For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work. Use this extract to study how a strategic information systems planning report is structured and argued, then write your own analysis from the scenario and your own reading. Follow Yoobee’s academic integrity and AI-use rules, which for this assessment are strict.
Prepared under the guidance of
Zoe Campbell – University of Canterbury, New Zealand
What this MBI800 extract covers
This is a condensed model answer for the Strategic Information Systems Planning Report in MBI800 at Yoobee Colleges, set out as an IS strategy consultant would write it for senior leadership. It follows the four tasks in the MBI800 Strategic Information Systems Planning assessment brief. For the reasoning behind each choice, read the companion article on how to write an MBI800 strategic information systems plan.
Because the brief caps the plan itself at 300 words, the extract shows that plan as a compact table. The analysis that justifies it sits in the sections around it. Figures, dates and system details below are illustrative assumptions drawn from the scenario, not facts about the real institution.
What the brief asks
| Task | Weight | What markers look for |
|---|---|---|
| A. Critically assess the current IS environment | Current IS assessment and risk: 25% | Evidence-based judgement of each system, not a description; issues tied to student and staff impact; risks rated and justified |
| B. Identify improvement opportunities and risks | Included in the 25% above | Opportunities linked to the weaknesses found in Task A; risks that are specific to this provider |
| C. Develop the SISP | SISP proposal and alignment: 35% | Vision and objectives traceable to educational goals; sequenced initiatives; plan within the 300-word limit |
| D. Best practice: change, privacy, risk, culture | Cultural, ethical and risk considerations: 20% | Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori data sovereignty treated as design inputs; Privacy Act 2020 applied; credible change approach |
| Presentation | Structure, writing and APA 7: 20% | Labelled sections matching the tasks, consistent APA 7th citations, concise professional tone |
Task A: Current-state assessment
Yoobee Colleges operates across Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch with an information systems estate that has grown by accretion rather than design. The scenario describes a legacy student management system (SMS), a learning management system (LMS) used unevenly across campuses, limited analytics and heavy manual processing. Ward and Peppard (2002) argue that an organisation cannot plan its future systems until it understands what each existing system contributes today, so each system is assessed against its business value and technical condition.
| System or area | Main issues (illustrative assessment) | Effect on students and staff | Risk rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legacy SMS | Ageing platform; limited interfaces; knowledge held by few staff | Slow enrolment changes; duplicate data entry across campuses | High |
| LMS | Inconsistent course-site standards; weak links to the SMS | Uneven blended-learning experience between campuses | High |
| Analytics and reporting | Spreadsheet-based; no single source of truth | Late identification of students at risk; slow compliance reporting | Medium-High |
| Manual processes | Paper and email approvals; re-keying between systems | Delays in support; higher error rates | Medium |
| Integration layer | Point-to-point or manual transfers | Inconsistent records; difficult audit trails | High |
McFarlan’s (1984) strategic grid separates support, factory, turnaround and strategic systems by their current and future impact. Placing the SMS in the factory quadrant makes sense: Yoobee cannot operate without it, so failure is costly, yet it does not differentiate the college. The LMS and analytics are better described as turnaround candidates, because their contribution to teaching quality and student retention is potentially high but not yet realised. That distinction drives where investment should go first.
Task B: Opportunities and risks
The opportunities follow directly from the weaknesses above. A single student record would remove duplicate entry and give support staff a full view of a learner. A consistent LMS standard would make blended delivery equivalent across campuses. Learning analytics, used with appropriate consent, could flag disengagement early enough for a tutor to act. Process automation would release staff time for student contact.
Each opportunity carries a risk that must be named rather than assumed away. Data migration from a legacy SMS can corrupt or lose records. Analytics can stigmatise groups of students if designed without community input, which matters acutely for Māori and Pacific learners. Heavier reliance on cloud services raises storage-location and vendor-dependency questions. Finally, a transformation programme competes with teaching delivery for staff attention, a capacity risk that is often under-rated.
Task C: The Strategic Information Systems Plan
Henderson and Venkatraman (1993) describe strategic alignment as a continuing fit between business strategy, IT strategy, organisational infrastructure and IT infrastructure. For Yoobee, that means the plan cannot be a technology shopping list. Each initiative must trace to an educational goal. Earl (1993) identified business-led, method-driven, administrative, technological and organisational approaches to SISP and concluded that the organisational approach, in which planning is embedded in management routines, tends to work best. The plan below adopts that stance by assigning each initiative to a named leadership owner. The 300-word plan itself is shown in the table.
