INF 1341 Section 0101/5101 • Systems Analysis and Innovation

Assignment 3: Systems Analysis Exploring Strategic Interests

Due Date: Monday, November 30, 2025, 11:59pm.

This assignment counts for 25% of the course grade.

The assignment is to be undertaken by teams consisting of 5 members.

1.  Introduction

In this assignment, you and your teammates will analyze an organizational setting using the i* modeling notation and goal models. You will continue working in the same teams you worked in when doing Assignment 2. As in Assignment 2, your objective is to explore potential organi- zational changes, making innovative uses of information systems and technologies to respond to problems and opportunities. The modeling technique (i*) used in this Assignment goes be- yond process modeling in that it aims to uncover underlying motivations and intents of actors, thus leading to deeper understanding of the organizational and social context and to potentially more fundamental or transformational changes. Fundamental changes often involve reconfig- urations of relationships among actors. Additionally, you will be using quality criteria to sys- tematically evaluate and compare alternative To-Be process configurations you identified in Assignment 2.

By applying the techniques to a real (or realistic) case study, you are expected to draw conclu- sions about the relative strengths and limitations of i* as compared to BPMN and DFD nota- tions.

Modeling Techniques

The i* Strategic Actor Relationship modeling approach focuses on what various actors want, how they achieve what they want, and whom they depend on for what they want. Problems and issues are uncovered as “goals” that are not met. Solutions are explored through means-ends analysis, by asking “why”, “how”, and “how else” questions. Viable solutions are those that sufficiently satisfy the goals of all relevant stakeholders.

Goal models capture objectives and tasks, their (possibly alternative) refinements, and criteria for evaluating the alternatives. They can be viewed as simplified versions of i* models that do not represent actors and model and evaluate things from a common, organizational perspec- tive as opposed to capturing each actor’s perspective. Goal models can be used to facilitate decision making and in particular help with analyzing alternatives.

2.  Part I: i* Modeling and Analysis

Step 1: Choose an organizational setting

The organizational setting to be analyzed for this Assignment is an extension of the one that your team studied in Assignment 2. The setting could be an extrapolation of a real-life organi- zation, or an imaginary merging of two or more similar organizations, so that this setting can be seen as somewhat representative of organizations of that that type in that industry sector. For this Assignment 3, you are particularly encouraged to consider the organization’s relationships with external actors, e.g., customers, suppliers, alliance partners, government agencies, etc.

Thus, the setting could involve interconnections across several organizations. Further elicita- tion of domain knowledge from real stakeholders is encouraged but not required.

Step 2: Analyze As-Is Situation

Use i* to model and analyze the As-Is situation. Use both Strategic Dependency (SD) and Stra- tegic Rationale (SR) models for your analysis. You may need to iterate over several drafts of models. Only the finalized versions need to be submitted in the report. With the help of i* mod- els, determine whether the objectives of the involved actors are achieved and to what degree (for softgoals). Identify those objectives (hard goals) that are not met and those quality objec- tives (softgoals/qualities) whose satisficing can be improved. Can the level of vulnerability of some dependencies be reduced?

Step 3: Explore and Model To-Be Alternatives

Using the problems and/or opportunities identified in Step 2 as the starting point, explore a va- riety of To-Be options for reconfiguring strategic dependencies. Look especially for reconfigu- rations of relationships that are significantly different from the As-Is situation while better achieving the strategic interests of actors. Here, you will go beyond automation and innovation and focus on more significant changes (i.e., transformation). You should use SR models to help generate alternatives and to evaluate goal achievement, but these intermediate SR models do not have to be included in the report.

Select two of the identified alternatives to present in the report. Each alternative should be ex- plained in text and depicted using both SD and SR diagrams. In the report, the To-Be models should be explained by referring to specific modeling elements in terms of how the new design addresses identified problems or takes advantages of identified opportunities.

Step 4: Compare the Alternatives

Using i* models compare the two modeled alternatives. What are the advantages and disad- vantages of each option? What actors benefit the most from each alternative? Under what cir- cumstances/assumptions will each alternative be recommended for implementation?

3.  Part II: Use Goal Models to Analyze Process Configurations

Step 1: Select Process Configurations

In Assignment 2, your team proposed six To-Be alternatives that were automations (three each from BPMN and DFD analysis) and six that were innovations. From the Assignment 2 report se- lect at least three process automation To-Be alternatives and at least three process innovation To-Be alternatives.

Step 2: Analyze Process Automations Using a Goal Model

Model the selected process automation To-Be alternatives using a goal model. Identify the rel- evant softgoals/qualities and determine how each alternative contributes to these criteria. In the goal model, you may refine the alternatives to show which components/features contribute to which softgoals/qualities. Is it clear which alternative is the best? For each alternative, state under what conditions/assumptions it may be chosen as the preferred option.

Step 3: Analyze Process Innovations Using a Goal Model

Perform the same modeling/analysis steps as inStep 2, but for process innovation alternatives.

4.  Part III: Compare the Modeling Techniques

Compare the use of i* and process modeling notations you have used in the previous assign- ments. Compare the approaches (the kinds of questions raised, types of concepts and rela- tionships that are focused upon, etc.) as applied to your case study as well as the results ob- tained. Note how the results are influenced by the different modeling techniques. You may in- clude fragments of models taken from earlier sections (and possibly from previous reports) and highlight specific parts for illustration.

