System Development Lifecycle of Super Express Ltd - Essay Example

?SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LIFE CYCLE: THE CASE OF SUPER EXPRESS LTD of Q1: Super Express Ltd; a printing and packaging company decided to develop a new system that would see the company enhance the way it carries out its business operations. The company specifically wants to do away with it’s old systems that do not interface well thereby limiting the company when sharing it comes to sharing information. However, the process of developing a new system was not carried out as required leading to many problems even to an extent where some employees want to quit in case the issues are not addressed. The main causes of this disastrous problem include the fact that the concerns of the employees were not concerned during the system development process (Jones and Rastogi, 2004, p. 31). Although Jane consulted some employees, the issues raised by employees were not taken into consideration but instead she came up with a report based on what the Management Director wanted to have. This failure to involve the users during system development process is a major cause for their lack of acceptance (Jones and Rastogi, 2004, p. 31). The other cause of the disatraous outcome in the process was that the design was accepted by the management without testing it or understanding the implications that such model would have to the organization (Moore, Nolan and Gillard, 2006, p. 647). The third cause for the disastrous outcome after the development of the new system is that the management enforced a direct cut-over without giving the employees time to learn how to use the new system as recommended by (Moore, Nolan and Gillard, 2006, p. 647). Soon after the New Year, the employees started with a new system to ensure that they do not cling to the old system. Q2: The team responsible for development of a new system did not follow all the systems development life-cycle phases (SDLC). After carrying the feasibility study, the systems analysis and requirements phase was not carried out conclusively since Jane did not take time to analyze the requirements for the new system from the stakeholders. Moreover, SDLC requires that a new system must be test after it has been developed, however, Super Express Ltd did not take time to have the system tested but instead implemented the purchased system without testing it (Moore, Nolan and Gillard, 2006, p. 646). After the system had been implemented, it requires maintenance but the company did not provide for this. Q3. If I was responsible for development of a new system, the first step would have been to evaluate the deficiencies of the current systems and from these deficiencies; it would have been easy to determine the requirements for the new system (French and Gabrielli, 2006, p. 53). To identify the deficiencies, the staff and the customers of the company would have been consulted widely. After the system requirements have been identified, the company should carry out an assessment of whether there is possibility to have the new system built in-house based on the available resources and skills. Given that no single person has the required skills, joint application development (JAD) would be followed where all the employees define and agree on the requirements for the new system (French and Gabrielli, 2006, p. 53). After the system requirements have been defined, a prototype of the system would be developed and implemented to run concurrently with the existing systems. The problems of the systems of the new system will be identified and therefore when the whole system is developed; it will face no resistance, it will be of high quality and staff would not require much training (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 393). A team comprising members of the departments would then be chosen to oversee the system maintenance. Q4. Super Express Ltd did not carry out a proper feasibility study and this can have various consequences. Lack of a proper feasibility study can make the company fail to identify all the requirements for the new system (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 393). Therefore the company can develop a system just to realize that it does not solve all the problems it was developed to solve or the organisation does not have enough resources to develop the system thereby abandoning it halfway (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 395). The other consequence of lack of a proper feasibility study is that the company is not able to identify the risk factors which can influence the success of the project and when these risks emerge they can cripple the organisation. For instance, due to lack of a proper feasibility study, Super Express was not able to realize that implementing a new system can lead to resistance and this can prove disastrous to it. A proper feasibility study should have included technical assessment where the company assesses whether it has the required technology to run the system (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 395). The other aspect that should have been included is the economic feasibility where the company evaluates costs of the new system compared to its benefits. Thirdly, Super Express should have evaluated whether the staff is adequately trained to operate the new system and how a new system can operate to solve the organisational requirements (French and Gabrielli, 2006, p. 49). Lastly, the company lacked a schedule feasibility which would have provided a time schedule for the implementation of the system. Q5. To deal with the problem of staff failing to cope with the changes, the managing director should first organize a meeting with all employees and express the commitment to