微信客服：xiaoxionga100
微信客服：ITCS521
ISYS90049-无代写
时间：2024-05-27
ISYS90049 – Digital Business Analysis
Project 2 (Group) – 35%
Strategy Analysis and Solution Evaluation
Introduction
This group project is a continuation of the previous assignment. You are expected to work
with the same team. It is due on Monday, 20th May 2024, 9pm (week 12). The case
description is provided at the end of this document.
The senior management and the owner of TicketTaylor are impressed by your Analysis Plan.
Now, they would like you to conduct a Strategy Analysis to show them how digital solutions
could help address the current issues they are experiencing and enhance the efficiency of their
business operations. You are also asked to include Solution Design to demonstrate how the
proposed solution (just one solution per group) offers value to TicketTaylor. Since they have
limited exposure to digital technologies, they are keen to understand any possible solutions
and the impact on their business performance.
As in the first assignment, you are expected to conduct research to gather additional
information to complement the details provided, which will help you perform a thorough
strategy analysis. You are allowed to make any assumptions as long as they are clearly stated,
not in conflict with information provided in the case description, reasonable and applied
consistently.
Details of the Tasks
Below are the tasks that you need to do:
1. Current state analysis
Describe how the business currently functions and identify problems and pain points.
Details to include:
• Description of the current state, explaining how the business currently functions.
• Two customer journey maps for two personas representing local Sales Staff and Head
Office Staff, to show their interaction with the current system. It is necessary to
identify problems and pain points.
2. Future state analysis
Describe the future state enabled by your proposed digital solution.
Details to include:
• Description of the future state
• At least three business goals and five SMART objectives with justification
• Scope of the solution and constraints
• Changes to the customer journey maps that will address the issues found in the current
state.
3. Change strategy
Explain what the business will need to do to get from the current state to the future state.
Details to include:
• Gap analysis
• Readiness assessment: Assess whether TicketTaylor is ready for the change
• Recommended change strategy.
2
4. Risk assessment
Identify and analyse possible risks that might emerge as a result of implementing the
recommended change strategy.
Details to include:
• Identification of at least five risks
• Explanation of the consequence, probability, impact, and treatment for each risk
identified.
5. Solution Design
Your group might identify a few possible options, but you need to agree on and select one
solution that you believe would be the most appropriate for TicketTaylor. Present your
proposed solution to achieve the future state. The solution may incorporate technology
(hardware and/or software), processes, organizational changes, and people. It is not necessary
to encompass all these elements in your solution.
Details to include:
• Description of the proposed solution
• Identification of two KPIs to monitor the performance of your solution
• Brief explanation of how you are planning to obtain the data for those KPIs and what
an appropriate timeframe would be to measure them.
Group Management
As part of group management, you are expected to do the following:
1. Update Group Governance Plan
Your group should review the Governance Plan and update it based on your group experience
with Assignment 1. You should also include the allocation of tasks in the revised Governance
Plan. Post the revised Governance Plan as an announcement in your LMS Group Homepage
by the end of week 7.
2. Provide a Statement on Contribution
As part of the Group Report submission, each member is required to briefly explain and rate
their contribution to the group report. See details on the next page.
3. Complete Group Member Evaluation
Online Group Member Evaluation will be conducted after the project is completed in week
12. Feedback provided will be anonymous. Depending on the result of the evaluation,
individual group members may get different marks.
Timeline
Task Expected Completion
1. Review and update your group Governance Plan to include the
allocation of tasks to each member. Post the revised document on
the LMS Group Homepage as an announcement item.
End of week 7
2. Each student posts the draft work for their section on the LMS
Group Homepage
End of week 9
3. Each student reviews the draft work of other members and posts
their feedback on the LMS Group Homepage
End of week 10
4. Prepare and submit the Group Report Start of week 12
5. Submit online Group Member Evaluation End of week 12
3
Assignment 2 Report Template
Group No: _______
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STRATEGY ANALYSIS
1. Current State Analysis
2. Future State Analysis
3. Change Strategy
4. Risk Assessment
SOLUTION DESIGN
CONCLUSION
STATEMENT ON CONTRIBUTION
Each member should explain their contribution to the report in less than 150 words and rate
their own contribution on a scale of 1 to 4, referencing the rubric below.
4 Advanced -
exceeds
expectations
3 Competent -
meets
expectations
2 Progressing - does
not fully meet
expectations
1 Beginning - does
not meet
expectations
Contribution Did more than
others. Highly
productive. Works
extremely well with
others.
Did my part of the
workload.
Cooperative.
Works well with
others.
Could have shared
more of the workload.
Has difficulty.
Requires structure,
directions, and
leadership.
Did not do much
work. Does not
contribute much.
Does not work well
with others.
REFERENCES
You must include at least 10 references in your report to support your arguments, where
necessary. This can include academic journal articles, conference proceedings, whitepapers,
news articles, or reputable blogs. References are not included in the word limit.