Based on the team’s experience in applying the techniques to the case study, discuss the strengths and limitations of i* modeling and analysis in the general case, i.e., when applied to other organizational settings.

You may use bullet lists, tables, or other formats to summarize your findings.

5.  Report Document

Each team is to hand in a single report not exceeding 5500 words. Shorter is better. Submit a PDF copy of your final report on Quercus. The report should be submitted as a single file at- tachment. Each team submits a single report.

Summary of the items to include in the report

Formatting

•   Your paper must be formatted for letter size (8.5 x 11 inch) printing. Use 11-point font size, single-spaced, with extra spacing between paragraphs.

•   The header at the top of each page (including the cover page) should have your team number on the left, and the date on the right. The footer of each page should have the course number and assignment number on the left, and page # of total number of pages (Page X of Y) on the right.

•    Use a clear and concise style of writing that is appropriate for business communication. Where appropriate, use bullet points or tabular format for easier reading.

•    Figures must be clear and all text must be legible. They should be captioned.

•    Please ensure that figures are of sufficiently high resolution for legibility in your PDF doc- ument.

•   The APA style. should be used for references.

Contents

The report should include the following sections (with suggested page lengths, including text and figures):

•   Cover Page. Include title of the work, course number and title, date, the instructor's name, your team number, your name(s) and student number(s), your academic depart- ment(s) and program(s), and the number of words in the report, excluding references and table of contents.

•    Executive Summary (bottom half of cover page) - This should include a concise de- scription of the context as well as highlights of the potential changes analyzed.

•   Table of contents and list of figures Include page numbers for sections and subsec- tions. (1 page)

•    1. Context for the Study (1-2 pages).

•    1.1 Description of the organizational setting and perceived problems and issues that the proposed changes will address. Indicate the scope and focus of the analysis within the organizational setting.

•    1.2 State how the chosen setting draws upon or extends the one used in Assignment 2. State what extrapolations or simplifications have been introduced for the purpose of this assignment. Mention special challenges presented by the chosen setting, if any. (Note: This report should be self-contained and not assume the reader has access to earlier assignments.)

•    2. Detailed Analysis of As-Is Situation. (3-4 pages). Using SD and SR models analyze the As-Is situation in detail to identify problems and opportunities. Determine whether actor objectives are attained and to what degree (for softgoals/qualities). Identify those objectives (hard goals) that are not met and those quality objectives whose satisficing can be improved. You can use dependency vulnerability analysis and other types of analysis (workability, viability, ability) to help identify problems/opportunities.

•    3. Detailed Analysis of To-Be Alternatives

•    3.1 Identify the First Alternative for Detailed Analysis. (0.5 page). Describe the first To-Be alternative to be modeled using i*.

•    3.2 Detailed Analysis of the First Alternative Using i*. (3-4 pages). The selected To-Be alternative is analyzed in detail using i* SD and SR models. The analysis should include the propagation of goal satisfaction values in SR models. Explain how the i* modeling technique is used to support your analysis of the effectiveness of the selected alterna- tive in addressing the problems or issues in the organizational setting. Textual explana- tion must be used to guide the reader through the main points of interest in the models. Point to areas in the models that are of special interest (e.g., circling them using distinc- tively colored lines). It is not necessary to paraphrase everything that appears in the model.

•    3.3 Identify the Second Alternative for Detailed Analysis. (0.5 page). Same as 3.1.

•    3.4 Detailed Analysis of the Second Alternative Using i*. (3-4 pages). Same as 3.2.

•   4. Comparison of the Two Alternatives. (1-2 pages). Using the models created in 3.2 and 3.4 compare the two proposed alternatives. You may use satisfaction/satisficing values of (soft)goals, dependency vulnerability, and/or other types of i*-based analysis to compare the two options. Are the objectives of all actors satisfied? What are the ad- vantages/disadvantages of the options? Is one alternative clearly better or can each be recommended under certain circumstances/assumptions?

•    5. Comparison of Process Alternatives from Assignment 2

•    5.1 Description of Process Automation Alternatives. (1 page). Describe three or more process automation alternatives you proposed in Assignment 2.

•    5.2 Goal Model-Based Analysis of Automation Alternatives. (2 pages). Use a goal model to represent and analyze the alternatives. Identify how each option contributes to the identified quality criteria (softgoals/qualities). Determine whether there is a pre- ferred option and under which conditions/assumptions each alternative can be se- lected.

•    5.3 Description of Process Innovation Alternatives. (1 page). Describe three or more process innovation alternatives you proposed in Assignment 2.

•    5.4 Goal Model-Based Analysis of Innovation Alternatives. (2 pages). Use a goal model to represent and analyze the alternatives. Identify how each option contributes to the identified quality criteria (softgoals/qualities). Determine whether there is a pre- ferred option and under which conditions/assumptions each alternative can be se- lected.

•    6. Comparison of i* and Process Modeling Techniques

•    6.1 Comparison of Techniques in the Context of the Case Study. (2-3 pages). Com- pare the approaches as applied to your case study (the organization under study).

•    6.2. Strengths and Weaknesses of i* in the General Case. (1 page).

•    7. References. (1 page, APA format).

6.  Marking Scheme

The assignment report will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

•    i* modeling and analysis - 50%.

•    Goal modeling and analysis - 25%.

•    Comparison of i* and process modeling notations - 15%.

•    Document (clarity, style, organization) - 10%.