数字化转换｜Assessment 3: Digital Transformation Strategy Report and Presentation

联系我们： 手动添加方式: 微信>添加朋友>企业微信联系人>13262280223 或者 QQ: 1483266981

Assessment 3: Digital Transformation Strategy Report and Presentation
Due 7 Jun by 23:59

Points 100

Submitting a file upload

Assessment 3: Digital Transformation Strategy Report and Presentation
Type: Digital Transformation Strategy Report | Group
Length: 2,500 words (+/- 10%)
Weighting: 40%
Due Date: Report Submission in Week 13 – Sunday 7 June, 2025 @11:59pm
Presentation will be held in Week 12 classes.

Assessment Brief
Overview
This assessment is in two parts:
Part 1 – Digital Transformation Strategy Report: This component of the assessment task requires students to work in groups and design an a digital transformation strategy report of 2,500 (+/- 10%) words to enable digital transformation in the case study organisation. A case study scenario will form the basis of your evaluation. (Part 1 is worth 25/40 marks.)
Part 2 – Digital Transformation Strategy Presentation: This component of the assessment task requires each assessment group to give a short, 7-minute presentation of their digital transformation strategy to be delivered during the allocated class. Presentations will be held in Week 12 classes. (Part 2 is worth 15/40 marks).

Learning Outcomes
The targeted Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) for this assessment are:
CLO1: Analyse and apply the fundamental concepts and business value of Information Systems.
CLO2: Evaluate and apply Information Systems management theories and models to conceptualise business value.
CLO3: Critically analyse enterprise Information Systems and their role in data-driven decision-making.
CLO4: Appraise the ethical, legal, and social implications of Information Systems in business and the management of security and privacy concerns.
CLO5: Collaborate in teams to critically examine the role of Information Systems in managing and sustaining digital transformation and make recommendations to senior management in the enterprise.

Marking Criteria
This assessment will measure your ability in:
Analysis of the case study (10%)
Application of the theory (20%)
Identification of opportunities/issues in practical context (30%)
Overall quality of writing and presentation (10%)
Academic structure, i.e. bibliography and referencing (5%)
Presentation (15%)
Organisation (10%)
Refer to the assessment rubric below for further details.
Assessment Details
Part 1: Digital Transformation Strategy Report
Students are required to analyse a case scenario and develop a strategy report to enable digital transformation in the case study organisation by drawing on the content of the lectures (particularly weeks 1 to 11). Each group will have 4-5 students. The group should select a digital transformation technology and commence work on drafting the report from week 5.
Details of the case study organisation are provided in the Resources section below.
The following technologies for digital transformation will be discussed in this course. Please ensure that your group selects one of the following as the focus of your IS strategic plan:
Big data analytics
Cloud computing
Artificial intelligence
Internet of things (IoT)
The digital transformation strategy report must clearly communicate:
The nature of the digital transformation
Key issues identified
Justification for selecting transformation technology
The value proposition of digital transformation
Key issues addressed
Roadmap for implementation
Please refer to the Assessment 3 Report Template (provided in the Resources section below) for guidance on the format of digital transformation strategy report.

Part 2: Digital Transformation Strategy Presentation
Your assignment group is required to give a short (7-10 minute) presentation of the digital transformation strategy summarising:
The nature of the digital transformation
Key issues identified
Justification for selecting transformation technology
The value proposition of digital transformation
Key issues addressed
Roadmap for implementation
The aim of this presentation is to provide a concise overview of the digital transformation strategy that you have developed for the case study organisation and get feedback on it so that you can incorporate it in your final report. Please select 2-3 members from your group who will present the digital transformation strategy to their tutor/class in Week12.
For this assessment task, part of your mark will be on your presentation skills, as this is a key component of communicating information within the field of business information systems. This will include – clarity of overheads/slides, how well you speak (acknowledging English may not be your first language), and whether you use your presentation time well to communicate your IS strategic plan.
Instructions:
1.The presentations will be conducted in Week 12 during your allocated class.
2.7 mins presentation using a properly developed PowerPoint slide deck or similar.
3.Each group must attend their allocated tutorials to present.
4.Although only 1-2 members from each group will present, it is expected that all group members are present during the tutorials.
5.7 mins of presentation time will be followed by 5 mins of Q&A/feedback from the tutor.
Submission Instructions
Only ONE student (Group leader) from each group must upload/submit the digital transformation strategy report document by the Due Date electronically via Turnitin. In addition, the group leader must also upload/submit the assignment cover sheet and equity of contribution policy documents (see below under resources). The digital transformation strategy report must be submitted in either .docx or .pdf format by the Due Date electronically via Turnitin.
Resources
Case study scenario – AssignmentA03_S1 2024 CaseScenario
Report Template – ISYS3465_Assessment 3_Report Template
Equity of Contribution Policy – Equity of Contribution Policy
Team Health Check document – Team Health Check

