A business unit of a transnational manufacturer wants to implement a robust process for addressing integrity- critical equipment deterioration incidents. Timely and complete resolution of such incidents is vital for the business unit's continuous safe and profitable operation. Treating each incident involves many employees from different departments extensively collaborating and exchanging information. That information is spread across multiple systems having their access limited to particular user groups. With the current manual process, some incidents get forgotten and remain unresolved for years. The project's Sponsor is an Equipment Integrity and Reliability Advisor, who moved into this position from another business unit. That business unit implemented a proprietary application to integrate the information and to assist in tracking and managing the incidents. Having a positive experience with the application, the Sponsor is suggesting to customize it and reuse in the new business unit. The business unit's Enterprise Architect (EA), who is responsible for assessing solution options and presenting them to executive decision makers, has a few concerns with adopting the existing application. The application uses point-to-point interfaces with other data sources whereas the business unit's target architecture relies on a data warehouse-based integration. Moreover, the two business units use different legacy systems, as well as different front-end implementation technologies. Additionally, the existing application is monolingual, while the business unit needs user interfaces and some data to be presented in two languages. With all of this, it may be easier to build a new application from scratch than to customize the existing one. To understand which option is better, the EA asks a business analyst (BA) to define business requirements. The EA wants to understand whether the integration capabilities of the existing solution match the business unit's IT landscape. The requirement definition that the EA needs should read as, "Each record of an incident shall ."

Question

Accepted Answer

B. include the associated equipment's information from the asset management system." Including the associated equipment's information from the asset management system directly in the incident record means all relevant context - not just a reference key - is available to users regardless of their access level to other systems. This directly addresses the scenario's constraint that information is spread across systems with limited access, ensuring no resolution step is blocked by an inability to retrieve equipment details. It produces a richer, more actionable incident record that reduces the risk of incidents stalling or being forgotten.

Answer

A. be associated with the unit of equipment to which it belongs." Stating the incident must 'be associated with the unit of equipment' is too vague - it does not specify what information is captured or how the association is established, leaving the requirement ambiguous and incomplete.

Answer

C. contain the ID of the equipment to which it belongs." Storing only the Equipment ID creates a dependency on the asset management system for every lookup, which is problematic given that system access is restricted to particular user groups, potentially blocking timely resolution.

Answer

D. be related to a unit of equipment using the Equipment ID stored in the asset management system." Relating an incident using the Equipment ID stored in the asset management system still requires users to query a separately access-restricted system to obtain equipment details, rather than having that information available directly within the incident record.

A business unit of a transnational manufacturer wants to implement a robust process for addressing integrity- critical equipment deterioration incidents. Timely and complete resolution of such inciden

Question

Options

How the community answered

Why each option

Topics

Community Discussion