Solution- BBS2025 Computational Thinking for Business Individual Assignment: Enhancing Cross-Departmental Healthcare Processes - Question Paper- Academic Writing, Editing & Turnitin Plagiarism Checker

BBS2025 – Computational Thinking for Business Individual Assignment (35%)

1. LEARNING OBJECTIVES

a. Analyse and improve real-world business processes using Computational Thinking.

b. Represent current and proposed processes using structured pseudocode.

c. Apply the four CT elements: decomposition, pattern recognition, abstraction, and algorithm.

d. Automate a process using Power Automate and enhance it with Copilot prompts.

e. Evaluate process effectiveness through success metrics and reflect on limitations.

2. REQUIREMENTS

a. This is an individual assignment that carries a maximum of 100 marks and constitutes 35% of the overall assessment for this subject. Students are expected to work alone when preparing the assignment.

b. Students will take on the role of a Business Analyst and carry out the following:

i) Select one company from an industry listed in Singapore’s Industry Transformation Maps (MTI) such as aerospace, logistics, or healthcare.

ii) Identify a business process that spans across two departments (e.g., from inventory to finance).

iii) Students are not allowed to use any companies surfaced in group assignment.

c. Students are required to complete all the five core tasks outline below:

i) Task 1: Understand the Process and Problem

Identify an industry and a relevant cross-departmental process.
Describe the selected process.

ii)Task 2: Examine the Current Process (As-Is)

Describe the current (As-Is) process using pseudocode.
Identify key impediments within the process.
Explain where and how the CT elements: Decomposition, Pattern Recognition, Abstraction, and Algorithm were applied in this process. Present your critical thinking (CT) analysis clearly in a structured table format, using the template provided in Appendix A.

iii. Task 3: Interpret and Improve the Process (To-Be)

Describe the improved (To-Be) version of the process using pseudocode.
Distinguish the improvements made or give examples of why change may not be feasible.

iv. Task 4: Apply Automation Concepts with Power Automate

Describe how you used Power Automate to automate part of the process. Present your answer using the template provided in Appendix B.
Give examples of how a CO-STAR prompt was used to enhance your design.
Interpret how the CO-STAR prompt supported your CT or automation logic.

v. Task 5: Evaluate the Outcome and Reflect

Identify relevant SMART success metrics for your proposed solution.
Describe any assumptions, risks, or limitations that could affect the process outcome.

Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments

Order Now

3. REPORT FORMAT & SUBMISSION

a. The assignment MUST follow the format below:

i. Complete the Cover Page – Individual Assignment

ii. No of Pages: Must NOT exceed 12 pages, excluding cover page, content page, reference page and appendices. Contents on subsequent pages will not be graded.

iii. For other format requirements such as Font Size, and Font Type, refer to the student kit.

b. The assignment is to be saved as the following naming convention and submit in LMS by 18 August 2025, Monday 5:00pm.

i. File Naming Convention: Admission No_Tutorial Group_Name_IA.docx

ii. Submission through other means (e.g. physical, email) will not be accepted.

Your final submission should consist of the following items in the order listed:
i. Cover Page
ii. Table of Contents
iii. Declaration of Originality
iv. Task 1: Understand the Process and Problem
v. Task 2: Examine the Current Process (As-Is)
vi. Task 3: Interpret and Improve the Process (To-Be)
vii. Task 4: Apply Automation Concepts with Power Automate
viii. Task 5: Evaluate the Outcome and Reflect
ix. References
x. Appendix

4. SUBMISSION POLICY

a. Any plagiarism of work would result in zero marks for this project.

b. Assignments submitted after the deadline will be penalised by 20% of the total marks. Any assignment submitted more than 3 days after the deadline will be given “0” marks.

5. GUIDELINES

a. This is an INDIVIDUAL assignment that carries a maximum of 100 marks and constitutes 35% of the overall assessment for this subject. Students are expected to do additional research and readings when completing your report.

b. In this assignment, you may use generative artificial intelligence (GenAI)
tools for research purposes. All use of generative AI must be appropriately
acknowledged. A Declaration of Originality form must be submitted.

c. The pseudocode should exhibit the behaviour of the system and not the
stakeholders.

d. Students must ensure that all files submitted can be opened and viewed in
Microsoft Words.

Buy Custom Answer of This Assessment & Raise Your Grades

Order Now

Marking Rubrics

S/N	Sub-task	Criteria	Marks	Excellent (80–100%)	Very Good (70–79.9%)	Good (60–69.9%)	Satisfactory (50–59.9%)	Poor (0–49.9%)
	Task 1: Understand the Process and Problem		10
1	Identify an industry and a relevant cross-departmental process	Relevance	5	Clearly identifies an appropriate industry and cross-functional process aligned with MTI context.	Relevant industry and process identified with minor clarity issues.	Industry and process identified but not fully relevant or clear.	Basic attempt at identification; vague or unclear link.	No or irrelevant industry/process selected.
2	Describe the selected process	Clarity	2	Process is described in a clear, logical, and well-structured manner.	Clear description with mostly logical structure.	Description somewhat clear but lacks flow or logic.	Description is disjointed or vague.	No clear description.
		Detail	3	Key steps and relevant components of the process are covered comprehensively.	Most steps covered; minor omissions.	Some steps or components described; lacks depth.	Limited detail provided.	Description is irrelevant or absent.

