Business Case - Sessional
Staffing System
by Pinal Ashokbhai Sathvara
Submission date: 24-Mar-2019 09:06PM (UT C+0800)
Submission ID: 1098670799
File name: System_Analysis_Business_Case.pdf (521.92K)
Word count: 2690
Character count: 14080
Good!
Very good!
1
OK
WC
Vague
Very good!
2
Very good!
OK
Maybe. Could
secure it better.
Nice!
Excellent !
Why is this a
benefit?
Good!
Good!
OK
Time savings for other staff?
Tangible benefit
Very good!
OK
Already provided by Curtin
Already provided by Curtin
Too high!
Already provided by Curtin
Vague
Sp.
No.
52.4 what?
52.4 what?
3
Is the system/project feasible or not?
OK
OK
Gr.
OK
Good!
Very good!
Business Case - Sessional Staffing System
ORIGINALITY REPORT
8
%
SIMILARIT Y INDEX
2%
0%
7%
INT ERNET SOURCES
PUBLICAT IONS
ST UDENT PAPERS
PRIMARY SOURCES
1
2
3
Submitted to Curtin University of Technology
St udent Paper
1%
www.aitdspace.gr
Int ernet Source
1%
www.timeshighereducation.com
Int ernet Source
Exclude quotes
Of f
Exclude bibliography
On
6%
Exclude matches
Of f
Business Case - Sessional Staffing System
GRADEMARK REPORT
FINAL GRADE
GENERAL COMMENTS
61
Instructor
/100
PAGE 1
QM
Good!
Good!
PAGE 2
QM
Very good!
Very good!
PAGE 3
Comment 1
Misleading. Only some of the teaching.
QM
OK
OK.
QM
WC
Word choice error:
Sometimes choosing the correct word to express exactly what you have to say is very dif f icult
to do. Word choice errors can be the result of not paying attention to the word or trying too
hard to come up with a f ancier word when a simple one is appropriate. A thesaurus can be a
handy tool when you're trying to f ind a word that's similar to, but more accurate than, the one
you're looking up. However, it can of ten introduce more problems if you use a word thinking it
has exactly the same meaning.
QM
Vague
T his is vague, ambiguous, and/or unclear. State more precisely!
PAGE 4
QM
Very good!
Very good!
Comment 2
Could license it!
PAGE 5
QM
Very good!
Very good!
QM
OK
OK.
Text Comment.
QM
Maybe. Could secure it better.
Nice!
Nice!
QM
Excellent!
Excellent!
Text Comment.
Why is this a benef it?
PAGE 6
QM
Good!
Good!
QM
Good!
Good!
QM
OK
OK.
Text Comment.
T ime savings f or other staf f ?
PAGE 7
Text Comment.
QM
T angible benef it
Very good!
Very good!
QM
OK
OK.
QM
Text Comment.
Already provided by Curtin
Text Comment.
Already provided by Curtin
Text Comment.
T oo high!
Text Comment.
Already provided by Curtin
Vague
T his is vague, ambiguous, and/or unclear. State more precisely!
Additional Comment
What licenses??
PAGE 8
QM
Sp.
Spelling error
QM
No.
T his is incorrect.
Additional Comment
Where are 8000 and 8800 f rom?
PAGE 9
Text Comment.
52.4 what?
Text Comment.
52.4 what?
Comment 3
Not justif ied. How estimated?
PAGE 10
Text Comment.
QM
OK
OK.
QM
OK
OK.
Additional Comment
Is it f easible or not?
QM
Gr.
Grammar
PAGE 11
QM
OK
OK.
PAGE 12
QM
Good!
Good!
QM
Very good!
Very good!
PAGE 13
Is the system/project f easible or not?
RUBRIC: BUSINESS CASE V2
6 1 / 10 0
WRIT ING (8%)
65 / 100
Compilation and presentation quality of report
ZERO
(0)
Unreadable or completely unacceptable
FAIL
(25)
Very poor. Of ten unclear, even impossible to understand. Quite unprof essional and
sloppy.
