Systems Integration and Project Management - Literature review Example

Name Student number Course Lecturer Institution Date Systems Integration and Project Management Langford (2012) indicates that systems integration helps to meet mission needs of the stakeholders and end users. He defines systems integration is the structure of a capability by way of collecting elements in a manner that allows them to work together for a common purpose. Systems integration is one of the most valuable items in project management and particularly in managing complex projects. It produces an assignment capability by uniting subcomponents of the capability. It is the logical step between design and development as well as in testing, verification, validation and deployment. Importantly, systems integration is increasingly crucial to the success of any complex project as programs support migration to service-oriented, composable-capability architectures. After developing components, it is essential to integrate them with the environment in which they will operate. The testing of the assembled systems is then carried out after integration to the environment. The purpose of screening is to confirm that it can perform the requirements. Additionally, Barnes et al., (2005) adds that system integration also involves the process of producing complex information systems that can include building or design customized application or architecture, then integrate it with the existing or new hardware, packaged and custom software as well as communications. Systems integration is that part of the project that is concerned with information technology engineering process or joining different subcomponents or subsystems as one large system. It certifies that every integrated system works as required. Because of its significant role in the fruition of complex projects, it is not only used to join subsystems, but it is also used to add value to the created system. This multiple purposes is critical as it helps to improve the overall project purpose and hence deliver a customized product as needed by the end user and stakeholders. It adds value to the systems through new functionalities provided by connecting tasks of different regimes. In the last ten years, the focus of sectors that use technology has shifted to the aggregation of diverse components or subsystems to cooperate for the purpose of delivering a complete functionality as Siemieniuch & Sinclair (2006) reports. This modular approach to building systems has been the near-breakthrough of the development cycle. After development, the integrated systems span different fields of hardware and software engineering. As such, it is essential that systems engineers possess a breadth of knowledge and a broad range of skills. Fundamentally, there are four systems integration methods. The horizontal integration involves producing a distinctive subsystem that is intended to be a single interface between all the other subsystems (Siemieniuch & Sinclair 2006). It ensures that there is only one boundary between any subcomponent. Still, any subcomponent may be replaced with a similar one without disrupting the other subcomponents by using entirely different interfaces and data. It is very useful in managing multifaceted projects. The other approach is vertical integration as Hvolby & Trienekens (2010) notes. According to this method, subcomponents are integrated according to their functionality by generating silos of functional entities. As the name suggests, it begins with the bottom primary task upward in a vertical manner. It is a very quick method that involves few developers and vendors and it becomes more expensive over time. This is because new silos must be created when implementing new functionalities. The third integration method is the star integration. Each component is linked to other numerous subcomponents so that the diagram of the interconnection looks like a star, hence the work star. In this integration, the more the subcomponents, the more connections are made. This approach is also called spaghetti integration as it looks like spaghetti. Lastly, the fourth approach is standard data format. This one aids system to prevent having the adaptor change to and from every application form. This method sets an application independent or standard size. They provide a service that does the conversion to and from one presentation into the interactive form. System integration is used widely in complex projects to bring the different systems together to deliver one main project to the end user as Pohl (2010) describes. It creates computing system by combining software and hardware components of various vendors. In complex projects, there are many different contractors each working on a particular part both equipment and software. System integration helps in bringing together and combining the produced subcomponents together to create a component. It aligns pre-0configured, cheaper and off the shelf subcomponents to meet the fundamental purpose of the whole project. System integration is widely used in projects relating to defense contracting industries. A frontline understanding, as well as hands-on approach, is crucial when managing complex projects. Systems integration brings together subcomponents ensuring that they work as one end to end podium. This includes but not limited to the implementation head end and outsourced plant network elements, operating systems, software applications as well as installation services. Challenges of Initiating This Project Liu et al., (2015) point that many complex projects suffer from high levels of unmanageability; this is caused by the gap between the information available to decision makers and the information needed to build components. Sometimes the