E-Commerce System Planning and Analysis (电子商务系统规划与分析)
Domain 2 tests planning methods, feasibility judgement, and structured versus object-oriented requirements analysis. Expect a short case asking which planning method fits, whether the project is economically viable, or how a data flow diagram should be decomposed.
Planning methods you must distinguish
- CSF 关键成功因素法 - starts from what the business must do excellently.
- BSP 企业系统规划法 - 企业目标 → 过程 → 数据类, output is the U/C matrix.
- SST 战略目标集转化法 - starts from the organisation's strategy set. Feasibility has four dimensions: 技术、经济、运行(管理)、法律. An answer that only argues technology loses marks.
Economic feasibility arithmetic
Compute 投资回收期 (payback), ROI, and NPV = Σ 净收益/(1+i)^t − 投资. Only NPV discounts time; the exam usually wants the discounted verdict.
Requirements analysis
Structured route: 业务流程图 → 分层 DFD → 数据字典, keeping parent and child diagrams balanced (same external inputs/outputs). Object-oriented route: 用例图 plus 用例规约 (前置条件, 后置条件, 基本流, 扩展流).
Worked example
Investment 100万元; net benefit 30万元 in each of three years; discount rate 10%. NPV = 30/1.1 + 30/1.21 + 30/1.331 − 100 = 27.27 + 24.79 + 22.54 − 100 = −25.4万元. Static payback is 100/30 = 3.33 years, which looks acceptable, but after discounting the project destroys value, so the conclusion is 经济上不可行. The reasoning to write down is: static payback ignores the time value of money; NPV is the decisive test.
Traps that cost marks
- Turning a feasibility answer into a technical solution proposal.
- Drawing control flow or decision branches inside a DFD - those belong to flowcharts.
- Unbalanced parent/child diagrams and data dictionary entries with no source or destination.
- Ignoring non-functional requirements: performance, security, availability, interfaces to existing systems.
- Treating 运行可行性 as "the staff will like it" without evidence of process fit.