Develop and present a paper that demonstrates you have learned. Use an airline company. Develop a Business Intelligence Decision Support System plan. The product does not matter, but ho

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

To implement a DSS is to realize the planned system. Implementation includes interpreting designs into code, but it goes far beyond coding. It also includes creating and populating databases and model bases and administering the final product, which means installation, deployment, integration, and field testing. Training users and ensuring they accept the DSS as a useful and reliable tool is yet another aspect of implementation. Finally, evaluation includes all of those steps to ensure that the system does what is needed and does it well. We will begin the discussion with implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

The success of any implementation effort is highly affected by the process adopted by the implementation team. Unfortunately, there are no standard steps to ensure success; what works well in one implementation might be inappropriate in another. However, Swanson has noted nine key factors in the success or failure of information systems. These include measures that address the system itself (such as design quality and performance level), the process of design (such as user involvement, mutual understanding, and project man- agement) and the organization within which the DSS will be used (such as management commitment, resource adequacy, and situational stability). Table 9.1 provides examples of how these factors may facilitate or inhibit the implementation process. Throughout this book, specific strategies for addressing these nine factors to result in successful implemen- tation have been noted. The strategies can be summarized in five principles.

Decision Support Systems for Business Intelligence by Vicki L. Sauter Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

370 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

Design Insights The Fable of the Three Ostriches

Three ostriches had a running argument over the best way for an ostrich to defend hiτηself The youngest brother practiced biting and kicking incessantly* and held the black belt. He asserted thai "the best defense is a good offense." The middle brother lived by the maxim that "he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day," Through arduous practice, he had become the fastest ostrich in the desert—which, you must admit, is rather fast. The eldest brother being wiser and more worldly, adopted the typical attitude of mature ostriches: "What you don't know can't hurt you." He was far and away the best head-burier that any ostrich could recall.

One day a feather hunter came to the desert and started robbing ostriches of their precious tail feathers. Each of the three brothers therefore took on a group of followers for instruction in the proper methods of self-defense—according to each one's separate gospel.

Eventually the feather hunter turned up outside camp of the youngest brother, where he heard the grunts and snoits of all the disciples who were busily practicing kicking and biting. The hunter was on foot, but armed with an enormous club, which he brandished menacingly. Fearless as he was, the ostrich was no match for the hunter, because the club was much longer than an ostrich's legs or neck. After taking many lumps and bumps and not getting in a single kick or bite, the ostrich fell exhausted to the ground. The hunter casually plucked his precious tail feather, after which all his disciples gave up without a fight

When the youngest ostrich told his brothers how his feather had been lost, they both scoffed at him, "Why didn't you run?1' demanded the middle one, "A man cannot catch an ostrich."

"If you had put your head in the sand and ruffled your feathers properly" chimed in the eldest, tlhe would have thought you were a yucca and passed you by."

The next day the hunter left his club at home and went out hunting on a motorcycle. When he discovered the middle brother's training camp, all the ostriches began to run—the brother in the j lead, But the motorcycle was much fasten and the hunter simply sped up alongside each ostrich and plucked his tail feather on the run.

That night the other two brothers had the last word. 4tWhy didn't you turn on him and give him a good kick?" asked the youngest. 'One solid kick and he would have fallen off that bike and broken his neck."

"No need to be so violent,'1 added the eldest, ''With your head buried and your body held low, he would have gone past you so fast he would have thought you were a sand dune."

A few days later, the hunter was out walking without his club when he came upon the eldest brother's camp. "Eyes under!" the leader ordered and was instantly obeyed. The hunter was unable to believe his luck, for all he had to do was walk slowly among the ostriches and pluck an enormous supply of tail feathers.

When the younger brothers heard this story, the youngest said, "he was unarmed/' "One good bite on the neck and you'd never have seen him again."

"And he didn't even have that infernal motorcycle" added the middle brother. "Why, you could have outdistanced him at a half trot."

But the brothers' arguments had no more effect on the eldest than his had had on them, so they all kept practicing their own methods while they patiently grew new tail feathers.