decision makers go a step further and try to solve this challenge by increasing the information accessible to them time and again by using input from hired stakeholders. While this may cause even more uncertainty, the information providers may provide the information with different intent such as strategic values in their mind; the decision makers may misinterpret the information as they overemphasize on the objectivity, quantifiable information as well as criteria. They may do this at the expense of potential tangible causes of deviance. This section discusses the challenges of initiating complex projects such as the one indicated in this paragraph. One of the most common challenges in starting projects such as this one is uncertainty and unmanageability as Li et al., (2010) asserts. Increasing knowledge does not exclude unmanageability. As systems integration mostly revolves around information technology, the awareness of the technology used in complex projects matures. Through such, there are many approaches created, such as work breakdown structure and critical path method, for increasing manageability of such projects and their planning. This could lead into believing that it is becoming increasingly successful in managing complex projects. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that the track record of complex project management is yet to hit the peak. Although there are improvements in managing complex projects, the challenges faced by managers also continue to increase. Managers system developers fail to include adequate cushions for uncertainties. This leaves little room for deviation thus leading a project to perform inadequately managerially. Uncertainty brings about unmanageability; there is uncertainty gap that comes up due to lack of sufficient information. The difference between the needed information and the available information is the information gap. In developing systems, the different contractors have different motive and point of view. They also have differing experience in working in similar situations before. Some may concentrate on adding value and forget the primary objective of the whole project. Others may be found wanting in creating a subsystem to drive a complex project. In some situations, engineers may have information theoretically available but be too costly and time-consuming to collect and analyze (complexity). In other cases, the past may not be a reliable guide to developing a subsystem in future (unpredictability). Although the future is incomprehensible, the experience is a valuable resource in guiding to the future in many circumstances (Iskanius et al., 2009). All these reasons are evidence of a challenge inform of uncertainty in managing a complex project. This is partly contributed by the need of a variety of system elements often with several interdependencies and interfaces. Also added by the necessity of a high degree of specialist engineering expertise from partied the involved. Essentially, unmanageability and uncertainty are persistent challenges affecting not only this project but many more complex projects. Another problem of initiating this project complex project is flawed interpretation and preoccupations as Mendoza et al., (2006) observes. Clients may not be able to interpret available information correctly, being less capable of evaluating information accurately than the information providers. Clients could also let their values prevail; this does not necessarily offer the finest tradeoff between project management benchmarks. If users resolve to close the uncertainty gap by collecting information provided, they might try to reimburse for the adverse effects by, for instance, trying to anticipate strategic behaviour. Equally, they cannot do this reasonably because of limitation of information that they have; undesirable effects are possible that can meaningfully affect particular decisions. Flawed interpretation and preoccupation have damaging risks. The use of technology may fail for reasons inborn to that technology; technologies have an acceptable risk of failure. Such figures objectify tradeoffs as well as other considerations. They also have deviance risk; failure can happen during application even when the technology conforms to predefined standards. Sage & Rouse (2009) underline that flawed applications raise the probabilities of failure as determined on the base of damage risks. It makes managers be engrossed by risks that can be defined objectively. To overcome deviance risk, the implementer needs to have meticulousness and skills, which is hard to establish objectively and, particularly, to determine in advance. The informed parties such as the contractors are aware of such risks while the users have less feeling for them. This makes rational decision making not possible because of blind information. The users are often persuaded to make decisions rationally. The decision makers (in this case the users or the clients) have a reason to frame information received from information sources such as engineers and contractors. Given the limitation of knowledge they possess in comparison to the information sources, they are more likely to be preoccupied with features that they can fathom and that they can defend or explain. This highly influences their considerations. In practice, several important features that have a robust impact on manageability do not conform to the core standards that those clients tend to pursue. Poor project initiation is another challenge in initiating a complex project. This is the most common pitfall, failing to start a project properly by spending the time to gather customers and agree to their requirements. As much as this is important, it should take the necessary amount of time to the point that it satisfies