Course:COMP1304 Coursework Number: Contribution:

Information Systems Engineering - AC 1 of 1 50% of course

Greenwich Coordinator: Due: 13/04/2011
Mr Phil Clipsham
This coursework should take an average student who is up-to-date with tutorial work
approximately 50 hours
Learning Outcomes:
A,B,C,D
Plagiarism is presenting somebody else’s work as your own. It includes: copying information directly
from the Web or books without referencing the material; submitting joint coursework as an individual
effort; copying another student’s coursework; stealing or buying coursework from someone else and
submitting it as your own work. Suspected plagiarism will be investigated and if found to have
occurred will be dealt with according to the procedures set down by the University.

All material copied or amended from any source (e.g. internet, books) must be placed in
quotation marks and in italics, with a full reference to the source directly underneath the
material.

Your work will be submitted for electronic plagiarism checking. Any attempt to bypass our
plagiarism detection systems will be treated as a severe Assessment Offence.

Coursework Submission Requirements

• An electronic copy of your work for this coursework should be fully uploaded by midnight (local time) on the
Deadline Date.
• The last version you upload will be the one that is marked.
• For this coursework you must submit a single Acrobat PDF document. In general, any text in the document must
not be an image (ie must not scanned) and would normally be generated from other documents (eg MS Office
2007 using "Save As .. PDF").
• For this coursework you must also upload a single ZIP file containing supporting evidence.
• There are limits on the file size.
• Make sure that any files you upload are virus-free and not protected by a password otherwise they will be treated
as null submissions.
• Comments on your work will be available from the Coursework page on the Intranet. The grade will be made
available in BannerWeb.
• You must NOT submit a paper copy of this coursework.

Coursework Regulations

1. If no submissions were made before the deadline, coursework submitted up to two weeks late that meets the
criteria for a pass will be treated as a referral. It will be subject to university regulations for referral work.
2. Coursework submitted late without an Extenuating Circumstances claim will receive a ZERO grade.
If you have extenuating circumstances you may submit your coursework up to two weeks after the
published deadline without penalty but this is subject to acceptance of your claim by the School
Extenuating Circumstances Panel. If your claim is rejected then you will receive a zero grade for your
work.
3. Coursework submitted more than two weeks late will be given feedback but a grade of non-submission will
be awarded regardless of any extenuating circumstances. However, if your Extenuating Circumstances
claim is accepted then the Extenuating Circumstances Panel will recommend to the Progression and Award
Board that you be permitted to retake a different item of assessment at a future assessment point.
4. All courseworks must be submitted as above.
Very Important Instructions – read this bit thoroughly!!! 
 
The purpose of this coursework is for you to do the following three things: 
1. Carry out some requirements analysis using the two tools specified.  
2. Comment on the process of carrying out the analysis 
3. You critically reflect upon how to carry out good requirements analysis 
 
This is not a group work ‐ The work you submit should be your own and not 
anyone else’s. Do not work together with other people in carrying out the 
assignment. 
 
Do not use previous student’s coursework as a basis for your work. It will 
be identified. 
 
Do not use any material from books, academic papers, the internet or any 
other source when writing about the process and carrying out your critical 
reflection. It is your views that are being asked for.  
 
Any attempt to use other people’s material in your coursework, whether it 
is a classmate, or material taken from another source, will result in you 
receiving a lower mark and possibly being awarded a zero. 
 
Do not copy in the whole case study into your report. Only submit the 
work you have completed. 
 
Detailed Specification 
This coursework must be completed as an individual piece of work. 
You must complete this assignment using the given case study – YouthAction  
 
Firstly, read the information given in the case study (which is attached to this coursework specification).  Then 
produce all of the deliverables detailed below. 
Note that the case study contains a lot of information about YouthAction. In order to complete this 
coursework successfully you will need to abstract  ‐ that is, decide what information is relevant to this 
assignment. 
 
Note that you should not be referencing journals/books/websites within this coursework – your 
discussions should relate to what you have found in the case study and/or what you have learnt as 
a result of undertaking the given activities. If it is found that you use material from other sources, 
your mark will be reduced accordingly. 
 
