Project guide
The IS 272 final project specification, rewritten in plain language and split into short sections. Tick a section when you have read it, star the ones you want to come back to, and pick up where you left off. Page numbers point to the original PDF; when in doubt, the PDF and the faculty's posts in MyPortal win.
At a glance
p. 1In shortOne real organization, four phases, one complete ISSP by 16 December. Worth half the course grade.
- Course
- IS 272 Strategic Information Systems Development, MIS, UP Open University, 1st semester A.Y. 2026-2027
- Type
- Group final project, with individual accountability
- Weight
- 50% of the final course grade
- Groups final
- 21 October 2026 (Wednesday)
- Deadlines
- Every one is a Wednesday, 8:00 PM (GMT+8): Phase 1 on 4 Nov, Phase 2 on 18 Nov, Phase 3 on 2 Dec, Phase 4 on 16 Dec 2026
- Submit
- One ZIP per group per phase on MyPortal, uploaded by the group leader
- Questions
- The class Google Space, or the Project Q&A Forum in MyPortal
- Needs first
- Organization Lock-in, Learning Activity 1, Activity 1, Activity 2 and Activity 3
1. What the project is
p. 1In shortAn ISSP is a reasoned plan for how information systems will help an organization reach its mandate, mission and goals. It is an argument, not a shopping list.
An Information Systems Strategic Plan (ISSP) is the document an organization uses to decide how its information systems will support what it is trying to achieve over the next few years. In the Philippine government it is the roadmap for using ICT to serve an agency's mandate, and the basis for judging ICT budget requests (DICT, 2025; MITHI Steering Committee, 2025b).
Each group writes an ISSP for one real organization, chosen from those the members locked in at the start of term. No invented companies, no fictional cases. The work follows Cassidy's (2005) four-phase method: Visioning, Analysis, Direction, Recommendation. Each phase is due two weeks after the last and builds on it.
The earlier activities are the starting point: the chosen member's Lock-in and Activity 1 to 3 work becomes the group's first evidence. The process counts as much as the product, so the group keeps dated evidence, meeting logs and contribution logs throughout.
If the organization is public or mission-driven
p. 1In shortTranslate business words into public-service words.
- Competitive advantage becomes the ability to deliver the mandate and create public value: serving people more fairly, reliably, safely, or at lower public cost (Moore, 1995).
- Customers become the citizens, clients, students, patients, members or beneficiaries served.
- Competitors become peer agencies, private providers, or other channels people could use instead.
This applies to government agencies, LGUs, state universities and colleges, hospitals, cooperatives and NGOs, as in Activity 3.
2. How the four phases connect
p. 2In shortWhere it wants to go, where it is now, how IS will close the distance, then exactly how and when. A weak early phase makes every later one harder.
| Phase and due date | Main question | Builds on | Feeds into | Government ISSP part |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Visioning 4 Nov | Where does it want to go, and how can IS help it get there? | Lock-in, Activity 1 and Activity 3 of the chosen organization | The goals and IS vision that Analysis tests against reality | Organizational profile: mandate, vision, mission, goals, strategic concerns |
| 2. Analysis 18 Nov | Where is it now, and what is missing? | Visioning goals, SWOT and IS vision, plus Learning Activity 1 and Activity 2 | The gaps and information needs Direction must address | Organizational profile: the current ICT situation |
| 3. Direction 2 Dec | Which IS strategies, systems, architecture and people will close the gaps? | The Analysis gap list and information needs | The proposed systems Recommendation schedules and costs | IS strategy: framework, proposed systems, databases, network |
| 4. Recommendation 16 Dec | How, when, at what cost and risk, and how will success be measured? | The Direction projects and architecture | The complete ISSP | Detailed ICT projects, resources, performance measurement |
The last column follows the government ISSP model (organizational profile, IS strategy, detailed ICT projects; Galas, 2018). Since 2025, DICT requires covered government entities to use a standard ISSP template approved with the MITHI Steering Committee (DICT, 2025; MITHI Steering Committee, 2025a, 2025b; Philippine News Agency, 2025). Our four phases are a teaching version of that structure.
