Page 2251 2 Installation Activity Assignment Reference Mini

Page 2251 2 Installation Activityassignmentreference Mini Case 2 and

Assignment instructions: Students will submit a context diagram for the order system, and create a decision table, to be submitted as a Word document. The mini case involves designing a context diagram for the order system at Kitchen Gadgets, which sells kitchen utensils and gadgets, and managing how orders are processed, checked stock, generate shipping, and billing. Additionally, a decision table based on the Big State University course catalog must be created to determine eligibility for enrollment in MIS 260, based on prerequisites and permissions.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of effective information systems often hinges upon clear understanding and precise modeling of business processes and decision rules. In the case of Kitchen Gadgets, the order system must be comprehensively modeled to facilitate smooth and efficient processing of customer orders. Similarly, educational institutions like Big State University need decision tables to clearly delineate eligibility criteria, ensuring transparency and fairness in enrollment procedures.

Beginning with the Kitchen Gadgets mini case, designing a context diagram helps to visually represent the system's interactions with external entities such as customers and warehouse personnel. The context diagram is fundamental as it provides a macro-level view of the system, illustrating how external entities communicate with the system and the flow of data between them.

Creating this diagram involves identifying all external entities that interact with the order system. For Kitchen Gadgets, these entities include customers, who place orders; the warehouse, which fills orders; and the billing system. The data flows involve order requests, stock status messages, shipping requests, and billing information. The diagram should depict a single central process representing the order system, with labeled data flows connecting it to the external entities.

For instance, customers send order requests to the system, which then checks stock availability. The system issues a status message back to the customer (confirmation or out-of-stock notice). Upon successful order fulfillment, a shipping order is generated and sent to the warehouse. Once shipped, billing information is processed and sent to the customer’s account. This visual representation facilitates understanding the system scope and interfaces, crucial for subsequent system development stages.

Transitioning to the Big State University case, the decision table is an instrumental tool to elucidate the enrollment eligibility rules for the MIS 260 course. According to the catalog, students must complete MIS 120 and MIS 222, unless they obtain instructor permission, in which case either prerequisite suffices. To systematically depict all possible scenarios, the decision table encompasses conditions such as completion of prerequisites and permission status, with corresponding actions or eligibility outcomes.

The decision table should present all combinations of these conditions, such as both prerequisites completed with or without permission, only one prerequisite completed with or without permission, and no prerequisites completed. Each rule specifies whether the student is eligible to enroll based on the combination of conditions. This approach ensures that the decision-making criteria are explicitly documented, reducing ambiguity.

Constructing the decision table involves defining conditions: Completed MIS 120, Completed MIS 222, Instructor permission granted. The actions or outcomes include 'Eligible' or 'Not eligible'. For example, if a student has completed both prerequisites or has instructor permission for either, then the student is eligible; otherwise, they are not. The comprehensive nature of this table supports administrative clarity and facilitates automated decision processes if required.

Effectively, these modeling tools—context diagrams and decision tables—are foundational in system analysis. They promote clarity in complex processes and decision rules, which improves system design, implementation, and auditing. The diagrams and tables serve as communication tools among stakeholders, developers, and decision-makers, ensuring a shared understanding of system functionalities and policies.

References

• Elbow, P. (2006). The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. Nurturing the peacemakers in our students: A guide to teaching peace, empathy, and understanding, 16-25.
• Procon.org. (2018). ProCon.org - Pros and Cons of Controversial Issues. Retrieved October 11, 2018, from https://www.procon.org/
• Baumann, C., & Krskova, H. (2016). School discipline, school uniforms and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6).
• Frost, R. (2011). System analysis and design. Principles of Information Systems (4th ed.). Pearson.
• Dennis, A., Wixom, B., & Roth, R. (2018). Systems Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Walls, J. G., & Schafer, C. (2006). System development and project success: A review of research. Information & Management, 43(4), 371-373.
• Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., & Valacich, J. S. (2014). Modern Systems Analysis and Design. Pearson.
• Shelly, G. B., Cashman, T. J., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2012). Systems Analysis and Design. Course Technology.
• Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. McGraw-Hill.
• Shelly, G. B., & Rosenblatt, H. J. (2011). Systems Analysis and Design. Cengage Learning.