support them transit into using the new system which would ease their work and increase efficiency. He should then instruct that the employees be allowed to use the old system as the new system is introduced and training on the new system offered. This is because the company has already invested in the new system and therefore it would difficult to do away with it. The training should not only focus on training the employees how to use the new system but must also do away with the negative perceptions that the employees harbor. The employees should be made to understand that the system will allow the employees work efficiently and easily. Q6. The members responsible for the changes were not skilled for their roles. For Jane who was tasked with carrying out system requirement analysis; we are informed that she did not know how to carry out the assessment formally and she was also biased where she reported what she thought the director wanted. The management that carried out assessment did not have adequate skills and therefore they authorized something they did not understand and further called for a direct cut-over with training the employees on the new system. The IT department head did not even advice them and Jane who was chosen to oversee the customazation of the system lacks such skills. Q7. To salvage the situation in the company, the management should bring back the old system for continued usage by the employees. This would help quell the discontentment. After this, a thorough evaluation on system requirement should be made in a consultative way. The employees are supposed to identify their requirements for a new system. After these requirements have been identified, then the company should seek professionals to assess whether the acquired system meets all the requirements identified and explore ways to enhance it to meet all those requirements. This can allow Super Express Ltd have the system redesigned to incorporate all the needs. The system can then be implemented slowly as the employees are trained on how to use it. Q8. The advantages of purchasing an information system instead on making it in-house include the fact that companies are able benefit from the vast knowledge available given that vendors of these systems concentrate in developing systems and therefore they amass great knowledge and experience (French and Gabrielli, 2006, p. 56). The other benefit of purchasing the software is that in most cases companies are able to cut down on costs compared to a system developed in-house. By purchasing software, a company is able receive extra resources such as training and support to employees. The other advantage in purchasing software is that a company is able to compare products from different vendors and therefore it selects superior software that deals with the problems of the company (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 395). Lastly, by purchasing already developed software, the company is able to benefit from periodic software upgrades initiated by the vendor. Q9. There are various advantages that emanate from studying the present system when carrying systems analysis. Studying of the present system helps the company identify the deficiencies with the existing systems which later become systems requirements for the new system (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 396). The other advantage of studying the present system is that it helps the company the available resources on which the new system is to run. For instance, the company would not have to buy new hardware in case the available computers can run the new system. Another advantage of studying the present system is that it helps identify the available skills that can be exploited and indicates the amount of training required. The current system can also act as a basis for the new system where a company can conclude to upgrade rather than build a new system (Duggan and Thachenkary, 2003, p. 397). Q10. Technology helps enhance the way a company conducts its transactions and runs its human resource activities. Technology helps to automate transactions where customers can order for supplies using the internet (Jones and Rastogi, 2004, p. 35). Technology also facilitates keeping of record which means that a company can never run out of supplies and whenever any data is required it can be retrieved with ease. The other advantage of technology is that it interlinks different departments of the organisation thereby facilitating decision making. Technology is also critical in management of the human resource in a company where it can be used in allocation of duties (Jones and Rastogi, 2004, p. 35). Furthermore, technology frees human resource staff from tasks which can be conducted using technology thereby allowing them concentrate in strategic responsibilities such as enhancing team work and recruitment of the best employees. Bibliography Duggan, E.W. & Thachenkary, C.S 2003, "Higher Quality Requirements: Supporting Joint Application Development with the Nominal Group Technique", Information Technology and Management, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 391-408. French, N. & Gabrielli, L 2006, "Uncertainty and feasibility studies: an Italian case study", Journal of Property Investment & Finance, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 49-67. Jones, R.L. & Rastogi, A 2004, "Secure Coding: Building Security into the Software Development Life Cycle", Information Systems Security, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 29-39. Moore, W., Nolan, E. & Gillard, S 2006, "Towards a Higher-Level Systems Development Life Cycle, with Universal Applications", International Journal of Management, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 646-652. Read More