Assessment 2 – IT-FP3225 Winter 2019 Section 01 ✓ Solved

Assessment 2 – IT-FP3225 - Winter 2019 - Section 01

Assessme

Assessment 2 – IT-FP3225 - Winter 2019 - Section 01

Assessment 2 Business Problem and the IT Solution Overview

Write three pages in which you describe a business problem or challenge and the new or updated information technology solution that could solve the problem.

Note: Developing a business proposal requires specific steps that need to be executed in a sequence. The assessments in this course are presented in sequence and must be completed in order.

Preparation: Using the same company or organization from Assessment 1, determine a business problem or challenge that requires a new information technology solution or an updated information technology solution. Choose a problem you are familiar with as well as a technology solution. Think about information systems you have worked with and the business goals those systems helped to meet. Are the problems caused by an inability to be flexible and to make changes quickly? What could you propose that might solve a specific problem, while addressing this need for the IT system or systems to be continuously improved and flexible enough to adapt to change?

Directions: Write a three-page assessment that includes the following:

- Description of the business problem.

- Description of the information technology idea or solution.

- Description of how the information technology solution aligns with the current business needs.

Be sure to answer the following questions:

- What business stakeholders would you consult with to determine whether your proposed solution meets their needs?

- What IT stakeholders would you consult with to be sure your proposal meets the IT requirements and fits into the IT architecture?

Additional Requirements: Ensure that your assessment is professionally written and free of errors, and that APA formatting is applied throughout.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction and context. Effective information technology (IT) decisions in organizations are not merely technical choices; they are strategic bets that shape competitive advantage, operational efficiency, and long-term adaptability. The core premise of this assessment is to diagnose a concrete business problem within a real-world context and propose an IT solution that is tightly aligned with business goals, governance structures, and stakeholder needs. Grounding the approach in established theory of IT alignment and enterprise architecture enhances the likelihood that the proposed solution yields sustainable value (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993; Luftman, 2000).

Business problem. The hypothetical mid-sized manufacturing company under consideration faces a pattern of information silos across manufacturing, sales, supply chain, and finance. Data are duplicated, inconsistent, and stored in disparate systems, leading to delayed decision-making, less accurate forecasting, and a lack of end-to-end visibility. Customers experience longer lead times, and internal performance metrics are difficult to trust due to inconsistent data definitions. This problem mirrors a broader misalignment between IT capabilities and business strategy, which has been shown to undermine organizational performance when not addressed through deliberate governance and architecture (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993; Porter, 1985). The executive team seeks timely, integrated insights to shorten cycle times, optimize inventory, and improve customer satisfaction. The current situation also hampers the company’s ability to scale operations as demand grows, risking reputational damage and lost market opportunities (Davenport & Harris, 2007).

Proposed IT solution. The core proposal is an integrated IT program built around four interlocking components: (1) a cohesive enterprise architecture (EA) that provides a unified blueprint for business processes, data, applications, and technology platforms; (2) a cloud-based ERP and analytics stack to replace or integrate legacy systems, enabling real-time data access, standardized processes, and scalable reporting; (3) a robust data governance and master data management (MDM) framework to ensure data quality, consistency, and compliance across departments; and (4) a management cockpit using a balanced set of metrics (finance, operations, customer experience) delivered through an enterprise-wide analytics platform. This combination aligns with the architecture-as-strategy perspective, emphasizing that well-designed architecture is foundational to transformation (Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006). The analytics emphasis aligns with the practice of data-driven decision making that Davenport and Harris (2007) describe as a competitive differentiator, especially when tied to strategic outcomes.

Alignment with business needs. The proposed solution directly addresses the need for end-to-end visibility, faster decision cycles, and flexible processes that can adapt to shifting demand. An EA provides a blueprint to synchronize business strategy with IT capabilities, reducing fragmentation and creating a common language for stakeholders (Henderson & Venkatraman, 1993). The cloud ERP ensures standardized business processes, while analytics capabilities translate data into actionable insight. The data governance component minimizes risk and ensures trust in numbers, critical for executive decision-making and performance management (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). By combining governance, architecture, and analytics, the proposal supports a coherent IT strategy that is responsive to evolving business requirements, a point emphasized in strategic information systems literature (Weill & Ross, 2004; Chen, Chiang, & Storey, 2012).

Stakeholder engagement. Successful implementation requires carefully planned involvement of both business and IT stakeholders. Business stakeholders include the CFO, COO, VP of Manufacturing, VP of Sales, and aRepresentatives from supply chain and customer service who can articulate process requirements and customer impact. IT stakeholders include the CIO, chief data officer (if applicable), ERP/EA leads, data governance coordinators, information security leads, and integration specialists. Aligning with the IT governance literature, clear responsibilities and decision rights should be established to ensure that IT investments deliver measurable business value (Weill & Ross, 2004). The approach also leverages the alignment framework from Henderson and Venkatraman (1993) to ensure the architecture remains a facilitator of business strategy rather than a bottleneck for change (Luftman, 2000).

Implementation approach. A phased, value-driven implementation is recommended, with an initial focus on critical processes (order-to-cash, procure-to-pay, and manufacturing execution) followed by a broader rollout. Each phase should include a defined governance milestone, data cleansing and master data management efforts, and the establishment of KPIs linked to the Balanced Scorecard perspective (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). The ERP/EA migration should be managed with an agile, cross-functional project team, aided by a Center of Excellence for data governance. The analytics layer should be designed to provide near real-time dashboards for executives while offering deeper, self-service analytics for operational staff (Davenport & Harris, 2007).

Risk management and mitigation. Key risks include data quality, change resistance, vendor lock-in, and cybersecurity concerns. Data governance mitigates quality risks by establishing data ownership, standards, and stewardship (Chen, Chiang, & Storey, 2012). Change management practices, including stakeholder communication and training, reduce resistance and accelerate adoption. Security controls and ongoing compliance programs address cybersecurity concerns in cloud environments. A well-defined EA reduces the risk of integration problems and cost overruns by providing a clear view of dependencies and constraints (Ross, Beath, & Robertson, 2006). The project’s strategic value justifies investment as reflected in analytics-driven competition literature (Davenport & Harris, 2007; Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014).

Expected benefits and value. The integrated approach should yield faster decision-making and improved demand forecasting, leading to lower inventory levels, higher on-time delivery, and enhanced customer satisfaction. Financial benefits include reduced waste and improved cash flow through better working capital management. Intangible benefits include improved collaboration across departments, a unified data vocabulary, and a stronger governance culture that supports ongoing innovation (Porter, 1985; Kaplan & Norton, 1992). The architecture-centric strategy aligns with best practices in enterprise transformation and IT-enabled value creation (Weill & Ross, 2004; Ross, Weill, & Robertson, 2006).

References

1. Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: A framework for information technology and business strategy. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
2. Luftman, J. (2000). Assessing business-IT alignment: A maturity model. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1(4), 17-31.
3. Weill, P., & Ross, J. (2004). IT governance: How top performers manage IT decision rights for superior results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
4. Ross, J. W., Weill, P., & Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Transformation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
5. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
6. Davenport, T. H., & Harris, J. G. (2007). Competing on analytics: The new science of winning. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
8. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York, NY: Free Press.
9. Chen, H., Chiang, R., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to decision making. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188.
10. Peppard, J., Ward, J. (2004). Beyond strategic information systems: The IT alignment paradox. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 13(2), 109-126.