| Strategic Information Systems Plan for Yoobee Colleges (plan text: 300 words or fewer) | |
|---|---|
| Vision | One connected, trusted digital learning environment that lets every student, on every campus, be known, supported and successful, with Māori data governed in partnership with Māori. |
| Objective 1: Consistent learning experience | Common blended-learning standard and LMS configuration across Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. Measure: course-site compliance against the standard. |
| Objective 2: Student success | Single student record and consent-based early-alert analytics. Measures: retention, course completion and use of support services, reported by ethnicity to find equity gaps. |
| Objective 3: Trusted data | Data governance framework, privacy-by-design and Māori data sovereignty built into every system decision. Measure: audit findings and privacy incidents. |
| Objective 4: Efficient operations | Replace manual approvals with workflow; integrate SMS, LMS and finance through one integration layer. Measure: processing time and error rates. |
| Phase 1 (months 0-6, illustrative) | Stand up governance and a data steward group including Māori representation; baseline data quality; select integration platform; agree LMS standard. |
| Phase 2 (months 7-18, illustrative) | Implement integration layer and replacement or modernisation of the SMS in stages; migrate data with reconciliation checks; roll out LMS standard; train staff. |
| Phase 3 (months 19-30, illustrative) | Launch analytics dashboards and early-alert service; automate priority workflows; review benefits against baseline. |
| Governance and change | Executive sponsor, steering group each quarter, programme risk register, staged communication, and campus champions. Benefits reviewed annually. |
Buy High-Quality Essays & Assignment Writing As
Per Particular University, High School Or College By NZ Writers
300+
PhD Writers
4.9/ 5 ratings
From Students
70 +
Subject Covered
10+
Years Of Experience
Why the plan is sequenced this way
Governance comes first because every later decision about data, vendors and analytics depends on it. The integration layer precedes analytics because dashboards built over inconsistent records would produce unreliable insight. The sequence also reduces risk by delivering visible gains, such as a consistent LMS standard, before the larger SMS change. The timings are illustrative; a real plan would be tested against budget and teaching calendars.
Task D: Governance, Māori data sovereignty and privacy
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori data sovereignty
Te Mana Raraunga (2018) sets out principles of Māori data sovereignty: rangatiratanga (authority), whakapapa (relationships), whanaungatanga (obligations), kotahitanga (collective benefit), manaakitanga (reciprocity) and kaitiakitanga (guardianship). Treated as design requirements, they change practical decisions. Rangatiratanga implies Māori decision-making over how Māori student data is stored and used, preferably within Aotearoa New Zealand. Manaakitanga warns against analytics that stigmatise communities. Kaitiakitanga supports a stewardship role for Māori in the data governance group.
In the plan this appears as Māori representation on the data steward group in Phase 1, disaggregated equity reporting that is interpreted with Māori input, and vendor contracts that specify data location and access.
Privacy Act 2020 and the information privacy principles
Yoobee must meet the Privacy Act 2020, whose information privacy principles (IPPs) cover collection, storage, access, correction, retention, use and disclosure (Office of the Privacy Commissioner, n.d.). Several apply directly. IPP 5 (storage and security) shapes the cloud and integration design. IPP 10 (limits on use) means student data collected for enrolment cannot simply be reused for analytics without checking purpose. IPP 12 governs disclosure overseas, which matters for offshore cloud vendors. The Act also requires notification of serious privacy breaches (Privacy Act 2020, Part 6).
The brief also names the GDPR. It applies to Yoobee only where it processes data of people in the European Union, for example international applicants there, so the report should state that scope rather than treat it as the main regime. Compliance with NZQA requirements for record-keeping and reporting should be built into the same data model.
Change management
Kotter’s (1995) eight-stage model fits a multi-campus programme because it begins with urgency and a guiding coalition, two things a fragmented organisation lacks. Phase 1 builds the coalition and communicates a vision. Phases 2 and 3 plan short-term wins, such as the LMS standard, and anchor change through training and revised procedures. Kotter’s warning about declaring victory too soon justifies the annual benefits review.
Risk register (extract)
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data loss or corruption during SMS migration | Medium | High | Staged migration; reconciliation checks; rollback plan | Programme manager |
| Breach of student personal information | Medium | High | Access controls; encryption; incident plan aligned to the Privacy Act 2020 | Privacy officer |
| Māori data used without appropriate authority | Medium | High | Māori representation in governance; documented consent and use rules | Data steward group |
| Staff resistance and change fatigue | High | Medium | Campus champions; phased training; visible quick wins | Change lead |
| Vendor lock-in or offshore data exposure | Medium | Medium | Exit clauses; data-location terms in contracts | Procurement |
Alignment with educational and student support outcomes
The closing section of the report should connect every objective back to a student outcome: retention and completion, equitable achievement, timely support and a consistent learning experience. Ward and Peppard (2002) stress that benefits must be owned by managers, not by the IT function, so each measure above is assigned to an academic or student services lead, with IT as the enabler.
In quest for a professional assignment help?
Flexible rates compatible with everyone’s budget
How to adapt this extract
- Replace the illustrative system details with the exact systems and facts in your own scenario reading.
- Choose frameworks you can defend; do not name four if you only use one.
- Keep the plan within the stated word limit and count it, tables included.
- Label each section with the task letter so markers can find the evidence quickly.
- Check every claim about law or policy against the primary source and cite it in APA 7th.
- For a shorter model of how a systems assessment is built, see the information systems assignment sample.
References
Earl, M. J. (1993). Experiences in strategic information systems planning. MIS Quarterly, 17(1), 1–24.
Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1993). Strategic alignment: Leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM Systems Journal, 32(1), 4–16.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
McFarlan, F. W. (1984). Information technology changes the way you compete. Harvard Business Review, 62(3), 98–103.
Office of the Privacy Commissioner. (n.d.). Privacy principles. https://www.privacy.org.nz/privacy-act-2020/privacy-principles/
Privacy Act 2020 (NZ). https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2020/0031/latest/whole.html
Te Mana Raraunga. (2018). Principles of Māori data sovereignty (Brief #1). https://www.tec.govt.nz/sector-governance-and-performance/analysing-student-data-for-learner-success/the-principles-of-maori-data-sovereignty
Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for information systems (3rd ed.). Wiley.
