Date: 16/01/2026
Status: In Progress
NEXT UP: Submit Assignment
Unlimited Attempts Allowed
Marks: 30% of the Total Assessment for the Course
Due Date: 11:59pm Friday 19th September 2025
Word Count: approx. 1500
Submission: Online - Individual Submission (in Microsoft Word format (.DOCX))
| ICT115 - Assessment Task 2, Requirements (refer to Part B for specific details) | ICT115 - Assessment Task 2, Requirements.pdf (https://learn.usc.edu.au/courses/33171/files/2656596?wrap=1) |
|---|
• Read the provided case study, and then create a professional business report with responses to the items/questions provided.
• Your report should be approximately one thousand five hundred (1,500) words. You will not be penalised on word count, but marks will be deducted for lack of information or lack of clarity and conciseness in the writing.
• Do not extend the scope for any solutions beyond those specifically described in the case study.
• You are permitted to make reasonable assumptions where necessary, but these should be noted and explained.
• UML software such as Draw.io (https://app.diagrams.net) should be used to draw the models; hand-drawn models are not acceptable.
• Appropriate referencing is required, both in-text and reference list.
• The assignment will be assessed according to the provided rubric, out of a total of 30 points.
The completed assignment is to be submitted by TurnItIn on or before the due date.
Late submission of the assignment will result in the maximum deductions of points as per UniSC School policy for each day late (including weekends). For more information please refer to the UniSC Assessment Policy.
Requests for an extension MUST be made prior to the date of submission and requests made on the day of submission or after the submission date will only be considered in exceptional circumstances.
Once marked, ALL assignments will be checked for plagiarism and/or collusion between individuals.
Refer to your Course Outline or the Course Web Site for a copy of the "Student Misconduct, Plagiarism and Collusion" guidelines.
Academic Integrity Information: https://studentportal.usc.edu.au/learn/student-expectations-and-responsibilities/academic-integrity
Note: Each student MUST be able to produce a copy of their assignment and this copy MUST be produced within 24 hours of it being requested by the Course Coordinator. Failure to produce the second copy of the assignment when requested may result in loss of marks or a fail grade for the assignment.
Assignment grades will be available on the course learning management system.
Where an assignment is undergoing investigation for alleged plagiarism or collusion the grade for the assignment and the assignment will be withheld until the investigation has concluded.
| Criteria | 6 pts High Distinction | 5 pts Distinction | 4 pts Credit | 3 pts Pass | 2 pts Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feasibility Analysis | Provides a thorough and insightful evaluation of system feasibility, detailed analysis of tangible/intangible impacts, alignment with The Story Exchange's strategic needs, and potential risks. Demonstrates a deep understanding of total cost of ownership, organisational impact, though some areas of analysis may be limited in depth, with some gaps in addressing organisational impact or risk. Demonstrates accurate understanding of total cost of ownership and organisational culture impacts. | Provides a strong evaluation of system's feasibility for The Story Exchange, with well-articulated analysis of tangible and intangible impacts, and alignment with strategic needs, and key risks. Demonstrates accurate understanding of total cost of ownership and potential organisational impact or risk. | Provides an adequate evaluation of the system's feasibility for The Story Exchange, with analysis of essential factors such as costs, benefits, and basic feasibility, though the analysis may lack full depth or detailed risk considerations. Connections to the The Story Exchange case are present but often superficial or incomplete. | Provides a basic analysis of the system's feasibility, covering minimal elements like costs or benefits. The Story Exchange's needs. Lacks a basic understanding of cost, benefits, or feasibility factors, and may omit essential elements such as organisational issues, and past challenges or implementation detailed risk considerations. | Fails to provide a coherent or relevant analysis of system feasibility, with little to no alignment to The Story Exchange's specific needs. Demonstrates minimal effort or misunderstanding of feasibility analysis principles. |
| Criteria | 6 pts High Distinction | 5 pts Distinction | 4 pts Credit | 3 pts Pass | 2 pts Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System Requirements and Risk Analysis | Provides an insightful analysis of key system requirements, potential risks, and mitigation strategies for The Story Exchange's CRM and project management system. Demonstrates critical thinking in assessing system scalability, operational impact, and risk management considerations aligned with The Story Exchange's strategic goals. | Provides a well-structured analysis of system requirements, potential risks, and strategies for mitigation. Demonstrates a strong understanding of scalability and risk management in the context of The Story Exchange, with accurate consideration of key technical and operational factors. Analysis is mostly thorough, though may lack full depth in assessing long-term impacts or contingency planning. | Provides an adequate analysis of system requirements and potential risks, covering key technical and operational aspects. Demonstrates satisfactory understanding of risk factors relevant to The Story Exchange's implementation needs, though analysis may lack depth in identifying comprehensive mitigation strategies or scalability requirements. | Provides a basic analysis of basic system requirements and potential risks, covering minimal technical and operational aspects. Demonstrates an elementary understanding of the system's requirements but with limited depth or insight into risk management, scalability, or practical mitigation strategies for The Story Exchange's context. | Fails to provide an analysis of system requirements or risks relevant to The Story Exchange. Lacks basic understanding of technical or operational requirements, or omits critical risk considerations entirely. Content demonstrates minimal effort or an off-topic response with no practical application to the case. |