S/N	Sub-task	Criteria	Marks	Excellent (80–100%)	Very Good (70–79.9%)	Good (60–69.9%)	Satisfactory (50–59.9%)	Poor (0–49.9%)
	Task 2: Examine the Current Process (As-Is)		25
3	Describe the current (As-Is) process using pseudocode	Structure	5	Pseudocode is logically structured with good use of indentation and flow.	Mostly logical structure with minor issues.	Structure understandable but inconsistent.	Structure difficult to follow.	No structure or completely disorganised.
		Logic	5	Pseudocode accurately reflects real-world process logic and steps.	Reflects process logic with some minor omissions.	Basic logic presented but lacks clarity or realism.	Limited or inaccurate logic.	No logic or irrelevant pseudocode.
4	Identify impediments within the process	Insightfulness	5	Clearly highlights key impediments	Good identification of key impediments.	Some issues identified but lacks clarity or specificity.	Impediments vaguely stated.	Impediments not identified or unclear.
5	Explain where and how CT elements were applied in the As-Is Pseudocode	Application of CT	10	All relevant CT elements are clearly identified and their application to process steps is thoroughly explained.	Most relevant CT elements are identified and generally explained with minor inaccuracies.	Basic identification and explanation of CT elements with some inaccuracies or omissions.	CT elements are minimally explained or unclear.	CT elements are missing, or explanations are incorrect.

S/N	Sub-task	Criteria	Marks	Excellent (80–100%)	Very Good (70–79.9%)	Good (60–69.9%)	Satisfactory (50–59.9%)	Poor (0–49.9%)
	Task 3: Interpret and Improve the Process (To-Be)		20
6	Describe the improved To-Be process using pseudocode	Structure	5	Pseudocode is clearly structured and demonstrates improvement.	Well-structured with minor issues.	Structure evident but lacks clarity.	Limited structure; hard to interpret.	No structure or unclear output.
		Improvement	5	Adds clear value and resolves prior impediments.	Improvement is evident with some clarity.	Some improvements but underdeveloped.	Minor changes or not clearly beneficial.	No improvement or flawed redesign.
7	Distinguish improvements or explain why change isn’t feasible	Justification	10	Strong rationale provided with clear examples or constraints.	Good justification with valid points.	Some reasoning provided; lacks supporting detail.	Justification attempted but unclear.	No justification or unsupported claim.
	Task 4: Apply Automation Concepts with Power Automate		25
8	Describe how Power Automate was used	Relevance	5	Power Automate use aligns clearly with the To-Be process.	Good relevance with minor gaps.	Basic relevance; loosely connected.	Relevance unclear or inconsistent.	Not relevant or not addressed.

S/N	Sub-task	Criteria	Marks	Excellent (80–100%)	Very Good (70–79.9%)	Good (60–69.9%)	Satisfactory (50–59.9%)	Poor (0–49.9%)
	Task 4: Apply Automation Concepts with Power Automate		25
9	Give examples of CO-STAR prompt used	Functionality	5	Automation flow is functional and logically sound.	Minor issues in flow logic or completeness.	Flow is basic but partially functional.	Flow unclear or has major gaps.	No automation described or irrelevant.
		Prompt Design	5	CO-STAR prompts are not only appropriate but are also logically sequenced to align with the Power Automate process flow.	Mostly structured with clear intention.	Basic prompt structure with minor issues.	Prompt vague or lacks structure.	No prompt or irrelevant prompt.
10	Interpret how prompt supported CT/logic	Reflection	10	Clear explanation of how CO-STAR enhanced design thinking or CT.	Good insights into prompt support.	Basic reflection with limited connection to CT.	Limited or generic reflection.	No reflection provided.
	Task 5: Evaluate the Outcome and Reflect		20
11	Identify SMART success metrics	Relevance	5	Metrics clearly aligned with goals and outcomes.	Relevant metrics with minor gaps.	Basic relevance; lacks outcome linkage.	Metrics vague or misaligned.	No relevant metrics provided.
		Clarity	5	Metrics are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound.	Mostly SMART with minor gaps.	Some SMART elements applied.	Limited or unclear SMART format.	Not SMART or poorly formulated.

S/N	Sub-task	Criteria	Marks	Excellent (80–100%)	Very Good (70–79.9%)	Good (60–69.9%)	Satisfactory (50–59.9%)	Poor (0–49.9%)
12	Describe assumptions, risks, or limitations	Critical Reflection	10	Clearly reflects on risks and boundaries of solution design.	Good explanation of assumptions and limitations.	Basic identification with limited analysis.	Limited or vague insights.	No reflection or irrelevant commentary.

Total – 100

Stuck with a lot of homework assignments and feeling stressed ?
Take professional academic assistance & Get 100% Plagiarism free papers

Buy Now

The post BBS2025 Computational Thinking for Business Individual Assignment: Enhancing Cross-Departmental Healthcare Processes appeared first on My Assignment Help SG.

BBS2025 Computational Thinking for Business Individual Assignment: Enhancing Cross-Departmental Healthcare Processes