If you refer to information given in the case study, make sure that you reference it appropriately – don’t just 
copy text from the case study to support your arguments.    

Deliverables 
There are three sections to this coursework. Make sure that you complete all parts. You will not be able to 
pass the coursework by only completing the rich picture and use case parts. The majority of marks are for the 
discussion and critical analysis. 

Section A ‐ Requirements Analysis using Rich Pictures (30 marks) 
This section requires you to use information from all of parts of the case study. You should use examples from 
the case study to illustrate any points you make but do not just cut and paste from the case study. 
 
A1.  Draw a rich picture for the complete YouthAction environment. 
Make sure that your diagram is clear, readable and contains a key identifying the symbols you have 
used.  Hand drawn diagrams are preferred to computer generated diagrams. Do not spend hours 
making them look pretty, but make sure they are readable. 
 
A2.  Describe and justify the process you followed to arrive at your final picture. In describing this process, 
answer the following four questions: 
A2.1   How did you identify the key actors in the environment? 
A2.2   What led you to choose the key issues and areas of conflict affecting the environment that  
you have included in your diagram?  
A2.3  What is the main focus of the environment shown in your picture? 
A2.4  Where does the control of systems, data, processing lie in the environment as shown in your 
picture? 
In completing this section, you should justify the choices you made. Your answer to part A2 should 
be in the region of 1000 words. 
 

 
 

Section B –  Requirements Analysis using Use Case Modelling (30 marks) 
For this part of the coursework you should examine in detail the Dig‐It system.   

B1.  Draw a use case diagram for the system clearly identifying the actors involved.   
  B1.1  Write a primary scenario for two key uses of the system 
B1.2  Write secondary scenarios for each of the uses of the system identified in B1.1 
 
B2.  Describe and justify the process you followed to arrive at the final use case diagram. In describing this 
process, answer the following four questions: 
B2.1.  Why have you chosen the actors you did and why are they key to the system? 
B2.2  Choose one scenario. How did you identify the key activities to include in it? 
B2.3  How did you identify alternative uses to produce the secondary scenarios? 
B2.4  You will have needed to make some assumptions about the system. In real life what questions 
would you have asked to get the necessary information? Who would you have asked? 
In completing this section, you should justify the choices you made. Your answer to part B2 should 
be in the region of 1000 words. 
   

Section C – Critical Analysis of the tools used (40 marks) 
In light of the work carried out in parts A and B, discuss the following question: 
 
In what ways does requirements analysis depend upon good understanding of both the technical needs of a 
system as well as the environment in which the system sits? 
 
In answering this question you should draw examples from the analysis you have carried out in parts A and B. 
Your answer to Section C should be in the region of 2000 words.  
 
 
Deliverables checklist: 
 
Submit a report containing the following: 
Part A 
• Rich Picture of whole problem situation, suitably annotated  
• A discussion of the process followed to produce the rich picture, justifying decisions made (1000 
words approx) 
Part B 
• A properly annotated Use Case diagram of the Dig‐It system including primary and secondary 
scenarios 
• A discussion of the process you followed to produce the diagram and scenarios, justifying decisions 
made (100 words approx) 
 
Part C 
• A well formed answer to the question given. (2000 words approx)  
 
You do not need to use any additional material from journals/books/websites/etc. 
to complete this coursework. This coursework examines your ability to model a 
problem and critically analyse the tools you have used. Any unnecessary material 
from other sources describing Rich Pictures and Use Cases will be ignored when 
assessing your work and may result in having your mark reduced. 
Grading and Assessment Criteria 
 
o show a thorough understanding of rich pictures, high level requirements analysis 
and Use Case Modelling; 
o demonstrate a clear ability to abstract relevant information from given 
documentation; 