MORAL: It*s not know-how that counts; it's know-when. IN OTHER WORDS: NO single "approach " will suffice in a complex world.

Source. lThe Three Ostriches: A Fable" Material reprinted courtesy of Dorset House Publishing from G.M. Weinberg, Rethinking Systems Analysis and Design, pp. 23-24, Copyright © 1983, 1982, All rights reserved,

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 371

Table 9.1. Factors Influencing Success

Issues Success Factors Failure Factors

User involvement

Management commitment

• •

• •

•

•

User involvement and interest Much user involvement and user- level application documentation Lack of end-user involvement User and data processing department cooperation

Full-management attention Top-management support

Value basis

Mutual understanding

Design quality

Performance level

Project management

Resource adequacy

Good public reaction to DSS Value of application "Second system" based on established value of first system

Designers' understanding of user needs

• Good design • Flexible design

Strong project and budget control Frequent creative project meetings Use of prototypes Careful planning and testing Good planning

• Lack of user commitment to application

• Local user involvement only

Insufficient management interest Lack of top-management involvement in key area Lack of support for required project organization

High risk

More attention to technical than to user issues Lack of user acceptance of information value Failure to understand the choice process

Nonspecific functional design specifications Inflexible design

Poor performance No performance objectives Clumsy implementation of key function

Lack of training package Excessively complex implementation approach Implementation too rushed Poor timing in terms of deadlines

Excessive use of computing resources Inadequate or poorly used resources Project leader's time not fully committed Lack of resources to make system "friendly" Insufficient technical skills Lack of designer's commitment Bad input data

{Continued).

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

Table 9.1. Factors Influencing Success (Continued)

Issues Success Factors Failure Factors

Situational · Stability of user requirements · Departure of designer during stability implementation

• Collapse of cost justification • Change of rules during

implementation • Increasing expenses

Adapted from Swanson, E.B. Information System Implementation Homewood, IL: Irwin, 1988. Material is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Ensure System Does What It Is Supposed To Do the Way It Is Supposed To Do It

The success of a DSS implementation depends to a large measure on the quality of the system and the ease and flexibility of its use. Clearly, if decision makers do not perceive that the DSS facilitates their decisions, they will not use it. The more help the system can provide—in terms of accessing information decision makers might not otherwise know, providing insights decision makers might not otherwise have, or combining information which would have otherwise been kept isolated—the more likely the decision makers are to use it. Further, the easier it is for decision makers to access information and models, the more likely they will be to use them. Much of this book has been dedicated to describing what kinds of features need to be considered and included and how to make the information support richer.

Prototypes. One of the keys to ensuring the system will provide the kinds of in- formation desired in an appropriate fashion is to use prototypes of the DSS throughout analysis and design. Unlike with the design of transaction processing systems, designers should not expect to obtain concrete specifications at the initiation of the project. Decision makers often have difficulties abstracting how they might make choices and how they might use a system if they do not have previous experience with DSS. Further, most manual "support systems" are not well documented; decision makers simply implement a process but are not aware of it fully. Using prototypes, decision makers can discuss specific issues such as movement among screens and windows, kinds of help or other information, and layout and adequacy of information. Decision makers respond better to specific features if they see them in a prototype. Designers and decision makers decrease the likelihood of misunderstanding if they discuss the system in terms of the prototype.

Of course, there are risks associated with using a prototype. First, in order to evaluate a prototype, decision makers must be willing to spend some time using the product. This takes commitment on the part of the decision makers that may be difficult to secure. Second, if only some decision makers participate in the development of a multiuser DSS, designers risk overspecifying design to meet the needs of a subset of the population of users. Designers need to ensure that those decision makers participating in the design process are typical. Third, the final system may not respond in the same manner as did the prototype, particularly in terms of response time. Since users expect the same kind of response, designers need to manage those expectations and make sure the prototype is realistic. The evolutionary approach to designing DSS is an extension of the prototype philosophy. In this approach,

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

designers start with a small but important part of the problem. As users come to reply upon this one portion of the system and thereby become more knowledgeable about their needs, they can better explain their support needs for future parts of the DSS.