List all references cited in your report using APA referencing style. Refer to
https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite/referencing-styles/apa7 for details.
Example:
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3),
475–487.
APPENDIX
Attach your group meeting minutes. A minimum of two group meetings are expected.
4
Rules for Assignment 2
Report length: Approximately 4,500 words (+10%), with a page limit of 22 (+2), font
size of 12-point and a minimum of 1.5 line spacing. Please include a word
count (from Tools, Word Count in MS Word) on the cover sheet of your
submission. Do not include the cover sheet, personas, customer journey
maps, statement on contribution or bibliography in your word/page count.
Report
medium:
Your report should be prepared as an MS Word document. In your Word
document, please include links to any web pages referenced in your
report.
References: You must include a Reference list using APA style at the end of your
report. Entries in the Reference list should be sorted alphabetically by
author, then by year of publication for works by the same author(s). Every
single idea you borrow from someone else should be cited (author, year)
in your report. Quotations, if used, should be in quotation marks (“…”)
and should be EXACT. The citation for quotations must include the page
number of the source (author, year, page#).
Due date: Monday, 20th May 2024, 9pm (week 12)
Submission: Your report should be prepared as an MS Word document, and submitted
electronically via LMS by the above due date. The cover sheet for the
report is available on the next page. Please copy and paste it on the first
page of your document. When you submit your Assignment, please
examine the Turnitin report to ensure that you have not plagiarised. Only
one group member needs to submit.
Marks: 35 marks
Late Penalty 10% of maximum marks (3.5 marks) per working day late. However, no
late submission will be accepted without prior arrangement with the
Subject Coordinator.
5
Minutes of Group Meetings (Sample Form)
Group No: _____________
Meeting No.
Date and Time
Location
Attendees
Apologies
Agenda
Major Points of Discussion
Group Progress
Actions
Action Person
Responsible
Completion
Date
Concerns
Next Meeting
Date:
Place:
Agenda (tentative):
Prepared by: Confirmed by:
6
The University of Melbourne
School of Computing and Information Systems
Group Assignment Cover Sheet
Group Members
(Names exactly as on your
student card/s)*
Failure to do so may result in a
result being incorrectly recorded.
1.
2.
3.
Subject Code/Name: ISYS90049 Digital Business Analysis
Assignment Title: Assignment 2: Strategy Analysis and Solution Evaluation
Tutor/Instructor Name:
Due Date/Time: Monday, 20th May 2024, 9pm
Submitted Date/Time:
* To protect your privacy, student numbers should not be shared with other students.
PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism is the presentation by a student of an assignment which has in fact been copied in whole or
in part from another student’s work, or from any other source (e.g., published books, periodicals, the
web, or AI-generated material) without due acknowledgement in the text.
COLLUSION
Collusion is the presentation by a student of an assignment as his or her own which is in fact the result
in whole or in part of unauthorized collaboration with another person or persons.
More information about academic misconduct can be obtained from:
https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/plagiarism-and-collusion
Declaration
We declare that this assignment is our group’s own work and does not involve plagiarism or collusion.
We also declare that the material contained in this assignment has not previously been submitted for
assessment in any other formal course of study. Further, we declare that if any AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT
or QuillBot) is used in the preparation of this submission, it has been appropriately acknowledged and
cited.
Before submitting our assignment, we have:
1. Made a copy of the assignment and of any material submitted with the assignment.
2. Ensured that our assignment and any material submitted are clearly identified.
3. Retained a copy of the submission of this assignment (if appropriate).
4. Attached all files and required materials to the submission (if appropriate).
Signatures Date Contribution
1
2
3
Note: For electronic submissions the signatures may be typed. Also, unless otherwise indicated, it will be
assumed that all group members made an equal contribution to the overall effort. If a dispute arises, the matter
should be reported to the lecturer-in-charge for consideration.
7
Assessment Criteria
The following assessment criteria will be used to assess the quality of your report.
Note: Individual group member’s mark might be equal to or less than the total group mark, depending on the group member evaluation.
Criterion Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Marks
Executive
summary
10 to >8
Includes clear details that can be
used to make a business
decision.
8 to >6
Provides some details but not
enough to confidently make a
business decision.
6 to >5
Provides a basic summary but
some details are not clear.
5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
10
Current state 15 to >12
Provides an excellent
explanation of how the business
currently functions. Personas and
journey maps clearly
demonstrate the issues users are
facing. Affected processes are
identified, as well as the
touchpoints with the journey
maps.
12 to >9
Provides good coverage of
current issues. Personas and
journey maps are of good quality
and mostly demonstrate issues
users are facing. Affected
processes are identified, but
some touchpoints with the
journey maps are identified.
9 to >7.5
A basic description of the current
issues is provided. Personas and
journey maps are provided but
missing some details. The
affected processes are identified,
but the touchpoints are unclear.
7.5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
15
Future state 15 to >12
Provides an excellent description
of the desired future state. Goals
and SMART objectives are
detailed and logically presented.