3. Groups and choosing the organization
p. 3In shortPick one organization a member locked in. No switching after Phase 1 without the faculty's approval.
Groups were final on 21 October 2026 (list in MyPortal), with 8 to 11 members each. The first group task is to choose one organization from those the members locked in. An organization nobody locked in is not allowed.
3.1 What makes an organization eligible
p. 4In shortSeven qualifications. Access matters most: an interesting organization that will not answer questions leaves the group stuck by Phase 2.
- Accessible information. Enough reliable information: public documents, an official website, annual reports, development or strategic plans, a citizen's charter, or a willing contact who agreed to answer questions and let the group use what they share.
- Real, observable, operating now. It exists and works today, and a member can observe its people, systems or services directly, as in the Lock-in. Closed organizations, future ventures and famous firms nobody can observe do not qualify.
- Enough IS activity. Enough systems, digital processes, records or data to make an ISSP meaningful. A good sign: you can already name two or three systems or digital processes and who uses them.
- Manageable size or scope. Small enough to understand in eight weeks. For a very large one (national agency, university system, big corporation), limit the ISSP to one clearly bounded unit, office, campus or division, and state the boundary exactly.
- A stable contact person. At least one insider (the member who locked it, a supervisor, an IT officer) who can answer follow-up questions until mid-December 2026.
- Ethical access and confidentiality. Consent before interviews, the organization's confidentiality rules followed, and names, personal data, credentials and sensitive details redacted from everything submitted. Arrange any written permission or non-disclosure before Phase 2.
- No conflict of interest that blocks honesty. A member's relationship to the organization must not stop an honest analysis, for example a member at risk for reporting weaknesses, or one who would sell the proposed systems. Choose another organization or explain how the conflict is managed.
The checklist in 3.3 scores these same seven points.
3.2 The selection process
p. 5In shortAbout an hour, live or asynchronous, documented, and settled before 4 November.
- Present. Each member takes about three minutes on their locked organization: a summary, the observable system from the Lock-in, the strategy-in-use and critical strategic uncertainty from Activity 1, the vision and mission findings from Activity 3, and an honest word on how much access they can arrange.
- Score. Everyone scores every candidate on the checklist alone first, then the group agrees a final score per criterion by discussion.
- Choose and record. Pick the highest total that meets the minimum. If two are close, favor better access and a more stable contact, because those cause most failures. Write a short selection record for the Phase 1 submission.
3.3 The qualification checklist
p. 5In shortScore 1 to 4 per criterion. Qualifies at 21 of 28 or more, with criteria 1, 5 and 6 each at 3 or more.
1 is poor, 2 weak, 3 adequate, 4 strong. Each score gets a short evidence note, such as the name of a public document or the contact person's role.
| No. | Criterion | Guide question |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Accessible information (critical) | Can we get public documents, a website, reports, plans, or a willing contact who has given permission? |
| 2 | Real, observable, and operating | Does it exist and operate now, and can a member observe it directly? |
| 3 | Enough IS activity | Can we name at least two or three systems or digital processes and their users? |
| 4 | Manageable size or scope | Can we understand it in eight weeks, or clearly bound one unit or division? |
| 5 | Stable contact person (critical) | Will someone answer our questions until mid-December 2026? |
| 6 | Ethical access and confidentiality (critical) | Can we get consent, follow confidentiality rules, and redact what we submit? |
| 7 | No disabling conflict of interest | Can we report weaknesses honestly without harm to a member or a hidden interest? |
Below the table, the selection record states:
- the chosen organization and its ORG-code
- the scope boundary, if a unit or division was chosen
- the main reasons for the choice
- why the other candidates were not chosen
- any conflict of interest and how it will be managed
- the members who took part
4. Group roles
p. 6In shortEvery role has a named owner, nobody holds two coordinating roles, everyone else is an analyst. Roles coordinate; everyone still researches, writes and reviews.