Interviewing. While prototypes will help designers gain this information, they alone are not sufficient; designers must gain much of their information, particularly early in the process, from interviewing. Good interviewing requires preparation. Interviewers must prepare the environment, the opening, gather interview aids, select a strategy, and prepare a closing for the interview.

The goal of preparing the environment is to set a stage where the interviewee will focus on the task at hand and feel sufficiently comfortable to reply usefully. The location must be comfortable, private, and free of distractions and interruptions. A neutral site allows the interviewee and interviewer to work together without interruption from telephone, visitors, or other tasks that need completion (such as piles on one's desk or a calendar). The timing of the interview must also be considered. Generally it is better not to schedule interviews when the interviewee is in the middle of a task or it is close to lunch or quitting time because it is hard to get the individual's full attention. Of course, the timing must consider when the interviewer also will be free from distraction and the amount of time necessary to prepare materials. If the interviewee needs to complete a task, or review materials, or bring materials to the interview, allow time for that to be done.

The purpose of preparing the opening is to build rapport with the interviewee. Often it is helpful to consider the interviewee's background and interests or shared experiences and history. Interviewers need to be friendly and sincere and explain the purpose of the interview as well as the benefits associated with being involved. This opening must be consistent with the purpose of the interview and should not be misleading to the individual.

Prior to the interview, the designers should have gathered the relevant and necessary data, documents, checklists, or access to the information system. These materials might be part of the interview or could provide interviewers with the background necessary to complete a meaningful exchange. Interviewers should complete a checklist or interview schedule that will guide them through the process. This helps maintain the focus of the interview while ensuring that important topics will not be missed. For example, initial interviews often focus on support needs. This means the interviewer must ascertain the scope and boundaries of the tasks in which the decision makers are involved as well as the tasks in which they are not involved. Within particular activities, where possible, interviewers must determine the sequence in which decision makers complete tasks and the factors they need to consider. This includes identifying relationships of importance and the means for identifying them, the heuristics followed, and the process of verifying the outcome of an analysis.

Generally the hardest part of an interview is getting started, so it is particularly impor- tant for the interviewer to have ready a series of questions to begin the discussion. These might include the following:

• Could you give me an overview of what you do? • What initiates your activities and decisions? • How do you determine when you have examined a problem/opportunity enough to

act upon it? • What is the output of your decision-making effort? Where does it go when it leaves

you?

374 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

• Do other individuals contribute to your decision-making effort? • What are the basic components of your decision-making effort? • Can we define terms?

Postintroductory questions are determined by the strategy of the interview. There are three basic choices: directive, nondirective, and hybrid. In a directive interview, the goal is to get specific information from the decision maker. The questions one selects are highly structured, such as multiple-choice questions or short-answer questions. Where elaboration is allowed, the questions are primarily closed, allowing very little room to deviate from a specific point. When using the directive strategy, one must be very prepared and knowledgeable about the system. Interviewers must ensure that all important issues have been identified and relevant options given.

Nondirective interview strategies, on the other hand, encourage the decision maker to speak freely within a particular domain. The style of interview is highly unstructured and questions are most likely open-ended or probe questions. Clearly, it is crucial that the interviewer be a good listener and know when to probe appropriately. The hybrid approach allows a mixture of both kinds of questions.

Often decision makers respond better to the nondirective strategy, particularly at the beginning of a project. While some decision makers will talk freely, others require more probing before the important information is obtained. Hence, the interviewer needs to be prepared with probing questions, such as:

• Can you think of a typical incident that illustrates how you make decisions? • What advice would you give to a novice just getting started? • Have you ever had a situation where…? How did you proceed? • When you get stuck, what do you do? • What was the hardest decision you ever had to make? What did you do? • What would you recommend if the data…?

If the goal is to elicit heuristics for the choice process, the interviewer might attempt questions such as:

• Do you have any rules of thumb for approaching choices such as . . .? • In these circumstances [previously described], you seem to Are there any ex-

ceptions to this process? • Are there solutions that are possible but not acceptable? How do you proceed in

those cases? • How do you judge the quality of your decision? Of the choice process itself? • How do others judge the quality of your decision? Of the choice process itself? • How do you make a decision? For what outcomes are you looking?