The scope of the solution and list
of constraints are clear. Changes
to the journey maps are clearly
identified.
12 to >9
Provides a good description of
the desired future state. Goals
and SMART objectives are
identified but may not fully
address the situation. Either the
scope of the solution or list of
constraints is unclear. Some
changes to the journey maps are
identified.
9 to >7.5
A basic description of the
desired future state is provided.
Goals and SMART objectives
are presented but missing some
details. The scope of the solution
and list of constraints have some
issues. Some changes to the
journey maps are unclear.
7.5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
15
8
Change
strategy
20 to >15.5
Clearly highlights the gaps
between the current and future
states and provides useful
actions to direct the change. The
readiness assessment and
recommended change strategy
are excellent.
15.5 to >11.5
Provides a good explanation of
the gaps between the current and
future state but missing some
details for how to change. The
readiness assessment and
recommended change strategy
are generally good.
11.5 to >10
A basic explanation is given for
the gaps between the current and
future state, not clear how the
change should occur. The
readiness assessment or
recommended change strategy
have some issues.
10 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
20
Risks 15 to >12
5 risks are clearly defined, as
well as all their consequence,
probability, impact, and
treatment.
12 to >9
5 risks are clearly defined, but
there is incomplete information
about their consequence,
probability, impact, and
treatment.
9 to >7.5
5 risks are provided but some
information is missing or
incorrect (e.g., consequence,
probability, impact, and
treatment).
7.5 to >0
Less than 5 risks are provided,
and some information is missing
or incorrect.
15
Solution 15 to >12
Design is very well suited to
addressing the
problem/opportunity, all
deliverables are included and all
necessary details are provided. 2
KPIs are well defined, relevant
and the data can be obtained.
12 to >9
Design can address the
problem/opportunity,
deliverables are of good quality
with minor issues. 2 KPI are
defined, relevant and the data
can be obtained.
9 to >7.5
Design is likely to be suitable
but there are missing details or
misalignment with
problem/opportunity. 2 KPIs are
relevant but the data is unlikely
obtainable.
7.5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
15
Presentation 5
Report looks professional, is
neatly formatted and is written
with excellent grammar.
3
Report is well presented, has
minor issues with formatting and
grammar.
1
Report is reasonably presented
but has some issues with
formatting or grammar.
0
Very poorly presented.
5
References 5
Arguments made are supported
by literature (at least 10
citations), correctly referenced
and appear in a completed
reference list at the end of the
report.
3
10 references are included.
Arguments made are generally
supported by literature with only
minor issues in referencing and a
complete reference list at the end
of the report.
1
10 references are included.
Literature used to support
arguments but some issues with
references either in-text or in
reference list.
0
Less than 10 references are used
to support arguments or very
poorly referenced.
5
Total 100
9
TicketTaylor Case Description
The senior management and the owner of TicketTaylor are excited to know the various
opportunities identified in your Analysis Plan. Specifically, they believe the rapid
technological advancements and the availability of digital innovations can potentially help
them enhance its current business performance, increase its profitability, and improve the
customer experience for its loyal patrons.
They hope that your Strategy Analysis and Solution Design can help them to 1) better
understand what and how digital solutions can address their current problems, and 2) select
the most appropriate digital solution, which offers value and is the most cost-effective for
their business. As in Assignment 1, you will be competing with other business analysts to
convince TicketTaylor that your proposed solution is the most appropriate for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History: TicketTaylor was founded in 1988 by the Taylor family to cater to ticketing needs
for events in Geelong VIC Australia. This small, family-owned ticketing business grew to
become a substantial mid-sized ticketing provider in Australia for the sporting, music, and
entertainment industries in general. Significant challenges have emerged as this retailer is
regularly outbid for major events, such as the Taylor Swift Eras Tour and the AFL Grand
Final Series. The company’s motto is “Friendly Service and Best Tickets, at Affordable
Prices”. Due to revenue pressures – especially during the COVID lockdowns – TicketTaylor
has introduced online event management into its core business, combining a bespoke
Salesforce system with its legacy systems (more below), and they have closed about 15% of
their ticketing outlets.
Head office: Geelong, VIC
Number of ticketing
outlets (current):
Ticket offices: 35 (Metro 27, Regional 8)
Smaller kiosks: 27 (Metro 13, Regional 24)
Number of staff
(current):
Sales – 70 (offices – 2 per store on average), 27 (kiosks)
Admin – 8 State/Territory Managers, 12 Head office support staff
(Geelong), 4 IT support staff (remote)
Financial: AUD $220 million turnover per annum
Products and
services profile: Ticketing services (90%), online event management services (10%).
Consultant Brief:
Competition has increased in the ticketing industry, as established major players such as
Ticketek and Ticketmaster control the biggest share of the market and dominate ticket sales
for major events (including Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour and the Australian Football
League/AFL Grand Finals, respectively) in Australia. The ticketing business has also seen
entries by companies such as Eventbrite (a low-cost ticketing provider) and Humanitix (a not-
for-profit that channels profits to ethical causes). Online ticketing is also booming due to the
10
rapid increase in live events post-Covid worldwide, as well as an increase in electronic tickets
which reduces costs of printing and promotes environmental sustainability.