Assign them during the selection. Roles may rotate between phases if the group wants.
| Role | Main responsibilities |
|---|---|
| Group leader | Schedules meetings, keeps the phase plan on track, uploads each ZIP to MyPortal, and is the main contact with the faculty-in-charge. |
| Organization liaison | Usually the member who locked the chosen organization. Arranges access and permissions, coordinates interviews, confirms facts with the contact person. |
| Evidence and integrity keeper | Keeps the evidence register, checks every claim has a dated source, makes sure everything submitted is redacted. |
| Documentation lead | Keeps the meeting and contribution logs and the version history of the shared draft, and assembles the final files. |
| Editor and quality reviewer | Checks each phase follows the required structure, the writing is clear and paraphrased, and citations and file names are right. |
| Analysts (one or more) | Lead the technical work of a phase, such as the SWOT, the IS inventory, the architecture or the cost estimate. Different members may lead different phases. |
5. The four phases in detail
p. 7In shortComplete sentences, your own words, 12-point font or larger. Number evidence continuously across all four phases so any Phase 4 claim traces back to its source.
Each phase below gives its purpose, its required parts (in order) and its deliverable. Detailed instructions for each item are posted on MyPortal following the course guide schedule.
Phase 1. Visioning
p. 7Due 4 November 2026, 8:00 PM (GMT+8)
PurposeSets the direction for the whole ISSP: what the organization exists to do and where it wants to go, so every later recommendation traces back to its own mandate, vision, mission and goals. It also produces the first IS vision: what information systems should become in the organization.
1.1 Organization selection record
p. 7The completed qualification checklist and the selection record from section 3.
1.2 Organization profile
p. 7In your own words: mandate or legal basis, services, the people served, structure and size, and the scope boundary if a unit or division was chosen. Include a simple organizational chart.
1.3 Vision, mission and goals
p. 7Quote the official vision, mission and up to five goals exactly, with complete dated sources and S-codes (as in Activity 3). Evaluate them for clarity, completeness and alignment. Any improved wording is clearly labeled as the group's proposal, with a reason. Never present your wording as the official statement.
1.4 SMART check of goals
p. 7Check at least three official goals against SMART, and propose SMART versions of the weaker ones, labeled as proposals.
1.5 SWOT analysis
p. 7Four to six items per quadrant. Every item carries an evidence or assumption code and ties to the mission; each quadrant has at least one item on information systems, data or digital services. Below the table, compare internal with external factors and say what it means for direction.
1.6 Critical strategic uncertainty and one visual
p. 8Restate the critical strategic uncertainty from Activity 1, refined by the group, with one cognitive map or SSM rich picture plus a CATWOE list showing how information needs connect to the mission.
1.7 Draft IS vision and mission
p. 8What IS should help the organization become (vision) and why the IS function exists (mission), with how each supports the organization's own vision and mission.
1.8 Project plan
p. 8How the group will do Phases 2 to 4: roles, meeting schedule, people to interview, documents to request.
Phase 1 deliverable
p. 8One ZIP named IS272_PROJ1_VISION_7.zip with the report PROJ1_VISION_report.pdf (about 10 to 15 pages, not counting appendices) and the process evidence files from section 6.
Phase 2. Analysis
p. 8Due 18 November 2026, 8:00 PM (GMT+8)
PurposeFinds out honestly where the organization stands today: its current business processes and information systems. Then measures the distance to where it wants to go. That distance, as gaps and unmet information needs, is what the rest of the ISSP closes.
2.1 Data-gathering method
p. 8Which documents were reviewed, who was interviewed or surveyed, and when. Attach the interview guide or questionnaire. Every interview has consent, a date and redacted notes.
2.2 Current business processes
p. 8The three to five core processes that matter most to the mission (enrollment, permits, patient admission, loans...). A simple process diagram for at least two, marking where information is created, used, delayed or lost.
2.3 Current IS and ICT environment and inventory
p. 8How IS is managed, then an inventory: business applications, end-user devices, servers and cloud, networks and connectivity, data and records, security and backup. A table of item, owner or user, purpose and condition works well. Unknown figures get an honest range or "unknown".
