Class Administration

Social Security Number Policy Audit – RFP

Proposal:

MIS 5202 Audit Proposal

Risk Control Matrix:

Audit Program RCM 12.11

Video:

https://www.powtoon.com/c/bJSnmuVkJbV/1/m

I thought we had a good review session last night.  For those that could not join us, here are two things that might prove useful.

First, here is the document I used to review the semester.

Second, here is the Webex recording of the session.  I normally don’t use record as I find it unreliable but several people asked and it worked so here it is.

Finally, I was also asked if I could make all the quizzes open again for your practice so I have done that on Blackboard.

Good luck studying.  I am around until Tuesday when I fly to Bogota to teach a course for the EMBA program.  Give me a call if you have any questions and leave a message if I don’t answer.  After that, send me an email and I will get back to you.

Rich

 

I originally posted the final exam as being available this coming weekend (12/9-10) rather than the correct dates of 12/16-17.  I apologize, my weak excuse is just jet lag.  Unfortunately, I can’t give it to you this coming weekend even if everyone wanted me to.  The semester doesn’t end until Monday the 11th and school rules prohibit me giving an exam until after the study period.  I hope everyone understands.

A couple of things left to do for the semester:

• I will drop your lowest quiz grade and use your resulting average.
• Your audit programs are due by Monday December 11th.
• Your Final exam will be available on Saturday morning, December 16th at 6:00 AM and is due by 11:59 PM on Sunday December 17th.. You will have one try at the exam and must answer 75 questions in 90 minutes.    Set aside a quiet time to make sure you give yourself every advantage.  If you run into any system problems you must call me immediately at 910 880 1254 so that we can work them out.  Best of luck on the exam.
• I will post your final grades by Tuesday, December 19th.

Finally, we want to thank all of you for your hard work and interest in the topic.  We have been telling everyone in the department just how incredible your discussions have been.  You have brought a level of nuance and practicality that we rarely achieve in classroom discussions.  Well done!

Rich

The final exam will be on Blackboard and will be 75 questions.  I will post the exam on Saturday December  16th @ 6:00 AM and give you until Sunday night, at 11:59 PM to complete it.  You have 90 minutes to complete the exam.If you have any problems with the software you must contact me immediately at 910 880 1254.  I recommend you find a quiet place with good connectivity at which to take the exam.

Good luck on the final and call me if you have any questions.

Rich

As I mentioned in class, I have to attend a family commitment on the evening of December 6th so I will need to cancel that class.  As agreed Wednesday night, I will run a semester review session on Friday, December 8th at 6:30 pm to help you prepare for the final exam.

Please remember to look  on Blackboard for your first 15 minute quiz  this coming weekend (9-10 Sept).  Call me at 910 880 1254 if you have any problems.

Opinions on DentDel case:

1. Where could stronger IT governance have helped DentDel avoid this situation?

The case seemed to be a bit vague about what specifically had been done by the time the initiative had become unstable but it appears that, (in my opinion), they committed a multitude of critical mistakes at the enterprise architecture level and above:

At least two transgressions were commitment from a technology/EA perspective;

• They picked a technology before understanding what the functional requirements were, what the transitional requirements were or even if they had approval for the project. Cedric’s decision to base the platforms on P-phones before even beginning ensured that the answer would be a ‘square peg’ before they even knew if the holes would be square or round.
• According to the paper, with more than 30% of their budget consumed already, the project team was still trying to get information from the ‘business subject matter experts’. If this was the case, then it would have meant that they were still engaged in the (VERY basic) discovery phase – and yet they still went ahead with implementation.  If they never made it out of the discovery phase then that also means that they apparently never defined the business architecture, (no way to understand what the consumption models would be or how to deliver it),never defined the information systems architecture, the technology architecture, they never did a gap analysis to even get a basic understanding of what needed to be done – in other words they never adequately identified what was currently happening, what their target state was, (i.e., what does success look like?), they never identified what the governance and change management mechanics needed to be, etc., etc., etc., etc.  In short – the Cedric should probably start looking for another job.