A 
o critically analyse the business environment within the case study using the rich 
picture approach and identify all the key issues, area of conflict and actors 
associated with it;  
o demonstrate a clear understanding of the contribution that rich pictures make to 
70%‐ the understanding of a complex environment. 
100%  o abstract appropriate high level requirements, justifying their inclusion/exclusion. 
o Show excellent modelling skills in identifying actors and uses of the system and be 
able to model primary and secondary scenarios. 
o bring original thought to the argument; 

o show a good understanding of rich pictures, high level requirements analysis and 
Use Case modelling; 
o demonstrate a good ability to abstract relevant information from given 
documentation; 
o critically analyse most aspects the business environment within the case study 

B 
60%‐
using the rich picture approach and identify some of the key issues, area of 
conflict and actors associated with it;  
o demonstrate a good understanding of the contribution that rich pictures make to 
the understanding of a complex environment. 
69%  o Identify most of the appropriate high level requirements, justifying their 
inclusion/exclusion. 
o Show good modelling skills in identifying actors and uses of the system and be 
able to model primary and secondary scenarios. 
o bring some original thought to the argument; 
o show an acceptable level of  understanding of rich pictures, high level 
requirements analysis and Case modelling; 
o demonstrate some ability to abstract relevant information from given 
documentation; 
o critically analyse some aspects the business environment within the case study 

C 
50%‐
using the rich picture approach and identify some of the key issues, area of 
conflict and actors associated with it;  
o demonstrate an acceptable level of understanding of the contribution that rich 
pictures make to the understanding of a complex environment. 
59%  o Identify some of the appropriate high level requirements, justifying their 
inclusion/exclusion. 
o Show appropriate modelling skills in identifying actors and uses of the system and 
be able to model primary and secondary scenarios. 
o bring some original thought to the argument; 
o show an example of rich pictures, high level requirements analysis and Use Case 
modelling; 

D 
40%‐
o show that you can model the basic parts of a system based upon given 
documentation; 
o describe some aspects of the business environment 
o identify the basic requirements associated with the system 
49%  o show a competent level of modelling in identifying actors and uses of the system 
and be able to model primary and secondary scenarios. 
 YouthAction Case Study
You have been asked to develop a system and some applications to help manage parts of a charity,
YouthAction. The charity is coming under pressure from its funders to demonstrate value for money
and is keen to collect suitable data to demonstrate how well each service it offers is running.

YouthAction is a charity based in the south east of England that supports young people through a
number of funded projects. Their main service is to provide adventure and outdoor projects or projects
which help vulnerable young person to improve their life in some way. Many of the young people are
from deprived backgrounds and many are at risk of committing crime.

YouthAction has 45 full time employees working for it, either at its head office or at its service centres.
Many of the local projects are run by volunteers overseen by one of YouthActions’s regional
managers or service centre directors. There are three regional managers in total. Most service
centres have a paid fulltime worker (normally known as the service centre director) dedicated to
managing it.

YouthAction has something like 25 different service centres throughout the South of England. Each
regional manager looks after about 8 or 9 different services.

Service Centres

A service is made up of one or more projects based at one location. For example, a YouthAction
Service Centre based in an old school in East London, runs a youth club, a series of educational
support classes, a drop-in centre, a teenage wellbeing clinic and an employment help desk. Each of
these projects is funded separately. The centre is open 7 days a week and other youth groups use its
premises to run their own activities. The centre is part funded by the local authority, as well as through
charitable donations. Another centre, in a more rural part of the world, only runs one project, teaching
young people how to become motor mechanics. This project is funded by a major car manufacturer
based in the area through the company’s social enterprise fund.

In the past each service centre has run in a fairly autonomous fashion. The service centre manager
would normally be responsible for looking after the way the centre operates, the employment of staff
and raising funds to support the activities. Regional managers have an oversight of the work.
YouthAction has provided support to all centres with marketing, financial management, administration,
and a range of other activities as requested by centres. Any finance to support a centre is paid to the
charity centrally and money is then allocated to the centre and project as required. All salaries are
paid centrally. Service centres will manage any volunteers working on projects locally. However all
volunteers are expected to be put through a vetting process with the Head Office as many of the
people volunteering to work with YouthAction will be working with vulnerable young people. This
checking process does not always happen as it should.