2.4 Information needs
p. 9For each core process and key decision maker: the information needed, how often, and whether current systems provide it. Link the needs to the Phase 1 goals and KPIs.
2.5 IS SWOT and benchmarking
p. 9An IS SWOT across business applications, technical infrastructure, people and organization, and IS processes. A brief comparison with one or two peers or a relevant standard or policy, and the technology trends that matter.
2.6 Gap analysis
p. 9A gap table comparing current with desired state (from Phase 1): each gap with its evidence, the goal it affects, and its priority. End with the short list of top gaps Direction must address.
Phase 2 deliverable
p. 9One ZIP named IS272_PROJ2_ANALYSIS_7.zip with PROJ2_ANALYSIS_report.pdf (about 12 to 18 pages, not counting appendices), the interview guide or questionnaire, and the process evidence files.
Phase 3. Direction
p. 9Due 2 December 2026, 8:00 PM (GMT+8)
PurposeDecides how IS will move the organization from where it is to where it wants to be: the Phase 2 gaps become IS strategies, proposed systems, an architecture, and an arrangement for the people who run them. Every proposal must answer at least one specific gap; a proposal that solves no identified problem does not belong.
3.1 Final IS vision, mission, values and strategic goals
p. 9Refine the Phase 1 drafts, add the IS values that guide decisions, state the IS strategic goals, and show which organizational goals each supports.
3.2 IS strategies and guiding principles
p. 9Strategies for business applications, data, infrastructure, people and IS processes. Principles such as when to build, buy, use open source or outsource, and how data is shared, secured and protected under the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
3.3 Proposed information systems
p. 10Two to four systems or major improvements, each with title, description and scope, the gap it addresses, users, expected mission or public-value benefits, and a solution outline. Rank them with a clear method, such as scoring by business objectives.
3.4 Architecture and infrastructure
p. 10The target information architecture (main data entities and data flows) and target technical architecture (applications, servers or cloud, networks, security controls). At least one diagram, and what changes from the Phase 2 environment.
3.5 Organization and staffing
p. 10How the IS function should be organized: an IS org chart, key roles and responsibilities, skills, training, and governance such as an IS steering committee.
Phase 3 deliverable
p. 10One ZIP named IS272_PROJ3_DIRECTION_7.zip with PROJ3_DIRECTION_report.pdf (about 12 to 18 pages, not counting appendices) and the process evidence files.
Phase 4. Recommendation
p. 10Due 16 December 2026, 8:00 PM (GMT+8)
PurposeTurns the direction into a plan the organization could approve and carry out, answering what decision makers always ask: what comes first, how long, how much, what could go wrong, and how everyone will know it worked. It also brings the four phases together into one complete ISSP.
4.1 Implementation plan and timeline
p. 10A three-year roadmap placing each project on a timeline with dependencies, milestones, and low / medium / high ratings for business value, risk, cost and effort. A short narrative explains the order.
4.2 Resource and cost estimates
p. 10For each high-priority project: hardware, software and licenses, cloud, internal staff time, external services, training and other costs. Show every assumption, cite every price source (price list, government procurement record, vendor quote), give totals by year, and flag estimates clearly.
4.3 Risk assessment and readiness
p. 10For each high-priority project: the main risks with likelihood and impact, an owner, and a response (accept, mitigate, transfer or avoid). A short readiness check on leadership support, resources, stakeholders, technical readiness and change management.
4.4 Organizational impact and business case
p. 10How the plan changes roles, skills and structures, then a one- to two-page business case for the largest project, framed in mission terms (or mandate and public value).
4.5 Monitoring and evaluation
p. 11A small indicator set, one or two per balanced scorecard perspective (financial or resource, customer or citizen, internal process, learning and growth), each with baseline where available, target, frequency, data source and responsible person. How and when the plan is reviewed and updated.
4.6 Communication plan
p. 11Who must hear about the plan, what each group needs to know, how and when, and who tells them.