On the other hand, if the goal is to determine relationships between tasks, interviewers might attempt questions such as:

• This decision process X and the process Y seem to be similar. How are they alike? How are they different?

• Can you compare the task Z to anything else? • Does the process that you complete, X, depend on something else? What about Y?

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 375

Similarly, if the goal is to verify the interviewer's understanding of a description, questions such as the following are appropriate:

• I understood you to say Have I misunderstood? • How would you explain in lay terms? • Is there anything about your decision process that we have omitted? • Would it be correct to say that… means…?

Of course, it is also important to understand the sources of information to which the decision maker turns when he or she needs more data, an opinion, or advice. Sources may include colleagues (who may or may not be at the company), mentors, or even people who report to them. Typically different sources are useful for different kinds of information and advice. Knowing when decision makers turn to what kinds of resources helps the designer know more about the kinds of decision aids to include in the system. By the same token, it is useful to know what websites, RSS feeds, and other resources the decision maker follows and trusts so those can be implemented into the system.

Keep Solution Simple

It is important that the DSS provide the support that the users want. That means the system must provide the necessary tools for the choice task without making the technology the focus of the decision maker's efforts. Too often, designers lose perspective on users' needs and try instead to provide users with the latest "new technology" or all of the "bells and whistles" associated with the available technology. Or, designers may computerize parts of the operation just because it is possible, not because it facilitates the choice process. This may be appealing to the designer who wants to experiment with these technologies, but it seems only a diversion to getting "real work done" to the decision maker. Hence, such approaches are likely to impede implementation processes.

Most decision needs are not "simple." In those cases, the DSS cannot be designed to be simple. However, the system as the decision maker sees it needs to be simple. Generally, the decision maker does not need to know all of the operation of the system. Similarly, the approach to solving a problem, and therefore the steps decision makers need to take, must be intuitive and uncomplicated. For example, users do not need to be aware of all components of determining the system's confidence in particular information; rather they need to know that the operation exists. Similarly, new or unsophisticated users need not understand all the flexibility in running models the system has afforded; rather they need to know how to get the base model implemented. Simplicity of use will facilitate decision makers' acceptance and ultimate institutionalization of the system.

Develop Satisfactory Support Base

User Involvement. Most people do not like change. For decision makers, this dislike may be well grounded; often they have been successful because they have long operated in a particular fashion; changing it seems counterproductive. Adapting to a new computer system, especially if they are not terribly comfortable with computers, can be a difficult enterprise. There are many reasons why such concerns exist. For example, decision makers may fear they will become obsolete with the introduction of technology, and their job responsibilities will change or ultimately have no job security. Others may feel a certain

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

possessiveness about information which previously only they could obtain or generate. Still others may view the introduction of the DSS as an invasion into their privacy. Many managers are not secure about all of the methods they use in the choice process and therefore find the analysis phase (where informational and modeling needs are determined) uncomfortable. Finally, the introduction of the DSS may change the balance of power operating within the organization. If "information is power," by shifting the availability of information, the introduction of a DSS may be threatening the power or influence of a given decision maker or department.

While a fear of change can affect the implementation process, more often it is resistance losing control of the process that causes the bigger problem. For this reason, most designers will need to involve users throughout the analysis and design process. Users who are involved will better understand the reason for the system, the reason for choices for the design of the system, and the reason why some options were not taken. Their expectations will then be more realistic, which is crucial to effective implementation.

User involvement will also help shape the DSS and its features. Different people approach the same problem with quite different methods, including the manner in which they perceive the problem, the importance of features, and the navigation within the system. If users whose style is likely to be employed with the system participate in the design process, the system will be more usable to them in the long run. If they are involved from the beginning, they can affect the system in a stage where it is inexpensive and easy to do so. Furthermore, others not involved in the design effort might be more willing to accept the needs expressed by their co-workers but not "outsiders" of system designers.