From an IT Governance perspective:

At a *MINIMUM*, they broke COBIT5 EDM01.03, EDM03.01 and EDM04.01:

• They never did a risk analysis or impact assessment!!! That is almost as bad as picking a technology before starting:)  They not only didn’t define what their risk tolerance was before starting, they didn’t even define what their risk appetite was.  This means that they weren’t able to understand when to cut their losses or even what would constitute failure! EDM03.01 suggests that they make a judgement on the effect of risk – which they never did.  Rafael and Dan’s concerns – after it was too late, that the failure would have a material impact on the company, (and as a result the shareholders), was not only negligent, it was *criminal negligence*.  Creating an Ad Hoc committee for something that had the potential to have a material impact on the income statement and never including that in an 8-K or 10-K might be considered to be a breach of their fiduciary responsibilities to act in the best interest of the company.

 

• They never included executive leadership or the board to have ‘skin in the game’. EDM01.03  suggests that the commitment of executive management for making IT related decisions should have been followed.  In other words there was no executive buy-in or monitoring of an initiative that had the potential to seriously impact the entire company (the order entry system)

• EDM04.01 Was disregarded as well because they never ensured that adequate and sufficient IT capabilities, (people, process and technology/tools) were available – this probably would never have been the case if they had followed the recommendation of EDM01.03. Even from a marginal ‘blocking and tackling’ awareness perspective, they never considered critical organizational influences like; organizational readiness, organizational maturity or even the capacity to absorb the technology. i.e., if the project had only reached the discovery phase, (see the EA perspective above), then it’s clear that they never developed prototypes, held sales training or internal technical support training, etc., etc., etc.  If this is the case, they how could you possibly allocate the appropriate level of resources and funding that would make it sustainable?

 

2. Where could stronger IT governance have helped DentDel avoid this situation?

I’m pretty convinced that I could not make the Temple basketball team today – something that Fran Dunphy will, no doubt, lose a lot of sleep over:)  So given that I don’t have the skills to make the team, making me ‘stronger’ would not change either the equation or the outcome.

Likewise, given the complete lack of anything that even  remotely *resembled* thoughtful management and governance skills, *adding* anything to make the governance of DentDel “stronger” would neither change the equation or the outcome – Cedric would have found some other way to put the company in jeopardy – this was simply a case of a bad hire.

Here are the random team assignments that I promised you last night.

 

Student Name	Email	Team
Allison, Pascal C.	tuh39584@temple.edu	5
Bonds, Monique O.	tud27923@temple.edu	3
Butler, Jerry M.	tuh40703@temple.edu	5
Cheung, Heiang Y.	tub55844@temple.edu	2
Collura, Michelangelo	tue95899@temple.edu	1
DeStefano, Patrick R.	tuc50677@temple.edu	1
Dheskali, Dorjan	tuc16056@temple.edu
Dong, Shi Yu	tuf08626@temple.edu
Duani, Jonathan	tuc34780@temple.edu	2
Gibbons, Michael	tuh39712@temple.edu	4
Hagerman, Carl	tui37159@temple.edu	5
Hladik, Brent	tuh21245@temple.edu	2
Hoxhaj, Donald	tud46174@temple.edu	5
Jiles, Lezlie M.	ljiles@temple.edu	1
Kelly, Vince	tuj17357@temple.edu	3
Mackowsky, Brandan	tuf09767@temple.edu	1
Mays, Jason M.	tuf73558@temple.edu	3
Needle, Paul R.	tue82889@temple.edu	4
Nguyen, Duy N.	tud35778@temple.edu	3
Pitter, Tamekia	tuh31407@temple.edu	4
Quitugua, Anthony	tuh42002@temple.edu	2
Syed, Mohammed H.	tuh40379@temple.edu	1
Wang, Dongjie	tuf25551@temple.edu
Williams, Bilaal T.	tue65626@temple.edu	4
Wu, Zhengshu	tug36321@temple.edu	2