[Company name]
INF3708
Assignment 3
2024 - DUE 29
July 2024
QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED ANSWERS
,INF3708 Assignment 3 2024 - DUE 29 July 2024
QUESTION 1 [40]
You and Sarita performed the project’s proposal “qualitative risk analysis” (Schwalbe, 2019, p. 470). An
unsurprising risk factor is that beneficiaries are mostly located in areas of low socioeconomic status, which
may be a contributing factor to an order not being delivered to a beneficiary.
1.1. Discuss two risks that the delivery service might potentially encounter when delivering a meal to a
low socio-economic area. (4)
1.2. Recommend risk mitigation features that can be build into the service delivery application
to prevent the risks that you identified in Question 1.1. (4)
1.3. Following qualitative risk analysis, you and Sarita performed “quantitative risk analysis” (Schwalbe,
2019, p. 470) based on the hypothesis of “risk seeking” (Schwalbe, 2019, p. 469). You hypothesise
that the delivery service decides to deliver in an area of low socioeconomic status, and the risks
that you identified in Question 1.1 materialises.
1.3.1. Describe cost implications if the risk materialises. (4)
1.4. In "planning risk responses," you and Sarita note that risks preventing a meal from being delivered
are somewhat reduced by the option of the meal being collected by the beneficiary. However,
such a response is ideal if the beneficiary stays in the vicinity of the restaurant that prepares the
meal. The results of a questionnaire investigating the challenges of meal collection suggest that
60% of beneficiaries staying more than 10 kilometres from the restaurant cannot afford the
travel expense, irrespective of whether they take public or private transport.
1.4.1. Justify features that can be incorporated into Culinary Bargain’s online marketplace to
allow the beneficiary to cover the travel expense by either own transport or mini-
bus taxi. (6)
1.5. In a meeting where the project charter was reviewed, Ryan wanted to know why clients should optin
to donate. He argues that a percentage of Culinary Bargain’s net profit can periodically be
contributed to the hunger relieve programme, thus guaranteeing an uninterrupted flow of
donations. Sarita explained that client opt-in motivates clients to contribute to and fosters a
sense responsibility for a charitable initiative, thus attracting clients who value corporate social
responsibility.
1.5.1. Complement Sarita’s explanation by justifying why it is better to separate the
donation from the meal price in the context of scalable fundraising, profit margins,
and meal cost estimates. (10)
, 1.6. Ryan furthermore wanted to know how you and Sarita will deal with instances where a beneficiary
redeems a coupon on the marketplace but fails to collect a meal. He highlights the following
implications:
i. An unrealised donation does not achieve its intended objective of a meal consumed to
curb hunger;
ii. If donating clients get wind of a pattern of discrepancies between redeemed vouchers
and uncollected meals, they might be discouraged from making future donations; and
iii. managing and tracking redeemed coupons that do not lead to a collected meal can incur
additional administrative costs.
1.6.1. Evaluate the potential of “coercive power” and “reward power” (Schwalbe, 2019, pp. 385–
386) to prevent the behaviour of not collecting meals. (6)
1.7. In a meeting discussing the resource management plan, the Chief Digital Information Officer (CDIO)
of Telescopic, Siphokazi Malala, does not recommend using their in-house design team for the
order tracking and delivery system. According to Siphokazi, the Telescopic development team
can manage GPS system design, but there is better expertise in designing these systems by
subcontractors (freelance developers). Specifically, he knows freelance developers who are
experts in satellite technology and who develop robust signal encoding methods to ensure
accurate data transmission from satellites to receivers. Siphokazi suggests collaborating with and
outsourcing the design of the GPS system to subcontractors if they decide to pursue Project O.
1.7.1. Promote the idea of outsourcing the GPS system design to subcontractors.
(6)
End of Question 1
Total: 40
QUESTION 2 [60]
Comparing in-house development with outsourcing the development of the order tracking and delivery
system is not the only factor that determines whether Telescopic will outsource this functionality to
subcontractors. A decision to neither incorporate an order tracking and delivery system via in-house
development nor outsource it, but instead join an existing delivery service like Uber Eats, holds cost
implications. For example, the initial setup cost of designing their own order tracking and delivery system
will be high due to procuring the technological infrastructure and operational setup. Conversely, the setup
cost to join a platform like Uber Eats is minimal due to platform onboarding (Deliverect, 2024). The cash
inflows generated are partially measured by clients who sign up to occasionally donate to the hunger
relief programme while ordering a meal for themselves.
