OIM Assignment: Azzaz Report
Semester 1, 2016-2017
? This is an individual assignment worth 50% of the module mark.
? Word length: equivalent of 3000 words in total (do not exceed word limit for each, a penalty will apply for assignments that exceed it by more than 10%).
? Do not include References in the word count.
This assignment is in four parts.
Section Content Word Count Marks
Part A Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis 1000 (equivalent to) 30
Part B Open Source Software Comparison Table 500 (equivalent to) 20
Part C Report 1250 40
Part D Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion and wiki 250 10
Total 3000 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:
Please submit an electronic copy of your assessment via OnlineCampus. The electronic copy may be in either Word or PDF.
Assignment Brief : Azzaz Case Study
Azzaz is a mobile phone and accessories retailer based in England, owned by Lewis. The business started with a single shop, which Lewis has grown into a chain of eleven. The first four shops were opened from scratch but in January 2014 Lewis bought ‘PhoneBits,’ a group of three outlets, which he intends to operate under the Azzaz brand. The recent acquisition is a significant expansion in the operation of the business, not least because two of the new outlets are in Norway. Lewis is hoping that this will help him to gain a foothold in the European market. As a result of the expansion Lewis 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 Azzaz brand, but with a relatively small additional overhead.
Azzaz and PhoneBits have different IT systems, and in addition to integrating the two parts of the business there is the need to add ‘b2c’ eCommerce functionality. Lewis 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.
The case study requires you to work with incomplete information, an important skill. You are free to make assumptions about aspects of Lewis’s situation or operation where these are relevant to your work – please ensure that any assumptions made are clearly stated in your report.
Part A: Analysis – Business Process Models and strategy analysis
In this section you should develop
1. A series of at least two Business Process Models, which capture the existing and your proposed business processes for Azzaz. The models should follow the BPMN notation shown in the lecture slides. 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 Azzaz. You should use at least one 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 Azzaz. 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 for Azzaz 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 in Part B, and provide recommendations for ensuring that the strategy is effectively implemented, including
consideration of the challenges ahead.
This section should follow standard report structure:
Title Page – Contents – Introduction - Main Section – Conclusions and Recommendations - References.
Part D: Reflection on your contribution to the online discussion and wiki
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 (copy and paste it into your assignment document). The reflective report should include your detailed reflection, supported with evidence (pasted URLs) from the online discussion and wiki, detailed below:

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

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.
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
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.

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 inconsistencies; 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.

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