PASS
(55)
Barely acceptable. Largely clear with a f ew areas unclear. Lacks polish and
prof essionalism.
CREDIT
(65)
Acceptable with some good points. Mostly clear with some polish. Management may
miss a f ew key things to support their decision making.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good throughout. Some minor errors, but generally very clear and well presented.
Very f ew areas are not clear. Only a f ew things could be better presented to help
management understand and decide what to do next.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent. Very clear and very well presented. Very good balance of text, bullet points,
and f igures. Meets management readers' needs very well. Exemplary.
PERFECT
(100)
Outstanding. No errors at all. Very clear logic and f low throughout the document.
Provides everything management needs to decide about the next actions to take. A
real pleasure to read.
NEED/PROBLEM (8%)
75 / 100
Need/Problem Description
ZERO
(0)
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system are completely
incorrect or not identif ied at all.
FAIL
(25)
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system are incorrect and
largely unrelated to the right idea. Attempts to explain the context but with f requent
major errors or misconceptions.
PASS
(55)
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system are somewhat
correctly and clearly stated. Some f ew major relevant aspects of the context are
omitted or incorrect.
CREDIT
(65)
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system are generally
correctly and clearly stated. Only a f ew major relevant aspects of the context are
omitted or incorrect.
DISTINCTION
(75)
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system and many
relevant aspects of the context are mostly correctly and clearly stated, with some
errors and omissions.
HIGH DISTINCTION
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system and most
(90)
relevant aspects of the context are correctly and clearly stated.
PERFECT
(100)
T he problem to be solved and the need and purpose f or the system and all relevant
aspects of the context are correctly and clearly stated.
ALT ERNAT IVES (4%)
75 / 100
Alternative solutions considered
ZERO
(0)
Doesn't identif y any alternative solutions than the one recommendation.
FAIL
(25)
Alternatives suggested are completely unrealistic or only trivially dif f erent f rom the
recommendation.
PASS
(55)
At least two alternatives are suggested and at least one is realistic and non-trivial.
CREDIT
(65)
At least two realistic and non-trivial alternatives are suggested.
DISTINCTION
(75)
At least three realistic and non-trivial alternatives are suggested
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
At least three realistic and non-trivial alternatives are suggested and are reasonably
well described.
PERFECT
(100)
At least three realistic and non-trivial alternatives are suggested and are very clearly
described and contrasted with the system recommended.
SOLUT ION (8%)
90 / 100
Proposed solution (system capabilities, setting the scope of the system)
ZERO
(0)
Very little or no idea of the capabilities of the new/proposed system are provided.
FAIL
(25)
Some, but insuf f icient idea of the capabilities of the new/proposed system are
provided.
PASS
(55)
A good idea of the capabilities of the new/proposed system is provided, but the
capabilities seem quite incomplete and/or many seem inappropriate.
CREDIT
(65)
A good idea of the capabilities of the new/proposed system is provided, but a f ew of
the capabilities seem to be missing and/or several seem inappropriate.
DISTINCTION
(75)
A very good idea of the capabilities of the new/proposed system is provided, with
very f ew needed capabilities missing and/or inappropriate.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
A very clear vision of the capabilities of the new/proposed system is provided, with
very at most one needed capability missing and/or inappropriate.
PERFECT
(100)
An exceptionally clear and appropriate vision of the capabilities of the new/proposed
system is provided, with very no needed capabilities missing and/or inappropriate.
T ANG BENEFIT S (8%)
55 / 100
Anticipated tangible benef its f rom using the system
ZERO
(0)
Very poor tangible benef its identif ication - or missing altogether. Not attempted or
completely inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor tangible benef its identif ication. Many tangible benef its are missing or incorrect.
Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair tangible benef its identif ication. Several, even many tangible benef its are missing
or incorrect, and clarity may be substantially lacking, but the work is clearly on the
right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good tangible benef its identif ication. Only a f ew tangible benef its are missing or
incorrect. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good tangible benef its identif ication. Nearly all tangible benef its are complete
and correct, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent tangible benef its identif ication. No important tangible benef its are missing
and nearly all tangible benef its are complete, correct, and clear.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the tangible benef its identif ication are complete, correct, and clear.