Questions
If you have any questions, check the discussion board or course materials to see if they have already been answered. If not post your question or alternatively ask your teacher in your workshops.

Large Language Model (LLM) Use Policy
In this unit, Large Language Models (LLMs) such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini may be used only in a limited and supportive capacity. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that all assessments validly measure your individual analytical, technical, and strategic capabilities.
Across all assessments, LLMs may be used for supportive activities such as brainstorming, clarifying concepts covered in lectures, improving grammar and writing clarity, restructuring paragraphs, refining wording, or checking expression. You may also use them to better understand Excel functions, data visualisation principles, or strategic frameworks already introduced in the unit. However, the intellectual ownership of all substantive work must remain yours.
For this assessment, LLMs may be used to refine writing style, improve structure, or help summarise well-known strategic frameworks. However, they must not generate your core strategic analysis, argument development, evaluation of alternatives, or final recommendations. The strategic reasoning, integration of concepts, and justification of decisions must be independently developed by you.
If you use any LLM tool, you are required to submit a short LLM Usage Report as an appendix. In this report, you must list each instance of use separately. For each instance, you must include a screenshot of the interaction and briefly explain: (1) the purpose of the use, (2) why the LLM response was helpful or improved your work, and (3) how the response was incorporated into your final submission (e.g., adopted, modified, partially used, or rejected). The report should be concise but transparent. Failure to disclose LLM use will be treated as a potential breach of academic integrity.
Students remain fully responsible for verifying the accuracy of any LLM-generated content. LLMs can produce incorrect, incomplete, or misleading outputs. Any errors, misinterpretations, or unsupported claims in your submission remain your responsibility.
The core principle of this policy is simple: LLMs may support your learning process, but they must not replace the intellectual work that this unit is designed to assess.

Assessment Policies
Referencing Guidelines
Use RMIT HarvardLinks to an external site. referencing style for this assessment.
You must acknowledge all the courses of information you have used in your assessments.
Refer to the RMIT Easy CiteLinks to an external site. referencing tool to see examples and tips on how to reference in the appropriated style. You can also refer to the library referencing page for more tools such as EndNote, referencing tutorials and referencing guides for printing.

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism
Academic integrityLinks to an external site. is about honest presentation of your academic work. It means acknowledging the work of others while developing your own insights, knowledge and ideas.
You should take extreme care that you have:
Acknowledged words, data, diagrams, models, frameworks and/or ideas of others you have quoted (i.e. directly copied), summarised, paraphrased, discussed or mentioned in your assessment through the appropriate referencing methods
Provided a reference list of the publication details so your reader can locate the source if necessary. This includes material taken from Internet sites
If you do not acknowledge the sources of your material, you may be accused of plagiarism because you have passed off the work and ideas of another person without appropriate referencing, as if they were your own.
RMIT University treats plagiarism as a very serious offence constituting misconduct.
Plagiarism covers a variety of inappropriate behaviours, including:
Failure to properly document a source
Copyright material from the internet or databases
Collusion between students
For further information on our policies and procedures, please refer to the RMIT University websiteLinks to an external site..