4.7 Integrated ISSP
p. 11A separate document combining all four phases, revised from feedback, opening with a two-page executive summary and a short change log of what was revised and why.
Phase 4 deliverable
p. 11One ZIP named IS272_PROJ4_RECOMMEND_7.zip with PROJ4_RECOMMEND_report.pdf (about 12 to 18 pages, not counting appendices), the integrated plan PROJ4_ISSP_full.pdf, the cost worksheet PROJ4_costs.xlsx, and the process evidence files including the final peer evaluation.
6. Submission format and process evidence
p. 11In shortOne ZIP per phase by the group leader, before the deadline, with the four process files inside. A ZIP without them is returned as incomplete.
Replace <GroupNumber> with the group number, no spaces (ours is 7). Page 1 of every report carries the group name, the members' names and student numbers, the chosen organization and its ORG-code.
The project is process-first: the graders want to see how the plan was built, not only the result. These files are graded.
| File in every ZIP (n is the phase) | What it contains |
|---|---|
PROJn_evidence_register.xlsx | Every evidence item: its code (E, S, or I for interview), description, source, date captured or accessed, and the member who collected it. A-codes mark assumptions not yet confirmed. |
PROJn_meeting_log.pdf | One entry per meeting: date and time, members present, agenda, decisions, tasks assigned. Short screenshots of the Google Space or notes may be attached as proof. |
PROJn_contribution_log.pdf | Each member, the tasks they completed this phase, sections drafted or reviewed, and approximate hours. Every member confirms it is accurate. |
PROJn_appendix.pdf | Dated, redacted source captures, interview consent records, redacted interview notes, early sketches and drafts of diagrams, and any permission letters. |
Peer evaluation (individual) | At the end of each phase every member submits a short confidential peer and self evaluation through the weekly StandUp in MyPortal. It does not go in the group ZIP. |
7. Academic integrity
p. 12In shortYour own thinking about a real organization. The rules are strict and follow the IS 272 Course Guide.
You may
- Use public documents, official websites and documents shared with permission, cited with dates.
- Interview staff and stakeholders after consent, and use what they say with proper redaction.
- Quote the official vision, mission and goals exactly, but only inside a clearly marked statements box with full sources.
- Discuss general course topics with other groups, and ask the faculty in the Google Space or the Project Helpdesk.
- Use AI only to explain a concept to yourself, then close it and write from your own understanding and observations.
You may not
- Submit AI-generated content, in full or in part, for any report part, table, diagram, cost estimate or log.
- Fabricate data, figures, interviews, quotations, sources, dates, prices or organization facts. If unknown, say so and mark it as an assumption.
- Quote readings or other sources outside the statements box. Paraphrase and cite by author and year.
- Copy from another group, a previous term, or an existing ISSP, including the organization's own.
- Upload unredacted personal data, credentials or confidential information.
- List a member in the contribution log for work they did not do.
Concerns are handled under the Course Guide and UPOU rules and may affect the whole group or individual members, depending on the evidence.
8. Grading
p. 13In shortLater phases weigh more. In each phase, 80% is the group score and 20% is yours alone.
| Phase | Due | Weight (proposed) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Visioning | 4 Nov 2026 | 10% |
| 2. Analysis | 18 Nov 2026 | 12.5% |
| 3. Direction | 2 Dec 2026 | 12.5% |
| 4. Recommendation and integrated ISSP | 16 Dec 2026 | 15% |
| Total | 50% |
The individual 20% comes from your contribution log entries, meeting attendance, and the peer and self evaluation, so two members of one group can get different phase grades when their contributions clearly differ.
9. Rubric outline per phase
p. 13In shortEach phase is out of 100 for the group portion, each criterion rated Excellent, Satisfactory, Needs improvement or Unsatisfactory. Full rubrics come with each phase.