INT ANG BENEFT (4%)
65 / 100
Anticipated intangible benef its f rom using the system
ZERO
(0)
Very poor intangible benef its identif ication - or missing altogether. Not attempted or
completely inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor intangible benef its identif ication. Many intangible benef its are missing or
incorrect. Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair intangible benef its identif ication. Several, even many intangible benef its are
missing or incorrect, and clarity may be substantially lacking, but the work is clearly on
the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good intangible benef its identif ication. Only a f ew intangible benef its are missing or
incorrect. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good intangible benef its identif ication. Nearly all intangible benef its are complete
and correct, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent intangible benef its identif ication. No important intangible benef its are
missing and nearly all intangible benef its are complete, correct, and clear.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the intangible benef its identif ication are complete, correct, and clear.
DEV COST S (8%)
65 / 100
Anticipated one-time costs of building the system
ZERO
(0)
Very poor development costs identif ication - or missing altogether. Not attempted or
completely inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor development costs identif ication. Many development costs are missing or
incorrect. Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair development costs identif ication. Several, even many development costs are
missing or incorrect, and clarity may be substantially lacking, but the work is clearly on
the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good development costs identif ication. Only a f ew development costs are missing or
incorrect. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good development costs identif ication. Nearly all development costs are
complete and correct, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent development costs identif ication. No important development costs are
missing and nearly all development costs are complete, correct, and clear.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the development costs identif ication are complete, correct, and clear.
OPS COST S (8%)
55 / 100
Anticipated on-going costs of operating and using the system
ZERO
(0)
Very poor operating costs identif ication - or missing altogether. Not attempted or
completely inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor operating costs identif ication. Many operating costs are missing or incorrect.
Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair operating costs identif ication. Several, even many operating costs are missing or
incorrect, and clarity may be substantially lacking, but the work is clearly on the right
track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good operating costs identif ication. Only a f ew operating costs are missing or
incorrect. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good operating costs identif ication. Nearly all operating costs are complete and
correct, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent operating costs identif ication. No important operating costs are missing and
nearly all operating costs are complete, correct, and clear.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the operating costs identif ication are complete, correct, and clear.
BREAKEVEN (6%)
25 / 100
Analysis of the point (dollar amount) at which accumulated tangible benef its meet or exceed accumulated
costs
ZERO
(0)
Very poor Breakeven Analysis - or missing altogether. Not attempted or completely
inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor Breakeven Analysis. Many costs and/or benef its are missing, incorrect, or
incorrectly included into the analysis. Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of
what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair Breakeven Analysis. Several, even many costs and/or benef its are missing,
incorrect, or incorrectly included into the analysis and clarity may be substantially
lacking, but the work is clearly on the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good Breakeven Analysis. A f ew costs and/or benef its are missing, incorrect, or
incorrectly included into the analysis. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good Breakeven Analysis. Nearly all costs and/or benef its are included and
correctly analysed, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent Breakeven Analysis. Nearly all costs and/or benef its are included and
correctly and clearly analysed.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the Breakeven Analysis are complete, correct, and clear.
PAYBACK (6%)
25 / 100
Analysis of how long it will take to reach the point (in time) at which accumulated tangible benef its will meet
or exceed accumulated costs
ZERO
(0)
Very poor Payback Analysis - or missing altogether. Not attempted or completely
inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor Payback Analysis. Many costs and/or benef its are missing, incorrect, or
incorrectly included into the analysis. Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of
what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair Payback Analysis. Several, even many costs and/or benef its are missing,
incorrect, or incorrectly included into the analysis and clarity may be substantially
lacking, but the work is clearly on the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good Payback Analysis. A f ew costs and/or benef its are missing, incorrect, or
incorrectly included into the analysis. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good Payback Analysis. Nearly all costs and/or benef its are included and
correctly analysed, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent Payback Analysis. Nearly all costs and/or benef its are included and correctly
and clearly analysed.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the Payback Analysis are complete, correct, and clear.
