Southern Cross Institute, Level 2, 1-3 Fitzwilliam Street, PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 & Level 1, 37 George Street PARRAMATTA NSW 2150 Tel: +61 2 9066 6902 Website: www.sci.edu.au TEQSA Provider No: PRV14353 CRICOS Provider No: 04078a
Assessment 3 - Information Systems Strategy Project (Secure Assessment)
Optional Draft Submission for feedback: Week 4, Sunday 11 January 2026 11:59 PM
Final Submission (Mandatory): Week 7, Friday 30 January, 11:59 PM
Total Assessment weighting – 40%
Purpose of this assessment
This assessment aims to strengthen students' ability to critically evaluate strategic information systems issues within complex organisational environments. By analysing a real-world case scenario, students will develop evidence-based IS strategies that align with business goals, enhance competitive advantage, and address operational and ethical challenges. The assessment fosters independent thinking, professional report writing, and the application of strategic frameworks to real-world decision-making in the field of information systems.
ULO 1: Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of fundamental concepts in information systems and their strategic implications;
ULO 2: Critically analyse the relationship between information technology and business performance, communicating findings both independently and collaboratively.
ULO 3: Examine the technical and organizational challenges in the development and application of information systems within businesses, proposing solutions to address these challenges effectively.
ULO 4: Research and critically evaluate the social, ethical and legal responsibilities that organisational information systems must meet.
This assessment requires students to independently analyse and address complex strategic challenges related to information systems in a real-world organisational context. Students will evaluate a case scenario and design a comprehensive IS strategy that aligns with the organisation's business objectives, technological environment, and external competitive pressures.
Drawing on knowledge from across the unit—particularly on IS/IT alignment, strategy frameworks, emerging technologies, and organisational analysis—students will identify key
issues, assess IS/IT capabilities, explore strategic options, and recommend a solution supported by theory, research, and professional practice.
Students are required to produce a 2500–3000-word professionally formatted report. This secure assessment prohibits the use of generative AI and requires critical, original, and independent analysis.
The report must include:
This assessment aims to help students:
Structure: This assessment must be submitted in a business consultancy report format, including the provided assessment cover sheet from the OASIS ICT801 unit page. The report should contain the following sections: Title Page, Executive Summary, Table of Contents, Introduction, Main Body (with sub-sections), Conclusion, Recommendations, References, and Appendices (if needed).
Formatting:
Due Dates:
Submit a partial draft or outline for feedback on structure, issue identification, and preliminary analysis.
Resources Available:
Guide: The guide below provides a concise overview of how to approach the assessment.
Total Word Count:
2500–3000 words (excluding references and appendices)
| Criteria | Fail (0 – 49%) | Pass (50 - 64%) | Credit (65-74%) | Distinction (75-84%) | High Distinction (85 – 100%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification of Strategic IS Issues (20%) | Fails to identify key IS/IT strategic issues or organisational context. | Identifies some strategic issues with limited clarity or relevance. | Identifies relevant IS issues and aligns them with the case context. | Clearly identifies and prioritises key strategic IS issues within the organisational context. | Insightful identification and framing of complex strategic issues, deeply contextualised and well-prioritised. |
| Application of Theoretical Frameworks (20%) | Lacks theoretical grounding or misapplies frameworks. | Basic use of one or more frameworks with limited relevance. | Appropriate use of frameworks (e.g., SAM, Porter, McFarlan); some depth in analysis | Strong application of relevant frameworks with good integration into argument. | Excellent use of multiple frameworks with deep, critical analysis and synthesis of ideas. |
| Evaluation of Strategic Options and Recommendations (20%) | No clear evaluation or illogical recommendations. | Presents limited options with general recommendations. | Evaluates options with some rationale; recommendations are practical. | Well-reasoned evaluation of options; recommendations are coherent and justified. | Sophisticated evaluation with well-balanced trade-offs and strategic, evidence-based recommendations. |
| Implementation Considerations and Stakeholder Impact (15%) | Missing or vague implementation plan; no discussion of stakeholders. | Basic implementation ideas; limited awareness of stakeholder roles. | Outlines implementation steps and recognises stakeholder involvement. | Clear and realistic implementation plan with thoughtful stakeholder analysis. | Comprehensive and practical implementation strategy with nuanced stakeholder impact discussion. |
| Use of Research and Referencing (15%) | No or poor-quality sources; referencing missing or incorrect. | Limited or outdated sources; referencing inconsistent. | Sufficient use of credible sources; referencing mostly correct. | Strong integration of quality sources; APA style applied correctly. | Extensive and well-integrated use of scholarly and industry sources; flawless APA referencing. |
| Structure, Presentation, and Professional Language (10%) | Report lacks structure, clarity, and professional quality. | Some structure and clarity but lacks polish; frequent errors. | Report is organised, readable, with minor errors. | Well-structured, clearly written, with a professional tone. | Exceptionally well-presented, polished, and professional in tone, format, and clarity. |
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