TicketTaylor has been a semi-automated business, since its early days of using simple
computerised spreadsheets to handle transactions. Its most recent update to its computerised
system was in 2007, using a legacy web system running on the relatively outdated Oracle 10g
infrastructure. While the Geelong head office automates a large proportion of ticketing using
their legacy system – e.g., through online purchases via the website, and for ticketing offices
equipped with the latest point-of-sale terminals – smaller kiosks (e.g., certain regional booths
and smaller stands operating from milk bars and malls) are still selling tickets using local
Excel spreadsheets and even manual ticket books! Each of these smaller kiosks is provided
with a fixed quota of tickets; all over-the-counter kiosk purchases, made with local EFTPOS
terminals or cash, are reconciled with the head office via emails (or phone calls, in case of
emergency). The company finds it hard to pre-allocate quotas for these kiosks and there is no
visibility of which tickets are selling and which are not. Sales data are consolidated by each
kiosk via email twice a week, and finally, on the day before the event. On the day of the
event, any leftover kiosk quotas are returned to the general sale online.
Naturally, some kiosk staff have complained about conflicting bookings and dissatisfaction
from customers due to the limited quotas they could purchase, as above. In addition, given
the ‘synchronisation’ issues by kiosks, TicketTaylor faces the real issue of accidentally
double-booking certain seats, and having to compensate customers. Furthermore, frequent
outages are faced by the outdated legacy web system; and issues faced by kiosk staff have
been increasing through the years (e.g., poor connectivity and high downtime, outdated
software versions, malware – some kiosks are still using 2000-era laptops running Windows
XP). The nature of kiosks’ EFTPOS systems and cash/cheque transactions mean that
payment is sometimes subject to delays and loss: a situation which is exploited by fraudsters
who sell their tickets at a profit before head office realises that the payment has not actually
been credited (or worse, refunded by the bank).
During major events, such as regional rugby/football matches and theatre performances,
which sell out thousands of seats within hours, TicketTaylor could not keep up with the
volume of sales. Their last significant event was Linkin Park’s 2007 concert tour, which
totalled over 25,000 ticket sales across several venues Australia-wide. Despite having regular
preventative maintenance and security audits, their legacy web system fails to detect bulk
purchases of tickets by scalpers and fraudsters using automated systems 13% of the time.
Stopgaps, including ‘queue management’ pages, fail to equitably allocate tickets to online
purchasers – a problem also faced by large ticketing providers during major events (again,
consider Ticketek and the Taylor Swift Eras Tour). Compounded by the semi-automated
nature of kiosks, TicketTaylor often has disgruntled customers for not being able to fairly buy
tickets to their favourite events.
TicketTaylor also requires a separate quota of reserved tickets for certain events: usually
requested by organisers of an event and other stakeholders (e.g., football clubs, musician fan
clubs, promoters) to allow ‘early access’ to tickets. This early access reservation system has
also been in use by TicketTaylor to reward its employees since the day of its founding. Head
office staff in Geelong complain of undisciplined purchasing by kiosk or ticket office staff,
where the company’s ‘early access’ reserve of tickets is wasted on staff reserving tickets in
bulk for friends and relatives, leading to significant exhaustion of “hot” tickets.
11
Furthermore, with the rise of ticket scalping, fraud, hoarding of tickets, and petty crime
during events, TicketTaylor is having issues uniquely identifying customers (‘know your
customer’ or KYC processes) to implement protection mechanisms (such as bans, ticket
limits, and reporting to stakeholders such as banks and law enforcement). Purchases from
ticket offices and the website capture identification data such as mobile numbers for each
customer. However, kiosks have a generic identifier merely identifying the kiosk, but not the
customer: as these kiosks are usually in small country towns or smaller suburbs, TicketTaylor
staff know regular purchasers by name, and there is no consistent KYC procedure.
TicketTaylor has a very strong and loyal following in small towns and regional areas, with a
patron base mainly attending local activities and sporting events. People know them and trust
them. Many of the company’s shortcomings are covered by skilful local salespeople who are
well-connected within their communities, often employed by them since the 1990s and
2000s. This leads to a lot of costly follow-ups to rectify issues by consumers. In addition, for
its new online event management service, it has used an off-the-shelf Salesforce solution
integrated with Zoom, which is bottlenecked by its legacy ticketing system to handle
payments and ticket allocations.
TicketTaylor is keen to enhance its current business performance, increase its profitability,
and improve the customer experience for its loyal patrons.
