Assignment Detail:
Please read the following:
Stately Furniture -
Stately Furniture (SF) is a hand-crafted furniture producer based in Medicine Hat.
· Furniture is made to order and shipped to customers throughout North American and Asia.
· Raw material supplies are acquired from Eastern Canada and require at least four months to cure to the point where they are safely usable.
· The raw materials are very expensive, so waste must be carefully avoided, and SF cannot afford to ca
y a large stock of material.
· 75% of the furniture produced is custom-designed, one-of-a-kind articles.
· All administration and production is completed in a single building.
· The existing internal operating systems are paper-based, but SF uses the Internet to communicate with past, cu
ent and potential clients using an outsourced website.
· The sole owner of SF is 75 years old and will be passing control of the company to his granddaughter within the next 12 months. The majority of the administration staff are young and technically savvy, but most of the furniture artisans are older men with little interest in learning new things.
Also please read the attached Stately Furniture. Part 1 and Stately Furniture. Part 2 doc. Files
Based on your reading please write a report/case study as per following instructions:
Assignment Detail Instruction:
· As part of the senior management team of the subject company, you have received a pair of reports (Attached Part 1 and Part 2 doc. File) from a team of consultants regarding your operations and management information systems.
· Evaluate the report using your knowledge of information systems and your firm. Each section should be evaluated on three criteria:
· Relevance to your firm;
· Co
ectness of application; and
· Feasibility of recommendation.
· Complete and submit your evaluation of XXXXXXXXXXwords in appropriate report. Use the original assignment ru
ics above to guide your evaluation of each section of the report. Each section of the report should be evaluated in your evaluation.
Marking Ru
ic:
Evaluation Criteria
< 50%
50-65 %
65-75%
75-85%
85-100%
Identify the organization’s strategy
(15%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Identify aspect of the MIS required to support the organization
(10%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Considered the communication requirements of the organization’s industry, size and operations factors
(10%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Considered the analytics and data analysis requirements of the organization’s industry, size and operations factors
(15%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Considered the system security requirements of the organization’s industry, size and operations factors
(15%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Considered the human resources of the organization and how they may interact with the MIS project
(10%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Considered the governance requirements of the organization’s industry, size and operations factors
(10%)
Failed to co
ectly assess relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation. If there are inco
ect components, provided a suitable alternative.
Co
ectly assessed one of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed two of relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with limited supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Co
ectly assessed relevance to firm, co
ectness of theory application, and relative feasibility of implementation with appropriate and adequate supporting evidence. Provided a suitable alternative to inco
ect components.
Quality of writing (grammar, flow, word usage, editing, punctuation, style)
(15%)
Poor writing style – lack of flow, many e
ors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, ideas presented in a choppy format.
Lacking a professional appearance or style.
Some e
ors noted, weak writing flow and thoughts are spelled out in paragraphs but lack depth of detail.
More personal style of writing than professional.
Some e
ors noted, written in professional manner, opening and summary paragraphs do not contain necessary content
Stronger flow to paper – very few e
ors noted, written in professional manner, may be missing strong opening and summary paragraphs that capture readers’ attention.
No e
ors, written in a professional manner with strong opening statements followed by supporting information, cover page with name, paper had opening and closing paragraphs.
Assignment
Detail
:
Please read
t
he following:
Stately Furniture
-
Stately Furniture (SF) is a hand
-
crafted furniture producer based in Medicine Hat.
·
Furniture is made to order and shipped to customers throughout North American and
Asia.
·
Raw material supplies are ac
quired from Eastern Canada and require at least four months
to cure to the point where they are safely usable.
·
The raw materials are very expensive, so waste must be carefully
avoided,
and SF cannot
afford to ca
y a large stock of material.
·
75% of the furn
iture produced is custom
-
designed, one
-
of
-
a
-
kind articles.
·
All administration and production is completed in a single building.
·
The existing internal operating systems are pape
-
ased, but SF uses the Internet to
communicate with past, cu
ent and potentia
l clients using an outsourced website.
·
The sole owner of SF is 75 years old and will be passing control of the company to his
granddaughter within the next 12 months. The majority of the administration staff are
young and technically savvy, but most of the
furniture artisans are older men with little
interest in learning new things.
Al
so please read
t
he attached
Stately
Furniture. Part
1
and
Stately
Furniture. Pa
t 2 doc.
F
iles
Based on your reading please write
a re
port/case
study as per