Details of the Task
This assignment is in two parts.
Part A, the report = 80 marks.
Part B, reflection on your contribution to the online collaborative technologies = 20 marks
You should include both parts in a single document
Report details: FlashMobz: A Case Study
FlashMobz is a mobile phone and accessories retailer based in England, owned by Asif. The business started with a single shop, which Asif has grown into a chain of eleven. The first four shops were opened from scratch but in July 2014 Asif bought ‘PhonesRUs’ a group of three outlets, which he intends to operate under the FlashMobz brand. The recent acquisition is a significant expansion in the operation of the business, not least because two of the new outlets are in Belgium. Asif is hoping that this will help him to gain a foothold in the European market. As a result of the expansion Asif has identified a need to open a new warehouse in the East of England, and he has decided that this would be an excellent opportunity to launch an eCommerce arm to the business, capitalising on the success of the FlashMobz brand, but with a relatively small additional overhead.
FlashMobz and PhonesRUs have different IT systems, and in addition to integrating the two parts of the business there is the need to add ‘b2c’ eCommerce functionality. Asif would like this to be fully integrated with the retail stores, allowing customers to collect and return stock via the stores, as well as via courier.
Your Task
You are a member of the SBS Consultant Team employed by FlashMobz. You are required to write a professional report which deals with the issues outlined above and presents your analysis and recommendations.
- Identify key business and technical challenges of FlashMobz acquisitionof PhonesRUs and transition to
- Consider barriers to implementation and how these might be
- Build an inclusive and persuasive argument that can be presented to
The word count for the report is 2400.
Please structure your assignment as a report – include: Title Page – Contents – Introduction a Main Section – Conclusions and Recommendations a References.
The case study requires you to work with incomplete information, an important skill. You are free to make assumptions about aspects of Asif’s situation or operation where these are relevant to your work – please ensure that any assumptions made are clearly stated in your report.
You must reference your report with a range of practitioner and academic publications (Include at least 10 references. References will not be included in the word count).
The report should be be 2400 words in length (not including the references)
Using the Online Collaborative Technologies
The online module site has been set up with discussion forums. You should use these to
- Discuss the topicspresented
- Consider the implications of these for IS professionals andorganisations
- Share papers and articles that you have found on relevant topics (rememberto include links / reference / pdfs if you do this!)
- Discuss key concepts of relevance for theassignments
The purpose of this element is to give you direct practical experience of using collaborative technologies, and for you to consider how they could be incorporated into your future practice as IS professionals.
Reflective Statement
You should submit a 300 word reflective summary, accompanied by your own selfa assessment of your contribution to the online elements throughout the module, using the table labelled Online Discussion Self Assessment below (copy and paste it into your assignment document). The reflective report should include your detailed reflection, supported with evidence from the online elements. In this section you should reflect on how the use of these technologies has impacted your own understanding of these, and also how this might impact your future practice as IS professionals – has your use of these given you ides of how they might be used in an organisational context in the future?
Example (Fictional student and subject) Before I started researching the relevance of business process modelling to organisational strategy (see A Student’s posting “BPM doesn’t help strategy” of 16 June). Discussion and examples shared on the Padlet showed me how these are related, which I highlighted in the discussion ( see my posting of 19 June).
The word count equivalent for the contributions to online collaborative technologies is 600: a 300 word reflective statement and 300 word equivalent contributions to the online technologies
Salford Business School
Information Systems
You should submit a 300 word reflective summary, accompanied by your own self<assessment of your contribution to the online elements throughout the module, using the table labelled Online Discussion Self Assessment below (copy and paste it into your assignment document). The reflective report should include your detailed reflection, supported with evidence from the online elements. In this section you should reflect on how the use of these technologies has impacted your own understanding of these, and also how this might impact your future practice as IS professionals – has your use of these given you ides of how they might be used in an organisational context in the future?
Example (Fictional student and subject) Before I started researching the relevance of business process modelling to organisational strategy (see A Student’s posting “BPM doesn’t help strategy” of 16 June). Discussion and examples shared on the Padlet showed me how these are related, which I highlighted in the discussion ( see my posting of 19 June).
Online Discussion Self Assessment
| 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 discussions and wiki, and following up on
contributions of others. |
Skill shown in weaving contributions into discussion and / or wiki, 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 online contributions (in reflective summary) | Deep reflection shown, with clear and substantial evidence from online discussion and wiki | Good reflection, with clear evidence from online discussion and / or wiki |
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. |
Information Systems
Level 7– Generic Descriptors
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
| 1<9 | 10<19 | 20<29 | 30<39 | 40<49 | 50<59 | 60<69 | 70<79 | 80<89 | 90<100 | |
| Knowledge | Totally inadequate demonstration of required knowledge. Not able to link theory to practice. No appropriate themes identified. | Virtually no relevant knowledge demonstrated. Fails to adequately demonstrate links between theory and practice. Very poor identification of key themes. | Inconsistent or inaccurate knowledge.
Limited and inappropriate or inaccurate links between theory and practice. Poor identification of key themes. |
Limited evidence of knowledge.
Inappropriate links between theory and practice. Inadequate identification of key themes. |
Basic knowledge with occasional inaccuracies appropriate yet basic integration of theory and practice.
Superficial depth or limited breadth with unsatisfactory identification of key themes. |
Mostly accurate knowledge with satisfactory depth and breadth of knowledge.