(Sources for inspirations behind the case study: Moss (2023) in The Regulatory Review/Penn Program on
Regulation; Taylor (2023) in Forbes; Klein (2010) in Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial &
Commercial Law 5)
Project 2 (Group) – 35%
Strategy Analysis and Solution Evaluation
Introduction
This group project is a continuation of the previous assignment. You are expected to work
with the same team. It is due on Monday, 20th May 2024, 9pm (week 12). The case
description is provided at the end of this document.
The senior management and the owner of TicketTaylor are impressed by your Analysis Plan.
Now, they would like you to conduct a Strategy Analysis to show them how digital solutions
could help address the current issues they are experiencing and enhance the efficiency of their
business operations. You are also asked to include Solution Design to demonstrate how the
proposed solution (just one solution per group) offers value to TicketTaylor. Since they have
limited exposure to digital technologies, they are keen to understand any possible solutions
and the impact on their business performance.
As in the first assignment, you are expected to conduct research to gather additional
information to complement the details provided, which will help you perform a thorough
strategy analysis. You are allowed to make any assumptions as long as they are clearly stated,
not in conflict with information provided in the case description, reasonable and applied
consistently.
Details of the Tasks
Below are the tasks that you need to do:
1. Current state analysis
Describe how the business currently functions and identify problems and pain points.
Details to include:
• Description of the current state, explaining how the business currently functions.
• Two customer journey maps for two personas representing local Sales Staff and Head
Office Staff, to show their interaction with the current system. It is necessary to
identify problems and pain points.
2. Future state analysis
Describe the future state enabled by your proposed digital solution.
Details to include:
• Description of the future state
• At least three business goals and five SMART objectives with justification
• Scope of the solution and constraints
• Changes to the customer journey maps that will address the issues found in the current
state.
3. Change strategy
Explain what the business will need to do to get from the current state to the future state.
Details to include:
• Gap analysis
• Readiness assessment: Assess whether TicketTaylor is ready for the change
• Recommended change strategy.
2
4. Risk assessment
Identify and analyse possible risks that might emerge as a result of implementing the
recommended change strategy.
Details to include:
• Identification of at least five risks
• Explanation of the consequence, probability, impact, and treatment for each risk
identified.
5. Solution Design
Your group might identify a few possible options, but you need to agree on and select one
solution that you believe would be the most appropriate for TicketTaylor. Present your
proposed solution to achieve the future state. The solution may incorporate technology
(hardware and/or software), processes, organizational changes, and people. It is not necessary
to encompass all these elements in your solution.
Details to include:
• Description of the proposed solution
• Identification of two KPIs to monitor the performance of your solution
• Brief explanation of how you are planning to obtain the data for those KPIs and what
an appropriate timeframe would be to measure them.
Group Management
As part of group management, you are expected to do the following:
1. Update Group Governance Plan
Your group should review the Governance Plan and update it based on your group experience
with Assignment 1. You should also include the allocation of tasks in the revised Governance
Plan. Post the revised Governance Plan as an announcement in your LMS Group Homepage
by the end of week 7.
2. Provide a Statement on Contribution
As part of the Group Report submission, each member is required to briefly explain and rate
their contribution to the group report. See details on the next page.
3. Complete Group Member Evaluation
Online Group Member Evaluation will be conducted after the project is completed in week
12. Feedback provided will be anonymous. Depending on the result of the evaluation,
individual group members may get different marks.
Timeline
Task Expected Completion
1. Review and update your group Governance Plan to include the
allocation of tasks to each member. Post the revised document on
the LMS Group Homepage as an announcement item.
End of week 7
2. Each student posts the draft work for their section on the LMS
Group Homepage
End of week 9
3. Each student reviews the draft work of other members and posts
their feedback on the LMS Group Homepage
End of week 10
4. Prepare and submit the Group Report Start of week 12
5. Submit online Group Member Evaluation End of week 12
3
Assignment 2 Report Template
Group No: _______
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STRATEGY ANALYSIS
1. Current State Analysis
2. Future State Analysis
3. Change Strategy
4. Risk Assessment
SOLUTION DESIGN
CONCLUSION
STATEMENT ON CONTRIBUTION
Each member should explain their contribution to the report in less than 150 words and rate
their own contribution on a scale of 1 to 4, referencing the rubric below.
4 Advanced -
exceeds
expectations
3 Competent -
meets
expectations
2 Progressing - does
not fully meet
expectations
1 Beginning - does
not meet
expectations
Contribution Did more than
others. Highly
productive. Works
extremely well with
others.
Did my part of the
workload.
Cooperative.
Works well with
others.
Could have shared
more of the workload.
Has difficulty.
Requires structure,
directions, and
leadership.
Did not do much
work. Does not
contribute much.
Does not work well
with others.
REFERENCES
You must include at least 10 references in your report to support your arguments, where
necessary. This can include academic journal articles, conference proceedings, whitepapers,
news articles, or reputable blogs. References are not included in the word limit.
List all references cited in your report using APA referencing style. Refer to
https://library.unimelb.edu.au/recite/referencing-styles/apa7 for details.
Example:
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user
perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3),
475–487.