Phase 1 rubric (Visioning)
p. 13| Criterion | Points | What an excellent submission shows |
|---|---|---|
| Organization selection and profile | 15 | Checklist scored honestly with evidence, clear rationale, accurate profile and scope. |
| Vision, mission, goals, and SMART check | 25 | Quoted exactly with dated sources and judged on their exact words; SMART rewrites clearly labeled as proposals. |
| SWOT, uncertainty, and visual | 25 | Every item tagged and tied to the mission, IS items in each quadrant, the visual follows its conventions. |
| Draft IS vision and mission | 15 | Clearly supports the organization's own statements, in the group's own words. |
| Project plan, process evidence, and form | 20 | Realistic plan; logs and register complete and dated; writing and file names correct. |
| Total | 100 |
Phase 2 rubric (Analysis)
p. 14| Criterion | Points | What an excellent submission shows |
|---|---|---|
| Data-gathering method and ethics | 10 | Sources and interviews dated and consented; instruments attached. |
| Current business processes | 20 | Core processes tied to the mission and diagrammed; information problems marked. |
| IS and ICT environment and inventory | 20 | Complete, organized, honest about unknowns. |
| Information needs, IS SWOT, and benchmarking | 20 | Needs linked to goals and KPIs; IS SWOT covers all four domains. |
| Gap analysis | 15 | Every gap evidenced, linked to a goal, and prioritized. |
| Process evidence and form | 15 | Logs and register complete and dated; writing and file names correct. |
| Total | 100 |
Phase 3 rubric (Direction)
p. 14| Criterion | Points | What an excellent submission shows |
|---|---|---|
| IS vision, mission, values, and goals | 15 | Refined from Phase 1 and clearly aligned with the organization's goals. |
| IS strategies and guiding principles | 15 | Specific to the organization, including data protection. |
| Proposed systems and prioritization | 25 | Every proposal answers a Phase 2 gap; ranking method clear and fairly applied. |
| Architecture and infrastructure | 20 | Clear diagrams; changes from the current state explained. |
| Organization and staffing | 10 | Roles, skills, training and governance realistic for this organization. |
| Process evidence and form | 15 | Logs and register complete and dated; writing and file names correct. |
| Total | 100 |
Phase 4 rubric (Recommendation)
p. 15| Criterion | Points | What an excellent submission shows |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation plan and timeline | 15 | Realistic, sequenced and explained. |
| Resource and cost estimates | 15 | Every assumption and price source shown; totals consistent. |
| Risk, readiness, and organizational impact | 15 | Risks specific, rated, owned, with responses. |
| Business case and communication plan | 10 | Concise, mission-based case; communication fits the stakeholders. |
| Monitoring and evaluation | 15 | Measurable indicators with targets, sources, owners and a review cycle. |
| Integrated ISSP, coherence, and revisions | 15 | Reads as one document, traceable from goals to gaps to projects; change log shows how feedback was used. |
| Process evidence and form | 15 | Logs, register and peer evaluations complete; writing and file names correct. |
| Total | 100 |
10. Getting help
p. 15In shortAsk in the open so every group benefits, and raise problems early.
Post questions about the spec in the class Google Space or the Project Q&A Forum in MyPortal. For access problems, a conflict of interest, or a member who is not taking part, contact the faculty-in-charge early rather than near a deadline: early problems are almost always easier to solve.
References cited in the spec
p. 15- Cassidy, A. (2005). A practical guide to information systems strategic planning (2nd ed.). Auerbach Publications.
- Department of Information and Communications Technology. (2025, April 25). Adoption of a standards-based approach to ISSP compliance (Department Circular No. HRA-001, s. 2025).
- Galas, E. M. (2018). Design of an information system strategic plan for PSU-Bayambang. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(3).
- MITHI Steering Committee. (2025a, May 6). MITHI Advisory No. 2025-02. Department of Budget and Management.
- MITHI Steering Committee. (2025b, August 22). Resolution No. 2025-05. Department of Budget and Management.
- Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
- Philippine News Agency. (2025). DICT mandates unified standards for gov't ICT planning.
- Republic Act No. 10173, Data Privacy Act of 2012.
Upcoming
Meetings and deadlines in time order. Times are Manila time (GMT+8). Open a meeting to jump to the meeting log, and add it there once it has happened.