| Criteria | 6 pts High Distinction | 5 pts Distinction | 4 pts Credit | 3 pts Pass | 2 pts Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use Case Analysis | Develops a comprehensive set of use cases effectively addressing The Story Exchange's operational needs. Analysis covers essential goals, interactions, and process flows. Uses critical analysis to demonstrate how each use case supports operational improvements and scalability. Details that support The Story Exchange's objectives. May have minor areas lacking depth in critical analysis or strategic alignment with scalability needs. | Develops a well-structured set of use cases that address The Story Exchange's primary needs, showing a deep understanding of fundamental operational challenges. Demonstrates strong analysis of actor roles, goals, and workflows, with interaction details that support The Story Exchange's objectives. | Presents an adequate set of use cases for The Story Exchange's main operational needs. Provides appropriate analysis of actors, goals, and workflows but lacks depth, with satisfactory detail, though some elements may be underdeveloped or lack critical analysis, especially in aligning with The Story Exchange's specific scalability or user interaction requirements. | Presents a minimal set of use cases with limited description, primarily addressing basic goals and actor roles. Demonstrates analysis of essential use case elements but may be underdeveloped or incomplete. Interactions with The Story Exchange's detailed operational needs. May miss some important actors, workflows, or goals specific to the case study. | Fails to provide meaningful or relevant use cases for The Story Exchange. Analysis is either missing or lacks appropriate understanding of fundamental elements like actors, goals, or workflows. Content is off-topic, insufficiently developed, or show minimal effort in aligning use cases with The Story Exchange's operational challenges. |
| Criteria | 6 pts High Distinction | 5 pts Distinction | 4 pts Credit | 3 pts Pass | 2 pts Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use Case Modelling | Presents a detailed, accurate Use Case Diagram that effectively visualises actor interactions, relationships (including <<include>> and <<extend>>), and system boundaries. Demonstrates advanced understanding of use case modelling principles in alignment with The Story Exchange's operational objectives. | Creates a clear and well-structured Use Case Diagram, accurately illustrating actor interactions, <<include>> and <<extend>> relationships, and a system boundary. Demonstrates strong understanding of use case modelling principles and connections, with only minor improvements needed for optimal system boundaries or alignment with The Story Exchange's needs. | Creates a satisfactory Use Case Diagram that includes main actors and use cases, with basic relationships illustrated. Demonstrates appropriate understanding of use case modelling principles, though may miss key details (such as <<include>> and <<extend>> relationships or relationship clarity for thorough system boundaries) needed for alignment with The Story Exchange's operational requirements. | Creates a basic Use Case Diagram that includes minimal actors and use cases with limited detail. Diagram may lack essential relationships (such as <<include>> and <<extend>> connections) or clear system boundaries. Demonstrates only a foundational understanding of use case modelling principles, with inaccuracies, indicating little to no relevance to The Story Exchange's requirements. System boundaries may be unclear or contain significant inaccuracies. | Use Case Diagram is incomplete, incorrect, or lacks essential elements, such as main actors, use cases, or relationships. Fails to demonstrate even a foundational understanding of use case modelling principles, with little to no relevance to The Story Exchange's requirements. |
| Criteria | 3 pts High Distinction | 2.5 pts Distinction | 2 pts Credit | 1.5 pts Pass | 1 pts Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Presentation of Professionally Written Material | Report is exceptionally well-structured with a clear executive summary, coherent sections, and polished communication tailored for a professional audience. Content is largely clear and concise, though some minor improvements may be needed for maximum readability or coherence. | Report is well-structured, with a clear executive summary, logically organised sections, and communication suitable for a professional audience. Presentation is generally coherent, though there may be some organisational or clarity issues that impact overall readability. | Report is satisfactorily structured with an adequate summary, mostly clear sections, and communication suited for a professional audience. Communication is sufficient for understanding but lacks coherence, polish, or consistency expected in professional writing. | Report has a basic structure, presenting an executive summary and main sections, though it may contain notable organisational or clarity issues. Presentation is unclear, poorly communicated, and may not follow basic standards of professional writing. | Report lacks clear structure, with disorganised sections and minimal coherence. Demonstrates little effort to organise content logically or present it in a professional format. |
| Criteria | 3 pts High Distinction | 2.5 pts Distinction | 2 pts Credit | 1.5 pts Pass | 1 pts Fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| References | Includes a comprehensive list of well-formatted references from high-quality peer-reviewed or reputable technology white papers, showing extensive research. References are correctly formatted, showing a strong level of research. May contain minor formatting errors or lack some depth in sourcing from a wider range of academic or industry-specific resources. | Provides a well-organised list of correctly formatted references from reputable sources, indicating a strong level of research. May contain minor formatting errors or lack some depth in sourcing from a wider range of peer-reviewed or reputable sources. | Provides a basic list of references, though they may be limited in quality or variety, with noticeable formatting issues. Demonstrates minimal research effort with some reliance on non-academic or less relevant sources. | Provides a basic list of references, though they may be limited in quality or variety, with noticeable formatting issues. Demonstrates minimal research effort with some reliance on non-academic or less relevant sources. | Fails to include relevant or appropriately formatted references, or sources are of low quality and lack credibility. Demonstrates minimal research effort, with references either absent or irrelevant to the assignment requirements. |
Total Points: 30
Upload or Text Entry
☐ I agree to the tool's End-User License Agreement (https://api.turnitin.com/api/lti/1p0/user/static_eula)
I declare that this assignment is my own work and complies with the University's Student Conduct - Governing Policy. I agree and acknowledge that by submitting this work it may be used for a textual similarity review by Turnitin.com and included as source documents in the Turnitin.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism of such documents. Use of the Turnitin.com service is subject to the Usage Policy posted on the Turnitin.com site.
(https://learn.usc.edu.au/courses/33171/modules/items/804748)
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