APPENDIX
Attach your group meeting minutes. A minimum of two group meetings are expected.
4
Rules for Assignment 2
Report length: Approximately 4,500 words (+10%), with a page limit of 22 (+2), font
size of 12-point and a minimum of 1.5 line spacing. Please include a word
count (from Tools, Word Count in MS Word) on the cover sheet of your
submission. Do not include the cover sheet, personas, customer journey
maps, statement on contribution or bibliography in your word/page count.
Report
medium:
Your report should be prepared as an MS Word document. In your Word
document, please include links to any web pages referenced in your
report.
References: You must include a Reference list using APA style at the end of your
report. Entries in the Reference list should be sorted alphabetically by
author, then by year of publication for works by the same author(s). Every
single idea you borrow from someone else should be cited (author, year)
in your report. Quotations, if used, should be in quotation marks (“…”)
and should be EXACT. The citation for quotations must include the page
number of the source (author, year, page#).
Due date: Monday, 20th May 2024, 9pm (week 12)
Submission: Your report should be prepared as an MS Word document, and submitted
electronically via LMS by the above due date. The cover sheet for the
report is available on the next page. Please copy and paste it on the first
page of your document. When you submit your Assignment, please
examine the Turnitin report to ensure that you have not plagiarised. Only
one group member needs to submit.
Marks: 35 marks
Late Penalty 10% of maximum marks (3.5 marks) per working day late. However, no
late submission will be accepted without prior arrangement with the
Subject Coordinator.
5
Minutes of Group Meetings (Sample Form)
Group No: _____________
Meeting No.
Date and Time
Location
Attendees
Apologies
Agenda
Major Points of Discussion
Group Progress
Actions
Action Person
Responsible
Completion
Date
Concerns
Next Meeting
Date:
Place:
Agenda (tentative):
Prepared by: Confirmed by:
6
The University of Melbourne
School of Computing and Information Systems
Group Assignment Cover Sheet
Group Members
(Names exactly as on your
student card/s)*
Failure to do so may result in a
result being incorrectly recorded.
1.
2.
3.
Subject Code/Name: ISYS90049 Digital Business Analysis
Assignment Title: Assignment 2: Strategy Analysis and Solution Evaluation
Tutor/Instructor Name:
Due Date/Time: Monday, 20th May 2024, 9pm
Submitted Date/Time:
* To protect your privacy, student numbers should not be shared with other students.
PLAGIARISM
Plagiarism is the presentation by a student of an assignment which has in fact been copied in whole or
in part from another student’s work, or from any other source (e.g., published books, periodicals, the
web, or AI-generated material) without due acknowledgement in the text.
COLLUSION
Collusion is the presentation by a student of an assignment as his or her own which is in fact the result
in whole or in part of unauthorized collaboration with another person or persons.
More information about academic misconduct can be obtained from:
https://academicintegrity.unimelb.edu.au/plagiarism-and-collusion
Declaration
We declare that this assignment is our group’s own work and does not involve plagiarism or collusion.
We also declare that the material contained in this assignment has not previously been submitted for
assessment in any other formal course of study. Further, we declare that if any AI tool (e.g., ChatGPT
or QuillBot) is used in the preparation of this submission, it has been appropriately acknowledged and
cited.
Before submitting our assignment, we have:
1. Made a copy of the assignment and of any material submitted with the assignment.
2. Ensured that our assignment and any material submitted are clearly identified.
3. Retained a copy of the submission of this assignment (if appropriate).
4. Attached all files and required materials to the submission (if appropriate).
Signatures Date Contribution
1
2
3
Note: For electronic submissions the signatures may be typed. Also, unless otherwise indicated, it will be
assumed that all group members made an equal contribution to the overall effort. If a dispute arises, the matter
should be reported to the lecturer-in-charge for consideration.
7
Assessment Criteria
The following assessment criteria will be used to assess the quality of your report.
Note: Individual group member’s mark might be equal to or less than the total group mark, depending on the group member evaluation.
Criterion Excellent Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Marks
Executive
summary
10 to >8
Includes clear details that can be
used to make a business
decision.
8 to >6
Provides some details but not
enough to confidently make a
business decision.
6 to >5
Provides a basic summary but
some details are not clear.
5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
10
Current state 15 to >12
Provides an excellent
explanation of how the business
currently functions. Personas and
journey maps clearly
demonstrate the issues users are
facing. Affected processes are
identified, as well as the
touchpoints with the journey
maps.
12 to >9
Provides good coverage of
current issues. Personas and
journey maps are of good quality
and mostly demonstrate issues
users are facing. Affected
processes are identified, but
some touchpoints with the
journey maps are identified.
9 to >7.5
A basic description of the current
issues is provided. Personas and
journey maps are provided but
missing some details. The
affected processes are identified,
but the touchpoints are unclear.
7.5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
15
Future state 15 to >12
Provides an excellent description
of the desired future state. Goals
and SMART objectives are
detailed and logically presented.
