Reviewing The Issues Of Software Systems Information Technology Essay

Reviewing The Issues Of Softwargon Systems Information technology EssayIn this paper I am particularly focus on the issue of bankruptcy in relation to that group of softw atomic number 18 governances known as information placements. Then I am going to discuss two wellspring-known cases that of the capital of the United Kingdom ambulance service computer- aid dispatch system (L ) take to and The London stock ex flip ( horseshit) roll, and describe strong ruin factors of information systems pretermiture. My purpose is as well to use the generic wine material on IS failure and the specific details of this particular case study to critique the issues of safety, belles-lettres reviewLike n earliest computing professionals in the UK we were aware of the failure, using this term broadly, of the computer aided dispatch ( hound) system deployed by the London Ambulance service of process (LAS) in, or mindlessly after,For orientation a short sketch of the report follows. There tu rn in been a keep down of other analyses of the LAS CAD system failure of which Mellor (1994) is probably the most useful.The London Ambulance System accident, 1992OverviewThe basic functionality of the int differenceed LASCAD system was as follows British telecommunication (BT) operators would route each 999 calls concerning medical emergencies as a matter of routine to LAS headquarters (HQ) in Waterloo. 18 HQ receivers were then expected to record on the system the name, telephone number and address of the caller, and the name, coating address and brief details of the patient. This information would then be transmitted over a local anaesthetic area net b decease to a locator.The system was lightly loaded at start-up on 26 October 1992. either problems, understandingd particularly by the communications systems ( such as ambulance crews pressing the wrong buttons, or ambulances being radioed in ghastly spots), could be hard-hittingly managed by mental faculty. However, as the number of ambulance incidents increased, the amount of incorrect vehicle information save by the system increased. This had a knock-on effect in that the system made incorrect allocations on the prat of the information it had. For example, multiple vehicles were sent to the same incident, or the closest vehicle was non chosen for dispatch. As a consequence, the system had fewer ambulance resources to allocate. The system also placed calls that had non gone through the prehend protocol on a waiting list and generated exception messages for those incidents for which it had received incorrect post information. Indeed, the number of exception messages appears to have increased to such an extent the staff were not able to clear the queue. It became more and more difficult for staff to attend to messages that had scrolled off the screen. The increasing size of the queue slowed the system.Factors Contributed to Such a DisasterManagerial failureTechnical failureHuman failureManag erial failureLAS management do by or chose not accept advice bring home the bacond to it from numerous sources outside of the service on the time table or the high peril of the comprehensive systems necessaryThe undertaking did not show, or discuss with, the LAS Board freedom references on the twist CAD contractor, that raised doubts on their ability to handle such a study projectThe LAS boards were disposed(p) a mis leadership impression, by the project team of the previous experience of the lead contractor in emergency service systemIn awarding the contract for CAD to a small software house, with no previous experience of similar systems, LAS management were taking higher riskProject management end-to-end the development and implantation process was inadequate and at times ambiguous. A major system integration project such as CAD requires full time. Professional, experienced project management, this was lackingThere was in expel ownership of the system by the majority o f it users. The many problems identified with many of the system components over the preceding months had installed an atmosphere of system destruct in which staff expected system to fail rather than willing it to succeedLAS board and RHA management, whilst realizing that there were continuing problems with the implementation of CAD, consistently trustworthy assurances from executive directors that problems were being rectified and that achievementful implementation would be achieved at no time was a full independent review commissioned of the true state of the projectTechnical failureLAS fail to follow the PRINCE project wariness Method in the set up and operation of an information engine room (IT) executive committee, project board, project management team and project assurance team London Ambulance ServiceThe CAD system relied on near perfect information on vehicle location and status being available to it at all times. The project team failed to appreciate fully the impact t hat a higher level of imperfection would have on the systemThe system was not fully tried and true to a satisfactory level of quality and resilience out front full implementation on 26 October 1992On 26 and 27 October 1992 the computer system itself did not fail in a adept sense. Response times did on occasions become unsatisfactory, but overall the system did what it had been designed to do. However, lots of the design had fatal flaws that would, and did, cumulatively lead to all of the symptoms of systems failureOn 4 November 1992 the system did fail. This was caused by a minor programming error that caused the system to crash The automatic change over to the attendant system had not been adequately canvased, those the whole system was brought downHuman failureTraining provided to CAD staff and to ambulance crews was neither and inconsistentLAS management consultancy attributed CAD problems to willful misuse of the system by approximately ambulance crews. There is no direc t evidence of this, but the circumstantial evidence that does exist indirect to the interrogatory Team that it would have been only one of the many contributory factors that led to the CAD failureIn the period leading up to an including 26 and27 October 1992 there were insufficient see to it assistants taking emergency call. This contributed to an unacceptable level of calling times. This has since been rectified finishingFailure was due to a complex mix of factors date alone is not sufficient but helpsExpectation of failure plays a partdoes not learn the needs of the stakeholdersSystems should strive to meet the shared goals needs of the different stakeholdersLONDON STOCK EXCHANGE (TAURUS) ruinIntroductionThe London stock exchange is one of the hulkyst stock exchanges in the world with numerous contrary listings as well as British organizationsIn 1989 the London Stock Exchange (LSE) put transport a proposal for a computerized system to master that share certificates and ca sh changed hands amid the kindle parties after the trading transaction implicit in this was the dematerialization of stock certificates. It was a big project with hundreds of staff contracted in and lots of external shoves from various different stakeholders.The initial goals of the system were 4 folded. competitoryEfficiencyCostServiceWhat TAURUS Team did wrong?Lack of executive and stakeholders support ground on the problems encountered it seem that the project manager was not that experienceHave a large expanding compassWent