NPV (8%)
55 / 100
Analysis of the value of conducting the project and using the system (over the expected lif e of the system)
in current (today's) dollars.
ZERO
(0)
Very poor Net Present Value Analysis - or missing altogether. Not attempted or
completely inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor Net Present Value Analysis. Many costs and/or benef its are missing, incorrect,
or incorrectly included into the analysis or NPV calculations are totally incorrect.
Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair Net Present Value Analysis. Several, even many costs and/or benef its are
missing, incorrect, or incorrectly included into the analysis, NPV analysis is poor,
and/or clarity may be substantially lacking, but the work is clearly on the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good Net Present Value Analysis. A f ew costs and/or benef its are missing, incorrect,
or incorrectly included into the NPV analysis. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good Net Present Value Analysis. Nearly all costs and/or benef its are included
and correctly analysed, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent Net Present Value Analysis. Nearly all costs and/or benef its are included
and correctly and clearly analysed.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the Net Present Value Analysis are complete, correct, and clear.
FEASIBILIT Y (8%)
55 / 100
Analysis of whether the system is f easible (or not) f or non-f inancial reasons (organisational,
technological, resource, schedule, legal, and ethical)
ZERO
(0)
Very poor Feasibility Analysis - or missing altogether. Not attempted or completely
inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor Feasibility Analysis. Many or most f easibility elements are missing, incorrect, or
incorrectly included into the analysis. Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of
what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair Feasibility Analysis. All f easibility elements are analysed, but at least two are
substantially incorrect, misunderstood, or missing key points. Nonetheless, the work
is clearly on the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good Feasibility Analysis. All f easibility elements are analysed, but at least one is
substantially incorrect, misunderstood, or missing key points. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good Feasibility Analysis. All f easibility elements are pretty much correctly
analysed, but with minor errors and clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent Feasibility Analysis. All f easibility elements are correctly and completely
analysed, but with minor areas where clarity is somewhat lacking.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the Feasibility Analysis are complete, correct, and clear.
RECOMMENDS (8%)
65 / 100
Recommendations to management f or decision about system to be developed (or not).
ZERO
(0)
Very poor recommendations - or missing altogether. Not attempted or completely
inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor recommendations. Many aspects are incomplete or incorrect. Largely unclear.
Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair recommendations. Several, even many aspects are incomplete or incorrect, and
clarity may be substantially somewhat lacking, but the work is clearly on the right
track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good recommendations. A f ew aspects are incomplete, incorrect, and/or inconsistent
with the earlier analyses. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good recommendations. Nearly all aspects are complete, correct, and consistent
with the earlier analyses, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent recommendations. Nearly all aspects are complete, correct, consistent with
the earlier analyses, and clear.
PERFECT
(100)
All aspects of the recommendations are complete, correct, consistent with the earlier
analyses, and clear.
PLAN/SCHEDULE (8%)
75 / 100
T entative project plan and schedule f or the remainder of the project
ZERO
(0)
Very poor project plan/schedule - or missing altogether. Not attempted or completely
inappropriate. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
FAIL
(25)
Poor project plan/schedule. Many planned tasks and/or dates are missing or incorrect.
Largely unclear. Doesn't seem to get the gist of what is required.
PASS
(55)
Fair project plan/schedule. Several, even many planned tasks and/or dates are missing
or incorrect, and clarity may be substantially somewhat lacking, but the work is clearly
on the right track.
CREDIT
(65)
Good project plan/schedule. A f ew planned tasks and/or dates are missing or
incorrect. Of ten unclear.
DISTINCTION
(75)
Very good project plan/schedule. Nearly all planned tasks and/or dates are complete
and correct, but clarity is somewhat lacking.
HIGH DISTINCTION
(90)
Excellent project plan/schedule. Nearly all planned tasks and/or dates are complete,
correct, and clear.
PERFECT
All planned tasks and/or dates of the project plan/schedule are complete, correct, and
(100)
clear.