User interaction correlates highly to later use of the system. With some users, however, designers should act on the principle of "small encounters." In other words, the designer and the decision maker will have only brief—and generally informal—interactions during which they address one or two specific issues with regard to the system. In fact, it may seem that these interactions are composed more of nonsystem discussions (or "chitchat") than of system-relevant material. The goal is to address a specific concern and to increase the decision maker's comfort level with the system.

Whenever individuals encounter unknown situations, they build a hypothesis about how their lives will change as a result, Peters (1994, p, 74) notes "the less we know for sure, the more complex the wehs of meaning (mythology) we spin,1' This leads to one of the foremost problems in implementation. If the decision makers and users do not understand what the system will do, how it will do it, or how it will be used, Ihey will tend to create scenarios about the system and its use. The greater the delay between the hint that something about the new system could be undesirable and the explanation of or discussion about the new system, the worse the scenario is drawn.

The lesson to be learned from this is to keep users and decision makers informed about j the progress of development. This leads them to perceive greater control over the situation and therefore will lead to less resistance to the implementation.

Further, they arc likely to have suggestions which, if introduced early enough in the process, might lead to a better DSS in the long run. If, however, they do not have the opportunity to voice an opinion until the system is complete, the suggestion is likely to be too expensive to implement.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 377

Table 9.2. Problems Eminating from unbalanced Influence gross design

IT Dominance User Dominance

Too much emphasis on database hygiene No recent new supplier or new distinct services New systems always must fit data structure of existing system All requests for service require system study with benefit identification Standardization dominates—few exceptions Benefits of user control over development discussed but never implemented IT specializing in technical frontiers, not user-oriented markets IT thinks it is in control of all Users express unhappiness Portfolio of development opportunities firmly under IT control General management not involved, but concerned

Too much emphasis on problem focus Explosive growth in number of new systems and supporting staff Multiple suppliers delivering services; frequent change in supplier of specific service Lack of standardization and control over data hygiene and system Hard evidence of benefits nonexistent Soft evidence of benefits not organized Technical advice of IT not sought or, if received, considered irrelevant User building networks to own unique needs (not corporate need) While some users are growing rapidly in experience and use, other users feel nothing is relevant because they do not understand No coordinated effort for technology transfer or learning from experience between users Growth and duplication of technical staffs Communications costs are rising dramatically through redundancy

User involvement in the analysis and design processes requires a balance between the influence of the designers from IT and the influence of users and decision makers. When the balance is lost, the system suffers. For example, if IT has too much influence in the system design, the DSS may not provide innovative links to resources because of concerns about compliance with other standards in the corporation. On the other hand, if the decision makers have too much influence on the system, standardization may be eliminated, and hence too many resources may be spent on maintenance and integration. Table 9.2 illustrates other examples of imbalances between designers and users of the DSS.

Commitment to Change. Commitment to change is also important. It comes only after the users have bought into the system. If they were involved throughout the process, decision makers are probably already committed to it. If not, it is difficult to gain their commitment without a demonstration of the clear benefits of the system. The organization must be committed to changing the way in which people make decisions and how infor- mation is made available. It must be committed to the project so that during the phases of development, installation, and use management understands the problems and develops solutions to them. In addition, they must have commitment to making a good effort and making the system work.

Commitment begins at the top. High-level managers cannot be negative about the project or even benignly negligent. Since their priorities set the tone and agenda for an

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

Table 9.3. Factors Influencing Acceptance of a DSS

Organizational climate • Degree of open communication • Level of technical sophistication of users • Previous experiences with using DSS and other computer-based systems • General attitude about computer-based systems and IT • Other disruptive influences which might parallel the DSS development and implementation

Role of senior management • Attitudes of senior management toward computer-based products and the IT department, in

terms of both their actions and their statements • Adequacy of the resources devoted to the IT function in general and the DSS development in

particular • Amount of time spent on IT-related issues by senior management • Expectancies of senior management • Integration of IT personnel in strategic decision making

Design process • Recognition of IT impacts in the organizational planning process • Participation of IT management in the organizational planning process • Perceived need for IT in the strategic goals

organization, they must support the system if people are to be involved enough to make the system work.

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.