How to Write an MBI800 Strategic Information Systems Plan
An MBI800 strategic information systems plan (SISP) is a short, defensible plan that links Yoobee’s IS problems to its educational goals. Assess the current systems with evidence, rate the risks, set objectives tied to student outcomes, sequence the initiatives, and show how Māori data sovereignty, privacy and change management shape each choice.
You have a 60% report, a scenario about a multi-campus provider with a tired student management system, and a plan that may not exceed 300 words. The usual first instinct is to spend the word count on the plan and treat everything else as padding. That is backwards, and it is where most of the marks leak away. If you want a second pair of eyes on a draft, our report writing help team can review structure and referencing. This guide explains how to write an MBI800 strategic information systems plan that markers can score.
What the MBI800 Assessment 1 brief asks
The assessment is the Strategic Information Systems Planning Report for MBI800 in the Master of Business Informatics at Yoobee Colleges. It is one PDF, in APA 7th, with labelled sections matching four tasks. You can compare the tasks with the original wording on the MBI800 assessment question page.
| Marking area | Weight | What earns the marks |
|---|---|---|
| Current IS assessment and risk (Tasks A and B) | 25% | Critical judgement of each system, with evidence and rated risks |
| SISP proposal and alignment (Task C) | 35% | Vision and objectives traceable to educational goals; a sequenced roadmap |
| Cultural, ethical and risk considerations (Task D) | 20% | Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori data sovereignty, privacy, change and risk handled specifically |
| Structure, writing and APA 7th | 20% | Clear labelling, professional tone, accurate citations |
Notice that the plan sits inside only one of those rows. The other two-thirds of the report is analysis that makes the plan believable.
How to write the MBI800 strategic information systems plan, step by step
Work from diagnosis to plan, never the other way round. Read the scenario, list the evidence, assess each system, rate the risks, then write objectives that answer those problems. Draft the 300-word plan last and trim it hard.
- Underline every system, campus, constraint and obligation in the scenario.
- Build a table of current systems, issues, effects on students and a risk rating.
- Pick one or two frameworks you can actually apply (see the next section).
- Turn each weakness into an opportunity, and each opportunity into a named risk.
- Write three or four objectives, each tied to a student or teaching outcome.
- Sequence initiatives into phases and label the timings as illustrative.
- Add governance, Māori data sovereignty, privacy and change management as design decisions, not an appendix.
- Compress the plan to the word limit, then check every citation against your reference list.
Choose frameworks you can defend
Markers do not reward name-dropping. They reward a framework applied to the scenario. Four are common in strategic information systems planning, and you rarely need all of them.
| Framework | Use it for | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic grid (support, factory, turnaround, strategic) | Deciding which systems matter most now and later | McFarlan (1984) |
| Strategic alignment model | Showing fit between business strategy, IT strategy and infrastructure | Henderson and Venkatraman (1993) |
| SISP approaches (business-led, method-driven, administrative, technological, organisational) | Justifying how the planning itself will run | Earl (1993) |
| Planning process and application portfolio | Structuring the whole SISP, from analysis to portfolio | Ward and Peppard (2002) |
A practical choice: use the grid or the alignment model for analysis, and Earl for governance of the planning process. Two used well beat four mentioned in passing.
Section-by-section guidance
Task A: current-state assessment
Do not describe the legacy student management system; judge it. Say what it prevents, who feels that, and how severe the risk is. A table with a rating column is the fastest way to show critical thinking. A common marker comment is “descriptive, not critical”, and it nearly always lands here.
Task B: opportunities and risks
Link each opportunity to a weakness from Task A. Then name the risk the opportunity creates. Data migration, analytics that could stigmatise a group of learners, and staff capacity during delivery are all fair candidates. Generic risks such as “budget overrun” earn little.
Task C: the SISP and the 300-word limit
Show the plan as a compact table: vision, objectives, phased initiatives, governance, measures. State that supporting analysis sits in the surrounding sections, and check the limit with your own word count. Our worked sample for reference only shows one way to lay this out.
