I need phase 3 for my project done. I have included the instructions and phase 2 of the project.
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND REDESIGN PROJECT – PHASE 3 INSTRUCTIONS Recall the three stages of the project: Phase 1: Introduction, problem statement, feasibility study, and project plan Phase 2: Methodology to compare the old and new systems and the systems analysis Phase 3: Results of comparison of the old and new systems and the systems design In phase 3 you will use the methodology developed in phase 2 to compare the old information system analysis and design to the new information system that is cloud-capable, highly available, scalable, and secure. You will use the scholarly supported computing framework and standards (e.g. ANSI, COBIT, ISO, ITU, NIST, HIPAA, PCI) to benchmark the systems analysis and design of the old and new system. Once you perform this comparison, you will detail the results. Phase 3 Report Requirements This report must contain the following elements: I. See the grading rubric for all minimums. II. Cover page III. Table of Contents (TOC) IV. Every section must be well supported with scholarly information systems journal articles. V. Introduction and conclusion sections a. Please update your previous introduction and conclusion sections as appropriate b. A succinct, high quality, and well supported introduction and conclusion should be written c. It is necessary to highlight the objectives and conclusions of the project d. Introduce the primary goals of this particular phase, the coinciding objectives, and the outcomes e. The conclusion should be the last heading and conclude the current phase and state the upcoming objectives and deliverables in the next phase. VI. Systems analysis and design results a. Follows a well-supported methodology including at least one framework and appropriate standards from scholarly journal articles b. Uses objective standards accurately to benchmark the old system and the new system c. Minimal comparison elements should include system: i. Cloud/distributed computing capabilities ii. High availability iii. Scalability iv. Security v. Note, these are projected based upon the comparative benchmarked standards d. A final updated financial analysis that projects associated costs of both systems once the final design is completed e. Discuss the managerial implications of the results f. Uses excel spreadsheets, graphs, figures, and tables to show the objective comparisons of the systems VII. Systems design diagrams a. A minimum of two diagrams (2) are necessary for each required type, one diagram represents the existing system and one diagram represents the new re-designed and improved system b. The following systems design diagrams are required that compare the old and new systems: i. Entity relationship data model diagrams ii. Class diagrams iii. User interface forms iv. Distributed computing network and system architecture diagrams 1. Design the complete information system architecture environment for the old and new environments c. Screenshots are required for each diagram with a visible operating system date/time and unique desktop element showing that indicates it is your computer i. No credit will be given for diagrams without screenshots ii. Include the screenshots in appendices in the project report d. Describe the systems analysis as you complete it in a narrative form and link in each associated diagram referenced in the narrative using an appendix e. Each diagram will be assessed according to UML standards and a level of detail that excels beyond textbook examples i. Note, textbook examples are simpler versions meant to learn and not as complex as industry diagrams often ii. Our textbook is a graduate version of systems analysis and design. If you need more undergraduate textbook support we encourage you to use Safari e-books from the Liberty Library. Our undergraduate textbook develops the more foundational SAD learning using the textbook: 1. Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Tegarden, D. (2015). Systems analysis & design: An object-oriented approach with UML (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons. Project Phase 3 Grading Rubric Criteria Levels of Achievement Content 70% Advanced 90-100% Proficient 70-89% Developing 1-69% Not present Introduction and conclusion 10 points The introduction is succinct and embodies the project’s primary objectives and outcomes. The introduction constructs the purpose of the system. A compelling and justifiable conclusion is developed that supports the key outcomes. More than 5 scholarly sources and 500 words combined. 8 to 9 points The introduction and conclusion are succinct and embody most of the project’s primary objectives and outcomes, and/or the introduction constructs an unclear purpose of the system. Justified conclusion developed. Minimum of 5 scholarly sources and 500 words. 1 to 7 points The introduction and/or conclusion are generalized and embody some of the project’s primary objectives and outcomes and/or has less than the minimum of 5 scholarly sources and 500 words and/or is not defensible. 