The funding of each project will be subject to a contract agreed by YouthAction and the funder. The
contract outlines the length of the project, the value of the funding and any constraints on how the
funding can be used. A service centre might have 5 or 6 different contracts in place to fund all the
activity in the centre.

Management of YouthAction

The YouthAction Trust Board, is the group overseeing the charity and the Executive Committee
manages the charity on a day to day basis. The Trust Board is made up of the Chief Executive, the
Finance Director, and five individuals drawn from the community and industry. The day to day running
of the charity is managed by the Executive Committee made up of the Chief Executive, the Finance
Director, the Operations Manager, the Marketing Manager and the Director of New Business. In
addition, the Regional Directors are asked to be part of the group when necessary.

The charity has invested in a number of central IT systems in areas such as finance and marketing.
These systems have been purchased in a piecemeal way and are not integrated.

Each service centre will have its own management team to run projects at its centre, normally chaired
by the centre director or regional manager. The normal practice is for service centres to report
quarterly on how they are getting on. There is no standard reporting mechanism for gathering the
data.

Review of Services and projects

The Trust Board and Executive Committee have been carrying out a major review of the way the
charity operates. It is concerned that by having each of the services and projects running
autonomously that there is a significant overhead to the charity which could be reduced if much of the
management of services was centralised. It is particularly concerned about the investment in IT at a
service centre level. It also has significant concerns about the way centres and projects are holding
personal data. The charity has recently been reprimanded for failing to keep personal data secure
and, in some places, holding incorrect data.

One of the conclusions of this review is that the charity should invest in the purchase or development
of a management information system.

IT Services

Each service centre has made its own investment in IT, systems for managing projects, and so on. A
recent survey of IT being used in centres has shown that the majority of the data used by centres is
held in spreadsheets. In several places, centres are connected to systems operated by a third party.
These might be local authorities, health services, or other charities, as required by the needs of each
individual project. It is common for people working on a project to be entering the same data into 2 or
3 different systems, depending upon the structure of the project and who the funder is.

The IT survey also indicated that much of the IT equipment used by services is out of date and would
not be appropriate for a modern management information system.

The Dig-it Project

A service centre in south east London has recently received funding to start a new project called Dig-
It. Dig-It, is funded by the local authority in the area. The project is to take young people who are seen
at risk of offending and involve them in helping to look after the gardens of the elderly. A young
person can be referred to the project from a number of different sources. Typically these would be by
a school, the youth offending service, the police, or youth clubs. Elderly people with a need for help
with their gardens are referred to Dig-It from a number of different sources, e.g. the local authority or a
charity working with the elderly.

There is one full time worker managing the project and 10 volunteers. There are about 30 young
people involved in the project at any one time. The young people are arranged in groups of three or
four and each group is led by one of the volunteers. The young people are assigned to working with
one volunteer as they join the project. Tim, the full time worker for Dig-it, works out a rota of
volunteers (they normally give up one morning or afternoon to working on the project) and matches
the groups to the requests for working in people’s gardens. After a group has worked in someone’s
garden, Tim will phone or call round to the person to make sure they are happy. Dig-It already has
quite a long list elderly people whose gardens are looked after by the project.

The local authority see this as potentially a very successful project, bringing together the needs of the
elderly and helping to rehabilitate young people with social problems. If it is successful they would
consider investing more money into the project to allow the employment of another full time worker
and provide additional gardening equipment and a van to transport equipment around. However, they
want to see regular data about how the project is running.

The Dig-It project has asked YouthAction centrally if they can help set up a system to allow them to
record the necessary data for the local authority. They also would like a system that can manage the
project with the allocation of young people to teams, sending teams to support elderly people and so
on.

YouthAction sees this as an opportunity to start developing the management information system.
However, management are mindful of the fact that Dig-It is just one of many projects and each of the
services has different needs and requirements. Nonetheless, they have agreed to using Dig-It as a
prototype to developing a system which will support both Dig-It’s requirements and identify the
requirements of the management information system for the charity centrally. There have been some
worries from managers and workers from other projects that by focusing on Dig-It, YouthAction might
not capture all the necessary information to build an information system to meet all the needs of
charity.