Task D: culture, privacy, risk and change
This is the section where a good report separates from a competent one. Te Mana Raraunga (2018) sets out six principles of Māori data sovereignty: rangatiratanga, whakapapa, whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga. Use them to make decisions, such as Māori representation on a data governance group or limits on how analytics are reported, rather than listing them.
For privacy, apply the Privacy Act 2020 and its information privacy principles, covering collection, storage, use and disclosure (Office of the Privacy Commissioner, n.d.). Note too that the Privacy Commissioner’s list now includes IPP 3A on indirect collection, in force since 1 May 2026. The brief names the GDPR as well; state when it would apply rather than assuming it does. For change management, Kotter’s (1995) eight-stage model is the easy, well-documented choice for a multi-campus programme.
Many students ask for subject specialists at this point. If you want guidance from people who work with postgraduate business and IT briefs, see our MBA assignment help page for how that support works.
Marks-maximising checklist
- Every section is labelled with its task letter, and the evidence for each task is easy to find.
- Each system in the current-state table has an issue, an effect and a rating.
- Every objective traces to a student, teaching or equity outcome.
- Timings, costs and sample sizes are labelled illustrative.
- Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Māori data sovereignty change at least one concrete decision.
- The risk register has owners and mitigations, not only descriptions.
- The plan is within the stated word limit, and you counted it.
- All in-text citations match the APA 7th reference list.
Common mistakes that cost marks
| Mistake | Why it loses marks | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Describing systems instead of judging them | Task A rewards critical assessment | Add effect and rating for each system |
| A technology wish list | No alignment to educational goals | Trace each initiative to an outcome |
| Māori data sovereignty as one paragraph | Treated as decoration, not design | Show decisions it changes |
| Treating GDPR as the main privacy law | The Privacy Act 2020 is the core regime in Aotearoa New Zealand | Lead with the Act; scope the GDPR |
| Over-length plan | Breaks the stated limit | Cut adjectives; use a table |
| Citations missing or inconsistent | Costs APA marks across the report | Reconcile text and list before submitting |
What students usually find hard
Three worries come up again and again. First, how to be critical about an organisation when you only have a short scenario; the answer is to reason from what the scenario implies and say where you are making an assumption. Second, how to fit a plan into 300 words, when the student form mentions about 500; follow the brief’s limit and check with your lecturer if the two versions differ. Third, how to use Māori data sovereignty without sounding superficial. Tie it to a decision, cite the principles, and avoid claims you cannot support.
One more practical point. The assessment is open-book, but generative AI is prohibited for creating answers. Treat any model answer, including ours, as something to study, then write from your own analysis.
Prepared under the guidance of
Zoe Campbell – University of Canterbury, New Zealand
If you are short of time before Blackboard closes, you can submit your assignment details for model-answer support. We provide guidance and worked examples, you remain responsible for your own submission and your institution’s rules, and we do not promise any particular grade. You can also read about who we are.
Frequently asked questions
What is a strategic information systems plan in MBI800?
A strategic information systems plan sets out how an organisation will develop its information systems to support its goals. In MBI800 it means assessing Yoobee’s current systems, then proposing objectives, initiatives, governance and risk controls that match educational outcomes, within a 300-word plan.
Which framework should I use?
Use the one you can apply to the scenario. McFarlan’s grid helps rank systems, the Henderson and Venkatraman model shows alignment, and Earl’s approaches justify how you plan. One or two, applied properly, are enough.
How do I apply Māori data sovereignty?
Use the Te Mana Raraunga principles as design inputs. For example, propose Māori representation in data governance, control over where data is stored, and reporting that avoids stigmatising communities.
Do I need to mention the Privacy Act 2020 or the GDPR?
Lead with the Privacy Act 2020 and its information privacy principles, since Yoobee operates in Aotearoa New Zealand. Mention the GDPR only for its scope, for example where data about people in the European Union is processed.
Can I use ChatGPT to write it?
The brief says AI is prohibited for creating answers. Do not use it to write your report, and follow Yoobee’s integrity rules. Model answers are for studying structure only.
Does the word limit include the tables?
Check the brief and ask your lecturer if unsure. The safest approach is to count the plan text in full, including any table cells that form part of the plan, and stay under 300 words.
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/
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.