Assessment Declaration
When you submit work electronically, you agree to the Assessment declarationLinks to an external site.
Rubric
Digital Transformation Strategy Report and Presentation
Digital Transformation Strategy Report and Presentation
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAnalysis of the case (#AoL4 Expert) (10%)
The analysis should be clear and present a structure that can be easily understood. The student should demonstrate an understanding of the case and write about the key issues/problems clearly. There should a comprehensive evaluation criterion applied and clearly explained/justified. The student should address the key problems in the organisation with insight. 10 to >8.0 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentComprehensive and excellent analysis and evaluation of the case study to address the key problems.
8 to >7.0 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodVery good analysis and evaluation of the case study to address the key problems.
7 to >6.0 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentGood analysis and evaluation of the case study, but not well advanced to address the key problems in a comprehensive manner.
6 to >5.0 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Basic analysis and evaluation of the case study; the approach to address the key problems is underdeveloped.
5 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsPoor analysis and evaluation of the case study. Minimal or no discussion around the approach to address the key problems.
0 PtsDid not submitDid not submit. 10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeApplication of the theory (#AoL3a Adaptive) (20%)
The case response should use the theories and models discussed in the lectures and tutorials, and there should be an application of the theories applied to the case situation. The student should show insight into the case situation, and apply the concepts learned throughout the report. 20 to >15.99 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentCritical application of theory to real-life situation with high degree of insight. Excellent application of the theoretical concepts to build the key argument in the report.
15.99 to >13.99 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodCritical application of theory to real-life situation. Very good application of the theoretical concepts to build the key argument in the report.
13.99 to >11.99 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentBasic application of theory to real-life situation. Good application of the theoretical concepts to build the key argument in the report.
11.99 to >9.99 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Satisfactory relating of theory to real-life situation but not clearly articulated. The application of the theoretical concepts to build the key argument in the report is underdeveloped.
9.99 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsOnly cursory recognition of situation in context of case study. Poor application of the theoretical concepts to build the key argument in the report.
0 PtsDid not submitDid not submit. 20 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeIdentification of opportunities/ issues in a practical context (#AoL4 Digitally Adept) (25%)
Having applied the theories discussed in class, the student should show well-articulated insight into the issues presented and opportunities for improvement offered by the theories and models. With key issues around ethical, legal, and social implications of Information Systems in business and the management of security and privacy concerns identified, the student should show insight into their observations and the recommendations on how they are addressed. A well-organised layout of the organisation’s way forward should be included. 25 to >19.99 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentClearly articulated discussion backed up by evidence leading to pragmatic recommendations and observations at an advanced level.
19.99 to >17.49 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodHas covered the critical issues and identified challenges and opportunities with suggested resolutions at an advanced level.
17.49 to >14.99 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentHas covered the basic issues and identified challenges and opportunities with suggested resolutions at a fundamental level.
14.99 to >12.49 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Overly descriptive narrative of the situation with minimal application of theoretical models.
12.49 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsLittle evidence of analysis of situation with no application of theoretical models.
0 PtsDid not submitDid not submit. 25 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOverall quality of writing and presentation (#AoL6 Critically Engaged) (10%)
How is the writing Are there grammatical errors or sentence structure issues The word limits are important as well. Anything +/- 10% than the stated word limit will lose marks. Is the structure of the paper appropriate Can the paper be followed, and does it flow Are subheadings used for clarity 10 to >8.0 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / Excellent Logically structured reflective overview showing higher understanding of topic. Consistent use of appropriate vocabulary and sentence structure enabling unambiguous grasp of the meaning Communicates meaning through use of clear and unambiguous language
8 to >7.0 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very good Structured and logical insights and resolutions linked to theoretical models. Mostly uses appropriate vocabulary and sentence structure enabling clear grasp of the meaning Communicates meaning through use of clear and unambiguous language
7 to >6.0 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentClearly written report offering mostly clear insight and application of learning. Communicates meaning through use of clear and unambiguous language Consistent use of appropriate vocabulary and sentence structure enabling unambiguous grasp of the meaning.
