ITECH5402 Enterprise Systems
Assessment-3 & 4 (Research Report and Presentation)
Instructions
| Type: | Word file or PDF document |
| Release Date: | Week 5 |
| Due Date: | Week 10 by Friday 20th May 2022 |
| Weighting: | 20% (Report) + 10% (Presentation) |
| Time allocation: | 10-15 Hrs |
| Word length: | Collectively 3000 – 3500 words |
| References: | In APA 7 Style. See Fedcite for specific details. |
| Submission | Submission Portal in the assessment section on Moodle |
| Marking Criteria | A Marking Rubric is provided at the end of the document. |
| Assessor | Course Coordinator and Course Lecturer |
| Mark/Feedback | Summative feedback and mark will be available via Moodle no later than 3 weeks from the date of submission as per University policy |
Objective:
This assessment task has been designed to help you deepen your understanding of ERP/Enterprise Systems. It comprises both team and individual components.
Aim:
In a team of 3-4 members, produce a clearly articulated and well-researched enterprise system evaluation report to be given to the Board of Directors of GBI to successfully assist the organisation with choosing the correct software product to implement for their enterprise. Please refer to the GBI Case Document.
Learning Outcomes:
K4: Evaluate and compare various types of enterprise resource planning (ERP) software solutions and their application in global business contexts.
S2: Identify the main suppliers, products, and application domains of enterprise-wide packages.
A2: Demonstrate communication skills to present a coordinated, coherent, and independent exposition of knowledge and ideas in dealing with enterprise systems.
Key Deliverables:
Assessment Tasks 3&4
Assessment Task -3 (Research Report)
Week-10
Submit a well-written report (3000 – 3500) words that include (20 Marks):
• Introduction
• Case Context, establishing the need for enterprise systems
• ERP Selection, indicating identification and comparison of several ERP systems
• Benefits to be gained from the ERP package proposed
• 3-4 additional technology required to meet the needs of the organisation.
Ideally, each team member must identify one (1) technology to be included in the team report. This makes up the individual component.
• Concluding remarks, summarising the content of the report
Demonstrate depth and breadth of reading to include a comprehensive reference list
• Use APA referencing style for all references in the body of text and in reference
list
• Include readings from: Journals, Conference proceedings, presentations, books/book chapters, or any other significant sources.
Assessment Task -4 (Live presentation in Virtual Classroom)
Week-10
Deliver a clearly articulated enterprise system evaluation presentation to the Board of Directors to explain the value of implementing an ERP system from a particular vendor (10 Marks). Marking Rubric – Research Report
| Indicator ->
Criteria |
Very good | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory | |||
| Layout/Structure |
1 Mark Information is well organized, well written, and proper grammar and punctuation are used throughout. Correct layout used. |
0.5 Marks
|
0.25 Marks Information is somewhat organized, proper grammar and punctuation mostly used. Correct layout used. |
0 Marks Information is somewhat organized, but proper grammar and punctuation not always used. Some elements of layout incorrect. |
|||
| Introduction |
1 Mark Introduces the topic of the report in an extremely engaging manner which arouses the reader’s interest. Gives a detailed general background and indicates the overall “plan” of the paper. |
0.5 Marks Introduces the topic of the report in an engaging manner which arouses the reader’s interest. Gives some general background and indicates the overall “plan” of the paper. |
0.25 Marks Satisfactorily introduces the topic of the report. Gives a general background. Indicates the overall “plan” of the paper. |
0 Marks Introduces the topic of the report but omits a general background of the topic and/or the overall “plan” of the paper. |
|||
| Case Context |
3 Marks The Case context is well analysed and presented in depth, clearly highlighting the need of the organisation. |
2 Marks The Case context is analysed and presented in depth but fails to emphasise the need of the organisation. |
1 Mark The Case context is discussed without much depth and analysis. |
0 Marks The Case context lacks clarity. |
|||
| ERP Selection |
7 Marks Deep comparison and analysis of ERP software. |
5 Marks Consistently detailed discussion. Displays sound understanding of ERP software |
3 Marks Displays some understanding and analysis of ERP software. |
0 Marks Little/no understanding of ERP software. |
|||
| Benefits |
2 Marks ERP benefits discussed in depth as relevant to GBI. |
1 Mark Displays sound understanding of benefits as relevant to GBI |
0.5 Marks Displays some understanding of ERP benefits. |
0 Marks Inadequate discussion of ERP benefits. Little/no demonstrated understanding. |
|||
| Additional software |
3 Marks Deep comparison and analysis of software. |
2 Marks Consistently detailed discussion. Displays sound understanding of software. |
1 Mark Displays some understanding and analysis of software. |
0 Mark Little/no understanding of software. |
|||
| Conclusion/ |
1 Mark An interesting, well written summary of the main points. An excellent final comment on the subject, based on the information provided. |
0.5 Marks A good summary of the main points. A good final comment on the subject, based on the information provided. |
0.25 Marks Satisfactory summary of the main points. A final comment on the subject but introduced new material. |
0 Mark Poor/no summary of the main points. A poor final comment on the subject and/or new material introduced. |
|||
| Referencing |
2 marks Correct referencing (APA). All quoted material in quotes and acknowledged. All paraphrased material acknowledged. Correctly set out reference list. |
1 Mark Mostly correct referencing (APA). All quoted material in quotes &acknowledged. All paraphrased material acknowledged. Mostly correct reference list. |
0.5 Marks Mostly correct referencing (APA ) Some problems with quoted material and paraphrased material. Some problems with the reference list. |
0 Marks Not all material correctly acknowledged. Some problems with the reference list. |
Marking Rubric – Team Presentation
| Indicator ->
Criteria |
Very good | Good | Satisfactory | Unsatisfactory |
| Introduction |
1.5 Mark Excellent introduction that give interesting lead in with good overview and plan of work. Table of contents are presented, and speakers are introduced |
1 Marks Good introduction that provides overview and plan of work. Table of contents are presented, and speakers are not introduced |
0.5 Marks Introduction attempted but does not give overview or plan of work. Speakers are not introduced. |
0 Marks Not attempted |
| Conclusion |
1.5 Marks Excellent conclusion that gives interesting summary of work and leaves reader with a thought-provoking final comment. |
1 Marks Good conclusion that gives summary of work, but final comment is not that impressive. |
0.5 Mark Conclusion gives satisfactory summary of work and no final comment |
0 Marks Not attempted |
| Quality of Design/Content |
5 Marks Very well-designed presentation that is interesting, inventive, and original. Overall quality shows meticulous planning with interesting, relevant graphics and well-presented information. |
3 Marks Presentation is well designed, and somewhat original, interesting, and inventive Overall quality is good, with most information correct and presented well. |
2 Marks Presentation design is adequate but lacking in written or visual components. Overall quality is adequate, but some errors in spelling and some poor-quality graphics. |
0 Marks Presentation not well designed, quality lacking in written or visual component Overall quality is poor with materials illegible, information incorrect and spelling mistakes. |
| Engagement/Communication/Timeliness |
2 Marks Good audience engagement, good presence. Good Length and finished in time. |
1 Mark Captures audience attention, lacking some calmness and confidence. Good length but abrupt finish. |
0.5 Marks Audience engaged sometimes, very nervous. Presentation in either long or short. |
0 Marks Lacking in presence, nervousness inhibiting delivery. Presentation is too short and little preparation is demonstrated. |