Schedule a meeting
Earlier meetings
Next meeting
Upcoming deadlines
What needs doing now, in the next seven days, in the week after that, and later. Dates for group steps and tasks are suggestions you can change (the phase tabs and the schedule below). Official deadlines come from the spec and cannot be moved.
The four phases
One ZIP per group per phase, uploaded to MyPortal by the group leader. Every deadline is a Wednesday at 8:00 PM (GMT+8). Each phase builds on the one before, so a weak early phase makes every later one harder.
How to tackle Phase 1 as a group
The order of work
- Choose the organization from those your members locked in. Score each candidate on the 7-point checklist, then agree. The spec says the selection should be finished and recorded before 4 Nov.
- Assign the roles (leader, liaison, evidence keeper, documentation lead, editor). Everyone else is an analyst.
- Gather evidence first: official statements with dated captures, organization facts, org chart. Start the evidence register on day one.
- Split the analysis work across analysts: profile, vision and mission evaluation, SMART check, SWOT, visual, IS vision and mission.
- Write in your own words in a shared doc with version history on. The editor then checks structure, citations and file names.
- Assemble and check the report and the four process files, then the leader uploads the ZIP.
A suggested internal schedule
Edit the dates to fit your group. They only track your own plan.
What each phase asks
Phase 1. Visioning (4 Nov): where does the organization want to go?
Builds on the lock-in, Activity 1 and Activity 3. Report about 10 to 15 pages. Eight parts: selection record, organization profile, vision, mission and goals, SMART check, SWOT, critical uncertainty with a visual, draft IS vision and mission, project plan. See the Phase 1 tasks tab.
Phase 2. Analysis (18 Nov): where is it now, and what is missing?
- Data-gathering method (documents, interviews or survey, with consent, dates, redacted notes).
- Current business processes (3 to 5 core, with a diagram for at least two).
- Current IS and ICT environment and inventory.
- Information needs linked to goals and KPIs.
- IS SWOT and benchmarking against one or two peers or a standard.
- Gap analysis with the top gaps for Direction.
Report about 12 to 18 pages, plus the interview guide or questionnaire.
Phase 3. Direction (2 Dec): which strategies, systems, architecture and people close the gaps?
- Final IS vision, mission, values and strategic goals.
- IS strategies and guiding principles (build, buy, open source, outsource; data protection under the Data Privacy Act of 2012).
- Two to four proposed information systems, ranked with a clear method. Each answers a specific gap.
- Architecture and infrastructure, with at least one diagram.
- Organization and staffing: IS org chart, roles, skills, training, governance.
Phase 4. Recommendation (16 Dec): how, when, at what cost, with what risks?
- Three-year implementation roadmap and timeline.
- Resource and cost estimates with every assumption and price source shown.
- Risk assessment and readiness.
- Organizational impact and a one- to two-page business case for the largest project.
- Monitoring and evaluation (balanced scorecard indicators).
- Communication plan.
- Integrated ISSP (PROJ4_ISSP_full.pdf) with a two-page executive summary and a change log, plus the cost worksheet and final peer evaluation.
The detailed instructions for each phase are posted in MyPortal on the course schedule.
Choose the organization
Score each candidate from 1 to 4 (1 poor, 2 weak, 3 adequate, 4 strong). Leave 0 or blank until scored. An organization qualifies when its total is at least 21 of 28 and criteria 1, 5 and 6 each score at least 3.
Result
Selection record
Goes into Phase 1 with the completed checklist. It should state the chosen organization and its ORG-code, the scope boundary if you chose a unit or division, the main reasons, why the others were not chosen, any conflict of interest and how you will manage it, and the members who took part.
The selection process in the spec (about an hour)
- Each member presents their locked organization in about three minutes: the organization, the observable system, the strategy-in-use and uncertainty from Activity 1, the vision and mission findings from Activity 3, and how much access they can arrange.
- The group scores every candidate against the checklist, each member independently first and then agreed together.
- Choose the strongest total that meets the minimum requirements. If two are close, favor better access and a more stable contact person. Record the decision.