the project delivery team. The delivery team, led by an able, capable and experienced project manager, should be in a position to create a viable project plan and set the customer expectations. It is very tempting to start work quickly; a lot of care should be taken at the initiation stage to prevent problems in the later stages of the project. The project ought not to be started until appropriately initiated. The client should not press the project delivery team into beginning the work on the notion that it will result in an earlier delivery. The truth is that poor initiation extends project duration by causing rework, oversights, and errors. As such, it is better to take time at the start to avoid problems after it has begun (Cicmil et al., 2006). The project manager should take a chance to conceptualize all aspects of the project as Davies & Hobday (2005) emphasizes. The whole team for the delivery of the project should analyse and understand all the processes that must be performed. The customer should be very clear as to what the project should accomplish. Importantly, it is at this stage that the project team formulates goals, objectives. Because they are a significant source of concern, the project team should take caution to ensure that customer needs are properly articulated. This is a major failure in many fallen projects. Therefore, the project management should be very careful in creating the product description statement, developing project feasibility, developing project concept development and creating the project charter. When all these are adequately and appropriately designed and built, the project is right to start. The Challenges for System Integration in This Project System integration keeps on evolving and adapting to the ever-changing environments. It keeps accelerating, shrinking, simplifying and responding to the adoption of new technologies as well as requests for elimination or replacement of some of its parts as Cho et al., (2005) explain. One of the biggest challenges for system integration for this project is that some areas of the solution are delivered as a service where they have an extreme pressure on return on investment as well as where the businesses need delivery of solution forthwith and their benefits immediately after that. As such, the whole function cannot run smoothly because some of them do not have the required features. The vendors pay much attention on return on investment while assuming the essential features that these systems should have. As such, integrating these systems become a problem and hence not able to deliver accordingly. Although the role of integration remains constant, the instruments used keeps changing. The multiple exclusive systems become a problem to integrate and hence not able to meet functionality and performance requirements when working together as one system. When contracting the different aspects of the project, the contractors create the subsystems based on return on investment while sometimes ignoring the defined standards provided by the project management team (Danilovic & Browning 2007). Another challenge is difficulties in integration testing as Humphrey (1995) asserts. The integration solutions provided did not streamline development and architecture of the project. Although satisfied with the answer, they did not meet the best design and development target point because of their complexity, permutations and paths. This is partly because they were not tested when they were being created. The different subsystems provided have different protocols thereby complicating integration even further. Moreover, having all the subsystems ready at the same time for testing and piloting is a problem as well. Because of these issues, the integration becomes a problem. To avoid this integration problem in future, it is very important for the project team to build a different kind of team and focus on interconnections right from the requirements phase. Also, it is essential to plan and manage an assembly phase as well as use tools focused on testing integration. Following creating of the subsystems right from the requirements, phase would ensure that it conforms to the project requirements and standards. The various systems built have data with different meaning (Billows 2001). Types of data are often labeled differently on separate systems. The data have different meaning even though they are meant to produce one subsystem. This presents a challenge of identifying what data labels mean as well as what type of data they contain to integrate them. It presents a big challenge in coming up with a mapping between these systems in order to create a plan to integrate. This does not only increase the cost of new services must be paid for, but it also increases the time spent on the system. This time and cost is not budgeted for and hence a problem. How Cultural Issues Have Affected This Project It is very evident that cultural issues have affected this project. The project delivery team is composed of people from different countries. The most obvious of the cultural issue is individualism; some people are more esteemed of their activities and successes (Williams 1997). They do not associate with the larger group running the whole project. They are satisfied as far as they can meet their objective or do what they are supposed to do. They do not pay attention to the status of the group. They take care of only themselves; they remain emotionally independent of the group. This is more evident in the different contractors working on several subsystems. This is detrimental because such individuals do not take extra responsibility concerning the whole project. Whether one part of the project has failed to materialize as expected is not their