INF3708
Assignment 3
2024 - DUE 29
July 2024
QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED ANSWERS
,INF3708 Assignment 3 2024 - DUE 29 July 2024
QUESTION 1 [40]
You and Sarita performed the project’s proposal “qualitative risk analysis” (Schwalbe, 2019, p. 470). An
unsurprising risk factor is that beneficiaries are mostly located in areas of low socioeconomic status, which
may be a contributing factor to an order not being delivered to a beneficiary.
1.1. Discuss two risks that the delivery service might potentially encounter when delivering a meal to a
low socio-economic area. (4)
1.2. Recommend risk mitigation features that can be build into the service delivery application
to prevent the risks that you identified in Question 1.1. (4)
1.3. Following qualitative risk analysis, you and Sarita performed “quantitative risk analysis” (Schwalbe,
2019, p. 470) based on the hypothesis of “risk seeking” (Schwalbe, 2019, p. 469). You hypothesise
that the delivery service decides to deliver in an area of low socioeconomic status, and the risks
that you identified in Question 1.1 materialises.
1.3.1. Describe cost implications if the risk materialises. (4)
1.4. In "planning risk responses," you and Sarita note that risks preventing a meal from being delivered
are somewhat reduced by the option of the meal being collected by the beneficiary. However,
such a response is ideal if the beneficiary stays in the vicinity of the restaurant that prepares the
meal. The results of a questionnaire investigating the challenges of meal collection suggest that
60% of beneficiaries staying more than 10 kilometres from the restaurant cannot afford the
travel expense, irrespective of whether they take public or private transport.
1.4.1. Justify features that can be incorporated into Culinary Bargain’s online marketplace to
allow the beneficiary to cover the travel expense by either own transport or mini-
bus taxi. (6)
1.5. In a meeting where the project charter was reviewed, Ryan wanted to know why clients should optin
to donate. He argues that a percentage of Culinary Bargain’s net profit can periodically be
contributed to the hunger relieve programme, thus guaranteeing an uninterrupted flow of
donations. Sarita explained that client opt-in motivates clients to contribute to and fosters a
sense responsibility for a charitable initiative, thus attracting clients who value corporate social
responsibility.
1.5.1. Complement Sarita’s explanation by justifying why it is better to separate the
donation from the meal price in the context of scalable fundraising, profit margins,
and meal cost estimates. (10)
, 1.6. Ryan furthermore wanted to know how you and Sarita will deal with instances where a beneficiary
redeems a coupon on the marketplace but fails to collect a meal. He highlights the following
implications:
i. An unrealised donation does not achieve its intended objective of a meal consumed to
curb hunger;
ii. If donating clients get wind of a pattern of discrepancies between redeemed vouchers
and uncollected meals, they might be discouraged from making future donations; and
iii. managing and tracking redeemed coupons that do not lead to a collected meal can incur
additional administrative costs.
1.6.1. Evaluate the potential of “coercive power” and “reward power” (Schwalbe, 2019, pp. 385–
386) to prevent the behaviour of not collecting meals. (6)
1.7. In a meeting discussing the resource management plan, the Chief Digital Information Officer (CDIO)
of Telescopic, Siphokazi Malala, does not recommend using their in-house design team for the
order tracking and delivery system. According to Siphokazi, the Telescopic development team
can manage GPS system design, but there is better expertise in designing these systems by
subcontractors (freelance developers). Specifically, he knows freelance developers who are
experts in satellite technology and who develop robust signal encoding methods to ensure
accurate data transmission from satellites to receivers. Siphokazi suggests collaborating with and
outsourcing the design of the GPS system to subcontractors if they decide to pursue Project O.
1.7.1. Promote the idea of outsourcing the GPS system design to subcontractors.
(6)
End of Question 1
Total: 40
QUESTION 2 [60]
Comparing in-house development with outsourcing the development of the order tracking and delivery
system is not the only factor that determines whether Telescopic will outsource this functionality to
subcontractors. A decision to neither incorporate an order tracking and delivery system via in-house
development nor outsource it, but instead join an existing delivery service like Uber Eats, holds cost
implications. For example, the initial setup cost of designing their own order tracking and delivery system
will be high due to procuring the technological infrastructure and operational setup. Conversely, the setup
cost to join a platform like Uber Eats is minimal due to platform onboarding (Deliverect, 2024). The cash
inflows generated are partially measured by clients who sign up to occasionally donate to the hunger
relief programme while ordering a meal for themselves.