6 to >5.0 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Report is mostly written well offering some insight and application of learning. Generally, uses appropriate vocabulary and sentence structure; some lapses causing lack of clarity Generally, communicates clearly; some instances of incorrect use of language
5 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsContent with little interpretation or insight. Vocabulary limited and frequently inappropriate; sentence structure often incorrect/does not convey meaning Language fails to communicate meaning clearly
0 PtsDid not submitDid not submit. 10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeAcademic structure, i.e. bibliography and referencing (10%)
This criterion looks at the mechanics of the writing. Citations and references must be mechanically correct, and appropriate. Does the writer cite the class readings Are the citations and references in a correct structure Are the references appropriate to the subject of the paper Is the writing quality aligned with the type of academic paper required 10 to >8.0 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentExcellent use of section headings and sub-headings within conventional format of ‘introduction-body-conclusion’. Well-structured overall, with a logical flow of ideas. Required formatting style is consistently used for citations and references.
8 to >7.0 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodHeadings and sub-headings are well chosen and placed to emphasise the structure within conventional format. Connecting sentences are used to create a smooth flow of ideas. Required formatting style is consistently used for citations and references.
7 to >6.0 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentHeadings of sections are sound and the use of conventional format is evident. Arguments are presented in a fairly logical manner. Some arguments may lack clarity, brevity or persuasion. Citations and listed references are present, but formatting may not be 100% consistent with required style.
6 to >5.0 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Headings are used, but they don’t always help understand the structure. Use of conventional format is evident. There is some flow of ideas, but also places where flow abruptly switches. Citations and listed references are present, with some omissions, and/or their formatting is not consistent with required style.
5 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsHeadings are not used, or the headings are confusing to the reader. The topic is not addressed and contains many incoherent or illogical statements. Citations or listed references are either not present and/or are presented in a totally different formatting style.
0 PtsDid not submitDid not submit. 10 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomePresentation (#AoL2b Connected) (15%)
Clarity of the presenter’s speech (tone and volume), and of the main messages. Appropriate-ness of visual aids (i.e. slides) to complement the speech and add value (e.g. by engaging the audience or reinforcing key points). Consistency of formatting, spelling and grammar. 15 to >12.0 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentPolished and professional manner, fluent speech that clearly conveys the main messages. Visual aids very well formatted and used effectively throughout to support speech and/or engage the audience.
12 to >10.5 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodEvidence of preparation and rehearsal. Generally clear in conveying main messages. Visual aids well formatted and used appropriately to support the speech and/or engage the audience.
10.5 to >9.0 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentEvidence of basic level of preparation and rehearsal. Somewhat clear in conveying main messages.There are a few inconsistencies in the formatting and visuals. Visual aids mostly support speech and/or engage the audience.
9 to >7.5 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%Evidence of satisfactory level of preparation and rehearsal. The main message does not come across clearly. There are a few inconsistencies in the formatting and visuals. Visual aids mostly support speech and/or engage the audience.
7.5 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsLittle or no attempt is made to convey main messages and to match visual aids to speech. No attempt is made to apply consistent formatting to visual aids.
0 PtsDid not submitNo presentation was delivered. 15 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOrganisation (10%)
Main points and ideas flow in a logical structure that is easy for the audience to follow. Presentation fits within set time limit. 10 to >8.0 PtsHigh Distinction: 100-80% – Highly developed / ExcellentPresentation is very clearly organised into a logical structure. The flow of ideas that is easy to follow. Presentation is concluded within the set time limit.
8 to >7.0 PtsDistinction: 79%-70% – Developed / Very goodPresentation is clearly organised into a mostly logical structure. The flow of ideas is easy to follow most of the time. Presentation is concluded within the set time limit.
7 to >6.0 PtsCredit: 69%-60%: Emerging / CompetentA basic level of organization of the presentation into a logical structure. The flow of ideas is sometimes easy to follow.
6 to >5.0 PtsPass / Satisfactory: 59%-50%A satisfactory level of organization of the presentation into a logical structure. The flow of ideas is not easy to follow.
5 to >0.0 PtsNot satisfactory: Less than 50% Fails to meet standardsLittle or no attempt is made to present information in a logical structure.
0 PtsDid not submitNo presentation was delivered. 10 pts
Total points: 100

数字化转换｜Assessment 3: Digital Transformation Strategy Report and Presentation最先出现在KJESSAY历史案例。