concern, they are only concerned with their area of responsibility only. Another cultural issue is the uncertainty avoidance where some individual's attitude towards unknown or ambiguous situations is clearly questionable (Kerzner & Belack 2010). As systems integration involves some level of uncertainty, the consequence of some people's uncertainty avoiding culture is very high. They do not want to engage in meaning evaluation of how such situations can be resolved. This uncertainty avoidance culture creates high anxiety especially to those persons who work by the rules. This affects the project as uncertainties may take longer to be resolved and hence affecting delivery time and quality of the project. Another cultural challenge is miscommunication and problems in obtaining accurate information on requirements (Pohl 2010). This affects interpretation and hence decisions made out of information communicated. Some information is lacking hence some decisions made are not well informed about the procedures. Whether the Project Is a Success Even if the project were not completed on the set budget and on the fixed period, I would still rate and consider it as a success. The project meets the requirements and specifications of the client. The client was satisfied with the project. This contributes significantly to this project. Significantly, the project was of high quality. The client indicated that the project exceeded their expectations in term of quality. The project quality is partly because of value addition to the individual subcomponents. There was intense and massive work to produce high-quality subcomponents. After integrating and bring them together, they produced a high quality project to the delight of the client. Besides, the project was a success because it was completed within the scope, thus, meeting client requirements and specifications. Conversely, the project created new job opportunities and valuable experience to the whole project delivery team. There were many job opportunities created directly and indirectly by the project team and all persons working with the contractors. It provided a treasured experience which will prove valuable in managing another complex project in future. Conclusion Essentially, systems integration plays a significant role in project management. Sophisticated projects have many different subcomponents that need to be created and completed to do an entire project. The report indicates that system integration helps to integrate these numerous different subcomponents into a bigger component that meets the requirements and specifications of the client. Systems integration ensures that all subsystems are working as required and that they are created according to the predefined standards. The report discusses in detail the challenges of initiating a project especially at its approval stage. The report also discusses the challenges of system integration in the project as well as how cultural issues affected the project. The report concludes by providing a justification on whether the researcher thinks the project was a success. The report is a good platform for gaining valuable knowledge on managing complex projects. However, it is not exhaustive by itself. References Barnes, S.D., Cameron, J.R., Gerber, D.M., Kahan, E.T., Boring, J.M. and Newlon, C.A., International Business Machines Corporation, 2005. System and method for systems integration. U.S. Patent 6,950,802. Billows, D., 2001. Managing Complex Projects. Dick Billows. Cho, S.H. and Eppinger, S.D., 2005. A simulation-based process model for managing complex design projects. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 52(3), pp.316-328. Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J. and Hodgson, D., 2006. Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), pp.675-686. Danilovic, M. and Browning, T.R., 2007. Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. International journal of project management, 25(3), pp.300-314. Davies, A. and Hobday, M., 2005. The business of projects: managing innovation in complex products and systems. Cambridge University Press. Humphrey, W.S., 1995. A discipline for software engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.. Hvolby, H.H. and Trienekens, J.H., 2010. Challenges in business systems integration. Computers in Industry, 61(9), pp.808-812. Iskanius, P., Helaakoski, H.S. and Page, T., 2009. A collaborative working tool for information systems integration and continuous improvement.International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 3(2), pp.202-215. Kerzner, H.R. and Belack, C., 2010. Managing Complex Projects (Vol. 11). John Wiley & Sons. Langford, G.O., 2012. Engineering systems integration: Theory, metrics, and methods. CRC Press. Li, Q., Zhou, J., Peng, Q.R., Li, C.Q., Wang, C., Wu, J. and Shao, B.E., 2010. Business processes oriented heterogeneous systems integration platform for networked enterprises. Computers in Industry, 61(2), pp.127-14 Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S.J., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K.C., Gleick, P., Kremen, C. and Li, S., 2015. Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225), p.1258832. Mendoza, L.E., Pérez, M. and Grimán, A., 2006. Critical success factors for managing systems integration. Information Systems Management, 23(2), pp.56-75. Pohl, K., 2010. Requirements engineering: fundamentals, principles, and techniques. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated. Sage, A.P. and Rouse, W.B., 2009. Handbook of systems engineering and management. John Wiley & Sons. Siemieniuch, C.E. and Sinclair, M.A., 2006. Systems integration. Applied ergonomics, 37(1), pp.91-110. Williams, T., 1997. Managing and modelling complex projects. Wiley. Read More