and development towards conclusion with limitations in summary of issues. Argument is unstructured, no recognizable conclusion. No evidence of argument or conclusion.

Posted in essay.