0 points Substantially unmet or not present Systems analysis and design comparison results 37 to 40 points Systems analysis and design results compare key benchmarks including cloud computing capabilities, high- availability, scalability, and level of security of the old and newly designed information systems using relevant graphs, tables, and figures. A detailed process that follows the selected computing methodology, framework, and uses the appropriate standards exists. There are scholarly supported comparison methods to contrast the systems. Financial analysis is included that compares the two system designs from a managerial standpoint. Over 1,500 words and 10 unique scholarly journal articles from the literature review that justify the results and validity of the comparative analysis. 34 to 36 points Systems analysis and design results compare some benchmarks including cloud computing capabilities, high- availability, scalability, and level of security of the old and newly designed information systems using relevant graphs, tables, and figures and/or processes that follow the selected computing methodology exist with some scholarly supported comparison methods to contrast the systems and/or financial analysis is included that compares the two system designs from a managerial standpoint and/or there is a minimum of 1,500 words and 10 unique scholarly journal articles from the literature review that justify the results and validity of the comparative analysis. 1 to 33 points Systems analysis and design results miss benchmarks including cloud computing capabilities, high-availability, scalability, and level of security of the old and newly designed information systems using relevant graphs, tables, and figures and/or processes do not follow the selected computing methodology and/or there is insufficient scholarly supported comparison methods to contrast the systems and/or financial analysis does not adequately compare the two system designs from a managerial standpoint and/or there is not a minimum of 1,500 words and 10 unique scholarly journal articles from the literature review that justify the results and validity of the comparative analysis. 0 points Substantially unmet or not present and/or quotes more than 5% of the writing or use of existing information system Systems analysis and design 83 to 90 points ER data model (2), class diagrams (2), UIs (2), and architecture diagrams (2) are more thorough and detailed than the textbook examples, follow appropriate and advanced UML techniques, and meet comparative industry best practices and standards. Diagrams show an extensive knowledge of the system being designed. ER data model diagrams meet 3NF, have at least 5 tables each, have accurate primary and foreign keys, accurate field types, and proper cardinality. Minimum of 5 classes and 15 functions and methods exist in each class diagram. UIs follow industry HCI standards. Architecture diagrams include accurate routers, switches, firewalls, load balancers, servers, databases, storage area networks, middleware, and other appropriate systems for cloud computing. 76 to 82 points ER data model (2), class diagrams (2), UIs (2), and architecture diagrams (2) are as detailed as the textbook examples, mostly follow appropriate and advanced UML techniques, and meet comparative industry best practices and standards and/or diagrams show an knowledge of the system being designed and/or ER data model diagrams meet 3NF, have at least 5 tables each, have mostly accurate primary and foreign keys, accurate field types, and proper cardinality and/or a minimum of 5 classes and 10 functions and methods exist in each class diagram and/or UIs follow some industry HCI standards and/or architecture diagrams include mostly accurate routers, switches, firewalls, load balancers, servers, databases, storage area networks, middleware, and other appropriate systems for cloud computing. 1 to 75 points ER data model (2), class diagrams (2), UIs (2), and architecture diagrams (2) are not as detailed as the textbook examples and/or do not follow appropriate UML techniques and/or meet comparative industry best practices and standards and/or diagrams do not show knowledge of the system being designed and/or ER data model diagrams fail to meet 3NF, have at least 5 tables each, have mostly accurate primary and foreign keys, accurate field types, and/or proper cardinality and/or less than a minimum of 5 classes and 10 functions and methods exist in each class diagram and/or UIs do not follow industry HCI standards and/or architecture diagrams do not include accurate routers, switches, firewalls, load balancers, servers, databases, storage area networks, middleware, and other appropriate systems for cloud computing. 0 points Substantially unmet or not present or proper screenshots do not exist for each diagram or use of existing information system Structure 30% Advanced 90-100% Proficient 70-89% Developing 1-69% Not present APA, Grammar, and Spelling 18 to 20 points Properly formatted APA paper with table of contents and references pages