OIM Assignment: Loud & Clear (LC) PA Systems Report

May 11, 2020AdminUncategorized

OIM Assignment: Loud & Clear (LC) PA Systems Report

This is an individual assignment worth 50% of the module mark.
Word length: equivalent of 3,000 words in total (but do not exceed word limit for each part, 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	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, and you should ensure that the file name includes your surname.

Assignment Brief

Case Study: Loud & Clear (LC) PA Systems

Loud & Clear (LC) is a worker cooperative group, which has been operating in Manchester for ten years. It began when two music students graduated from college and got together with a few more friends to start the group. They provide Public Address systems, mixing consoles, amplifiers, microphones and other equipment for inside and outside events. There are now ten members of the LC group, which is made up of sound engineers and musicians. The group provides a reliable service for events in the UK, they guarantee that the PA systems will be set-up, sound checked and controlled by a qualified sound engineer for the duration of the event. This is a specialised area of technical work and as the majority of staff are performers themselves, they take great pride in providing this professional service.

The original idea for this enterprise came from Elsie Black who now manages the LC office. They have a couple of desktop computers and utilise a business website, a rather basic database of client information, business email, a number of electronic documents, a couple of spreadsheets, and a shared online calendar which displays all the event bookings. Apart from that, each technician has a mobile phone which receives; phone messages, text messages, emails and alerts from the office. Elsie and her assistant take responsibility for everything that falls under the remit of the office, which includes; all event bookings and associated documentation, marketing of services, payment of salaries, etc.

For some time, the group have discussed opportunities to develop the business, and they are all committed to taking on new challenges. They feel they are well placed to take on the new opportunities that have been brought about by the growing number of events taking place in the North West and around the UK. Telephone enquires about the services they provide have doubled in the past year and bookings are increasing fast. Therefore, the LC group believe it is time to update the office systems to cope with the growing demands of their business. They have discussed the possibility of Customer Relationship Management software and Enterprise Resource Planning software. However, they need professional help before they can make a final decision. They are also interested in the possibility of utilising Open Source software, but require information on the advantages and disadvantages.

Growing the business will mean significant changes for LC and there are some concerns that using business information technology for communications might change the close working relationships which exist between the sound engineers and the office staff. While everyone accepts that some changes are necessary, there is some apprehension about the impact on roles. As LC is a worker cooperative, everyone has an equal vote on how these changes will be made. Therefore, they require a report that can be read and understood by all members of the group (technical and non-technical group members).

Your Task

You are a consultant who has been employed to advise LC 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

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.
Strategic analysis for LC. 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 LC 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.

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

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, 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 LC – 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 LC

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).

	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.

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.
Literature	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.