The scope of the solution and list
of constraints are clear. Changes
to the journey maps are clearly
identified.
12 to >9
Provides a good description of
the desired future state. Goals
and SMART objectives are
identified but may not fully
address the situation. Either the
scope of the solution or list of
constraints is unclear. Some
changes to the journey maps are
identified.
9 to >7.5
A basic description of the
desired future state is provided.
Goals and SMART objectives
are presented but missing some
details. The scope of the solution
and list of constraints have some
issues. Some changes to the
journey maps are unclear.
7.5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
15
8
Change
strategy
20 to >15.5
Clearly highlights the gaps
between the current and future
states and provides useful
actions to direct the change. The
readiness assessment and
recommended change strategy
are excellent.
15.5 to >11.5
Provides a good explanation of
the gaps between the current and
future state but missing some
details for how to change. The
readiness assessment and
recommended change strategy
are generally good.
11.5 to >10
A basic explanation is given for
the gaps between the current and
future state, not clear how the
change should occur. The
readiness assessment or
recommended change strategy
have some issues.
10 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
20
Risks 15 to >12
5 risks are clearly defined, as
well as all their consequence,
probability, impact, and
treatment.
12 to >9
5 risks are clearly defined, but
there is incomplete information
about their consequence,
probability, impact, and
treatment.
9 to >7.5
5 risks are provided but some
information is missing or
incorrect (e.g., consequence,
probability, impact, and
treatment).
7.5 to >0
Less than 5 risks are provided,
and some information is missing
or incorrect.
15
Solution 15 to >12
Design is very well suited to
addressing the
problem/opportunity, all
deliverables are included and all
necessary details are provided. 2
KPIs are well defined, relevant
and the data can be obtained.
12 to >9
Design can address the
problem/opportunity,
deliverables are of good quality
with minor issues. 2 KPI are
defined, relevant and the data
can be obtained.
9 to >7.5
Design is likely to be suitable
but there are missing details or
misalignment with
problem/opportunity. 2 KPIs are
relevant but the data is unlikely
obtainable.
7.5 to >0
Not included or very poorly
written.
15
Presentation 5
Report looks professional, is
neatly formatted and is written
with excellent grammar.
3
Report is well presented, has
minor issues with formatting and
grammar.
1
Report is reasonably presented
but has some issues with
formatting or grammar.
0
Very poorly presented.
5
References 5
Arguments made are supported
by literature (at least 10
citations), correctly referenced
and appear in a completed
reference list at the end of the
report.
3
10 references are included.
Arguments made are generally
supported by literature with only
minor issues in referencing and a
complete reference list at the end
of the report.
1
10 references are included.
Literature used to support
arguments but some issues with
references either in-text or in
reference list.
0
Less than 10 references are used
to support arguments or very
poorly referenced.
5
Total 100
9
TicketTaylor Case Description
The senior management and the owner of TicketTaylor are excited to know the various
opportunities identified in your Analysis Plan. Specifically, they believe the rapid
technological advancements and the availability of digital innovations can potentially help
them enhance its current business performance, increase its profitability, and improve the
customer experience for its loyal patrons.
They hope that your Strategy Analysis and Solution Design can help them to 1) better
understand what and how digital solutions can address their current problems, and 2) select
the most appropriate digital solution, which offers value and is the most cost-effective for
their business. As in Assignment 1, you will be competing with other business analysts to
convince TicketTaylor that your proposed solution is the most appropriate for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History: TicketTaylor was founded in 1988 by the Taylor family to cater to ticketing needs
for events in Geelong VIC Australia. This small, family-owned ticketing business grew to
become a substantial mid-sized ticketing provider in Australia for the sporting, music, and
entertainment industries in general. Significant challenges have emerged as this retailer is
regularly outbid for major events, such as the Taylor Swift Eras Tour and the AFL Grand
Final Series. The company’s motto is “Friendly Service and Best Tickets, at Affordable
Prices”. Due to revenue pressures – especially during the COVID lockdowns – TicketTaylor
has introduced online event management into its core business, combining a bespoke
Salesforce system with its legacy systems (more below), and they have closed about 15% of
their ticketing outlets.
Head office: Geelong, VIC
Number of ticketing
outlets (current):
Ticket offices: 35 (Metro 27, Regional 8)
Smaller kiosks: 27 (Metro 13, Regional 24)
Number of staff
(current):
Sales – 70 (offices – 2 per store on average), 27 (kiosks)
Admin – 8 State/Territory Managers, 12 Head office support staff
(Geelong), 4 IT support staff (remote)
Financial: AUD $220 million turnover per annum
Products and
services profile: Ticketing services (90%), online event management services (10%).
Consultant Brief:
Competition has increased in the ticketing industry, as established major players such as
Ticketek and Ticketmaster control the biggest share of the market and dominate ticket sales
for major events (including Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour and the Australian Football
League/AFL Grand Finals, respectively) in Australia. The ticketing business has also seen
entries by companies such as Eventbrite (a low-cost ticketing provider) and Humanitix (a not-
for-profit that channels profits to ethical causes). Online ticketing is also booming due to the
10
rapid increase in live events post-Covid worldwide, as well as an increase in electronic tickets
which reduces costs of printing and promotes environmental sustainability.
