Information System Management becomes easier to understand when students can see how confusing service records create operational risk. A service catalogue that lists outdated owners, vague descriptions, or duplicated systems makes it harder to support users and govern change.
This sprint asks students to improve a small sample catalogue and explain the management value of each correction.
Scenario
A faculty technology team maintains a spreadsheet of campus digital services. Some entries use old system names, some do not list a service owner, and several services have no clear lifecycle status. Students must clean the catalogue before a semester planning meeting.
Student task
Give each group ten fictional service entries and ask them to classify every issue they find:
- Ownership gap: The person or team accountable for the service is unclear.
- Purpose gap: The description does not explain who the service supports or what outcome it enables.
- Lifecycle gap: The entry does not state whether the service is planned, active, under review, or retired.
- Dependency gap: Important connected systems or data sources are missing.
- Evidence gap: There is no usage, support, or performance evidence to guide decisions.
Teaching note
Ask students to prioritise changes that improve decision quality, not just formatting. A cleaner catalogue should help managers answer practical questions about funding, support, risk, and user impact.
Learning outcome
Students practise treating a service catalogue as a governance artifact. They learn how information quality, accountability, and lifecycle visibility support better information system decisions.