Roles
Every role needs a named owner, and no member should hold more than one coordinating role. The members without a coordinating role serve as analysts. Roles coordinate. Every member still researches, writes and reviews in every phase, and roles may rotate between phases.
Members
Add student numbers here for the report's first page. The group number goes in the ZIP names. Your group is number 7.
Process evidence
The spec treats the process as part of the grade. Every ZIP needs PROJn_evidence_register.xlsx, PROJn_meeting_log.pdf, PROJn_contribution_log.pdf and PROJn_appendix.pdf. Keep the logs here while you work, then copy them into your files. A phase submitted without them is returned as incomplete.
Evidence register
Meeting log
Contribution log
Every member confirms it is accurate. Never list a member for work they did not do.
Files
The group's shared folder. Drag files or whole folders here, or use the buttons. Up to 5 MB per file; programs and scripts are blocked. Everyone in the group can download; you can remove your own uploads.
People
Who can sign in with their Gmail. Link each account to a name from the group list so "Collected by" and task owners match the right person.
Phase 1 rubric (100 points, group portion)
Each phase is 80% group score and 20% individual (contribution log, meeting attendance, peer and self evaluation). Phase 1 is worth 10% of the final course grade. Weights across the phases are 10%, 12.5%, 12.5% and 15%.
| Criterion | Points | An excellent submission shows |
|---|---|---|
| Organization selection and profile | 15 | The checklist is scored honestly with evidence, the rationale is clear, and the profile and scope are accurate. |
| Vision, mission, goals and SMART check | 25 | The statements are quoted exactly with dated sources and judged against their exact words, and the SMART rewrites are clearly labeled proposals. |
| SWOT, uncertainty and visual | 25 | Every item is tagged and tied to the mission, IS items appear in each quadrant, and the visual follows its conventions. |
| Draft IS vision and mission | 15 | The IS statements clearly support the organization's own statements and are written in the group's own words. |
| Project plan, process evidence and form | 20 | The plan is realistic, the logs and register are complete and dated, and the writing and file names are correct. |
Academic integrity, in short
You may
- Use public documents, official websites and documents shared with permission, cited with dates.
- Interview staff after getting consent, with proper redaction.
- Quote the official vision, mission and goals exactly, but only inside the statements box.
- Discuss general course topics with classmates in other groups and ask the faculty in the Google Space or the Project Helpdesk.
- Use AI only to explain a concept to yourself, then close the tool and write from your own understanding.
You may not
- Submit AI-generated content, whole or partial, for any report part, table, diagram, cost estimate or log.
- Fabricate data, figures, interviews, quotations, sources, dates, prices or organization facts. If you do not know, say so and mark an assumption.
- Quote readings or sources outside the statements box.
- Copy from another group, a previous term or an existing ISSP, including the organization's own.
- Upload unredacted personal data, credentials or confidential information.
- List a member in the contribution log for work they did not do.
Files and names
| Phase | ZIP name | Main report |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Visioning | IS272_PROJ1_VISION_<GroupNumber>.zip | PROJ1_VISION_report.pdf |
| 2 Analysis | IS272_PROJ2_ANALYSIS_<GroupNumber>.zip | PROJ2_ANALYSIS_report.pdf plus the interview guide or questionnaire |
| 3 Direction | IS272_PROJ3_DIRECTION_<GroupNumber>.zip | PROJ3_DIRECTION_report.pdf |
| 4 Recommendation | IS272_PROJ4_RECOMMEND_<GroupNumber>.zip | PROJ4_RECOMMEND_report.pdf, PROJ4_ISSP_full.pdf, PROJ4_costs.xlsx |
Page 1 of every report: group name, members' names and student numbers, the chosen organization and its ORG-code.
Source: IS 272 Final Project Specifications, Student Guide. The guide in MyPortal is the source of truth.
Change log
Every change saved to the workbench, newest first: who changed which field, from what to what. A field one person edits for a while (typing notes, for example) shows as one entry. Times are Manila time (GMT+8).