TicketTaylor has been a semi-automated business, since its early days of using simple
computerised spreadsheets to handle transactions. Its most recent update to its computerised
system was in 2007, using a legacy web system running on the relatively outdated Oracle 10g
infrastructure. While the Geelong head office automates a large proportion of ticketing using
their legacy system – e.g., through online purchases via the website, and for ticketing offices
equipped with the latest point-of-sale terminals – smaller kiosks (e.g., certain regional booths
and smaller stands operating from milk bars and malls) are still selling tickets using local
Excel spreadsheets and even manual ticket books! Each of these smaller kiosks is provided
with a fixed quota of tickets; all over-the-counter kiosk purchases, made with local EFTPOS
terminals or cash, are reconciled with the head office via emails (or phone calls, in case of
emergency). The company finds it hard to pre-allocate quotas for these kiosks and there is no
visibility of which tickets are selling and which are not. Sales data are consolidated by each
kiosk via email twice a week, and finally, on the day before the event. On the day of the
event, any leftover kiosk quotas are returned to the general sale online.
Naturally, some kiosk staff have complained about conflicting bookings and dissatisfaction
from customers due to the limited quotas they could purchase, as above. In addition, given
the ‘synchronisation’ issues by kiosks, TicketTaylor faces the real issue of accidentally
double-booking certain seats, and having to compensate customers. Furthermore, frequent
outages are faced by the outdated legacy web system; and issues faced by kiosk staff have
been increasing through the years (e.g., poor connectivity and high downtime, outdated
software versions, malware – some kiosks are still using 2000-era laptops running Windows
XP). The nature of kiosks’ EFTPOS systems and cash/cheque transactions mean that
payment is sometimes subject to delays and loss: a situation which is exploited by fraudsters
who sell their tickets at a profit before head office realises that the payment has not actually
been credited (or worse, refunded by the bank).
During major events, such as regional rugby/football matches and theatre performances,
which sell out thousands of seats within hours, TicketTaylor could not keep up with the
volume of sales. Their last significant event was Linkin Park’s 2007 concert tour, which
totalled over 25,000 ticket sales across several venues Australia-wide. Despite having regular
preventative maintenance and security audits, their legacy web system fails to detect bulk
purchases of tickets by scalpers and fraudsters using automated systems 13% of the time.
Stopgaps, including ‘queue management’ pages, fail to equitably allocate tickets to online
purchasers – a problem also faced by large ticketing providers during major events (again,
consider Ticketek and the Taylor Swift Eras Tour). Compounded by the semi-automated
nature of kiosks, TicketTaylor often has disgruntled customers for not being able to fairly buy
tickets to their favourite events.
TicketTaylor also requires a separate quota of reserved tickets for certain events: usually
requested by organisers of an event and other stakeholders (e.g., football clubs, musician fan
clubs, promoters) to allow ‘early access’ to tickets. This early access reservation system has
also been in use by TicketTaylor to reward its employees since the day of its founding. Head
office staff in Geelong complain of undisciplined purchasing by kiosk or ticket office staff,
where the company’s ‘early access’ reserve of tickets is wasted on staff reserving tickets in
bulk for friends and relatives, leading to significant exhaustion of “hot” tickets.
11
Furthermore, with the rise of ticket scalping, fraud, hoarding of tickets, and petty crime
during events, TicketTaylor is having issues uniquely identifying customers (‘know your
customer’ or KYC processes) to implement protection mechanisms (such as bans, ticket
limits, and reporting to stakeholders such as banks and law enforcement). Purchases from
ticket offices and the website capture identification data such as mobile numbers for each
customer. However, kiosks have a generic identifier merely identifying the kiosk, but not the
customer: as these kiosks are usually in small country towns or smaller suburbs, TicketTaylor
staff know regular purchasers by name, and there is no consistent KYC procedure.
TicketTaylor has a very strong and loyal following in small towns and regional areas, with a
patron base mainly attending local activities and sporting events. People know them and trust
them. Many of the company’s shortcomings are covered by skilful local salespeople who are
well-connected within their communities, often employed by them since the 1990s and
2000s. This leads to a lot of costly follow-ups to rectify issues by consumers. In addition, for
its new online event management service, it has used an off-the-shelf Salesforce solution
integrated with Zoom, which is bottlenecked by its legacy ticketing system to handle
payments and ticket allocations.
TicketTaylor is keen to enhance its current business performance, increase its profitability,
and improve the customer experience for its loyal patrons.
(Sources for inspirations behind the case study: Moss (2023) in The Regulatory Review/Penn Program on
Regulation; Taylor (2023) in Forbes; Klein (2010) in Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial &
Commercial Law 5)