Sound integration of theory and practice with satisfactory identification of key themes. |
Consistently relevant accurate knowledge with good depth and breadth. Clear and relevant application of theory to practice. Good identification of key themes. | Comprehensive knowledge demonstrating very good depth and breadth.
Clear insight into links between theory and practice. Demonstrates ability to transfer knowledge between different contexts appropriately. |
Integrates the complexity of a range of knowledge and excellent understanding of it’s relevance.
Excellent depth of knowledge in a variety of contexts. Coherent and systematic application of theory to practice. |
Outstanding knowledge. Theory is linked to practice to an exceptional level and may be used to formulate new questions, ideas or challenges. |
Information Systems
| Extremely poor | Very poor | Poor | Inadequate | Unsatisfactory | Satisfactory | Good | Very Good | Excellent | Outstanding | |
| 1<9 | 10<19 | 20<29 | 30<39 | 40<49 | 50<59 | 60<69 | 70<79 | 80<89 | 90<100 | |
| Cognitive processes | No demonstration of analysis, evaluation or synthesis. No evidence of reflection.
Unsatisfactory professional judgement |
No meaningful analysis or evaluation.
Unable to identify appropriate issues for reflection. Arguments presented are inappropriate and very poorly linked. Very poor professional judgement. |
Descriptive occasionally attempts to analyse or evaluate material but lacks critical approach. Confusion and/ or weakness in academic argument. Identifies issues for reflection but lacks evidence of reflective processes.
Poor professional judgement. |
Mainly descriptive evidence of analysis, inconsistent critical approach, little evaluation or synthesis.
Follows processes of reflection but fails to demonstrate insight. Inconsistent and/ or inaccurate professional judgement. |
Critical analysis evident, with some evaluation and synthesis, although limited. Limited evidence of reflection.
Some appropriate academic argument although not well applied and lacking in clarity. Unsatisfactory professional judgement. |
Sound critical analysis and evaluation.
Relevant academic argument. Demonstrates basic ability of synthesise information in order to formulate appropriate questions and conclusions. Reflective process is utilised, with insight demonstrating planning for future practice. Integrates relevant information in order to make sound professional judgements. |
Clear, in depth critical analysis, evaluation and academic argument with synthesis of different ideas and perspectives. Utilises reflection to develop self and practice.
Aware of the influence of varied perspectives and time frames. Uses a wide range of sources to inform clinical decision making and prioritises plans. |
Very good analysis and synthesis of material with evidence of critique and independent thought.
Balanced and mature approach to reflection used to enhance practice and performance in a range of contexts. Demonstrates ability to make sound decisions in complex and unpredictable contexts. |
Excellent critical analysis and synthesis.
Arguments handled skilfully with imaginative interpretation of material. Willingness to challenge self and practice. |
Outstanding critical analysis and synthesis. Incorporates evidence of original thinking. |
Information Systems
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
| 1<9 | 10<19 | 20<29 | 30<39 | 40<49 | 50<59 | 60<69 | 70<79 | 80<89 | 90<100 | |
|
Communication |
Presentation is extremely poor. Work has no structure or clarity. Extremely poor use of language. |
Presentation is very poor. Work has little discernable structure or clarity. Very poor use of language. |
Presentation is poor. Work is disorganised and lacks clarity. Poor use of language. |
Presentation is unsatisfactory. Work is limited in terms of structure, coherence and clarity. Limitations in academic style. |
Presentation of work is unsatisfactory in terms of structure, coherence, clarity and academic style. Some inconsistencies. Some grammar and syntax errors which detract from the content |
Presentation of work is satisfactory in terms of structure coherence, clarity and academic style. But some inconsistencies in grammar and syntax. |
Presentation of work is well organised with good use of language to express ideas/argument. Very few inconsistenciesd grammar and syntax good. |
Presentation is of a very good standard, demonstrating a scholarly style. Very good grammar and syntax |
Presentation is excellent, well structured and logical. Demonstrates a scholarly style. Excellent grammar and syntax. |
Presentation is outstanding demonstrating a fluent academic style. |
Information Systems
|
Extremely poor |
Very poor |
Poor |
Inadequate |
Unsatisfactory |
Satisfactory |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
Outstanding |
|
| 1<9 | 10<19 | 20<29 | 30<39 | 40<49 | 50<59 | 60<69 | 70<79 | 80<89 | 90<100 | |
| Referencing and using evidence | No references. No attempt to provide evidence of sources used. | Lack of ability to source adequate material. Very poor referencing | Poor use of reference material.
Inappropriate or out dated sources with numerous referencing errors. |
Unsatisfactory referencing with frequent error. Limited ability to support content with relevant sources. | Narrow range of sources.
Referencing in presented work is unsatisfactory with some inconsistencies or inaccuracies. Over utilises secondary sources. References used are inappropriate in terms of currency. |
Satisfactory range of sources identified with appropriate referencing and few inaccuracies.
Appropriate use of primary and secondary sources. |
Good range of sources. Well referenced, very few inaccuracies.
Good use of primary and secondary sources. |
Clear evidence of referencing to a wide range of primary and secondary sources which are used effectively in supporting the work. | Detailed use of predominantly primary sources which are well referenced and are used creatively to develop the work. | Synthesis of reference material from a wide range of sources both within and across professions |