ahead with the implementation of a system with lack of user and stakeholders commitment.Lack of skilled resources and clear complete specs.Reason for TAURUS CollapsePoor monitoring and controllingMonitoring a project work includes collecting, measuring, and disseminating performance information. If TAURUS management had good monitoring and control practices they would have known when they project was not meeting project objectivesPoor management of the nin e project management knowledge areasKnowledge AreasTAURUS project managers managed the nine project management knowledge areas poorlyScope If they had managed the stove of the project effective the huge area creep would not have been encountered.Cost If this was managed effectively the project would not have gone over budget 100%Time If this area had been manage effective the project would not have had a schedule overrun by 100%Quality If the quality area of the system was manage properly the specification was have been clear and completeRisk If the risk had been managed effectively they top executive have been able to abundant the project earlier.Communication If communication was managed all changes and delay would be communicated in a timely.Human resources skilled resources would be acquired and utilized.Integrated Change ControlIf TAURUS had an integrated change control they might have been able to influence the factors that create changes to ensure that changes are benefici al and control the scope of the project.Changes would be communicated to top management and steering committee in a timely elbow room and they would be able to manage these changes as they occur because change control is a critical success factors.Project Management IssuesPoor Management of triple constraintsSCOPETAURUS managers failed to control and monitor the scope of the projectTIMEManagement failed to define maintain and utilize clear timetables with small milestonesCOSTManagement failed to maintain and track change to the project budgetAdditionally, the budget and time constraints of the projects were seen to be a differentiator to their success. Goulielmos (2003) states that of the four concepts of failure in Information Systems is process failure where the project over runs its budget or time constrictions. TAURUS did both incurring increasing media attention and scrutiny, which led to an increase in pressure on the project team (Head, 2001).ConclusionThroughout the projec t there were several warning signs that were missed.The project completion date was delayed 100%Constantly changing requirementsProject not being veritable by major stakeholdersIncomplete specifications100% over cost.Fragmentation of the project (components to work together)Appraisal of leading system development methodologiesWaterfall ModelThis is the most common and classic of life cycle models, also referred to as a linear-sequential life cycle model. It is precise simple to understand and use. In a falls model, to each one point must be completed in its entirety onwards the next phase can begin. At the end of each phase, a review takes place to determine if the project is on the right path and whether or not to continue or discard the project. Unlike what I mentioned in the general model, phases do not overlap in a waterfall model.Waterfall Life rack ModelAdvantagesSimple and easy to use.One of the main advantages of the waterfall model is its simplicity. It is conceptual ly straightforward and divides the large task of building a software system into a series of cleanly divided phases, each phase dealing with a separate logical concern. It is also easy to administer in a contractual setup-as each phase is completed and its work mathematical product produced, some amount of currency is given up by the client to the developing organization.The project management stakeholders are forced to correctly define the contrast requirements documentation (BRD) and the project management requirements. At the sometime the developers are forced to understand these thoroughly before they start writing the software requirements specification (SRS), high level design and code.It essentially requires documentation at every stage. This gives better understanding of the requirements, the logic of the codes and tests that were conducted on the software.DisadvantagesThe project scope statement needs to be detailed in infinite depth from the start because changes are n ot executable when using waterfall methodology. This is because the only way to amend something which has been already real is to go back and start again. This will cause huge problems on projects where the project sponsors are indecisive and quickly causes scope creep.Project communications with the customer are extremely limited being either at the beginning or at the end of the development. In between, there is no way in which one can get feedback or potentially clarify any confusion over what the requirement actually means. The knock on effect is that it is up to the project team to make the key decisions on what requirements can be developed within the timeframes required, and what is developed later in a later deployment release by project planning in teams. This not only increases the overall time required to develop the software but also means that disrespect the teams best lathers, the customer whitethorn so far be extremely unhappy with the end product delivered. dra w team members die hard idle for long durations. You see Waterfall does not operate on a matrix basis which makes project resource management an extremely rigid activity. Basically those allocated to the project stay on it until that phase is over. This as we can imagine, has a direct knock on effect on the project budget.It is a very inflexible method which does not entertain any change in requirements and which makes any subsequent functionality changes required extremely difficult and expensive to implement. As such the fast chiliad of changing requirements determined makes this methodology difficult to use and calls for more quick methods of software development such as agile methodology.Prototyping ModelThis is a cyclic version of the linear model. In this model, once the requirement analysis is done and the design for a prototype is made, the development process gets started. Once the prototype is created, it is given to the customer for evaluation. The customer tests the pa ckage and gives his/her feed back to the developer who refines the product according to the customers exact expectation. After a finite number of iterations, the final software package is given to the customer.In this methodology, the software is germinated as a result of periodic shuttling of information between the customer and developer. This is the most popular development model in the contemporary IT industry. Most of the successful software products have been developed using this model as it is very difficult to comprehend all the requirements of a customer in one shot.AdvantagesFor example, design documents, a test plan, and a test case specification are not needed during the development of the prototype. Another in-chief(postnominal) cost-cutting measure is to reduce testing. Because testing consumes a major part of development expenditure during regular software development, this has a considerable impact in reducing costs. By using these types of cost cutting methods, i t is possible to keep the cost of the prototype to less than a few percent of the total development cost.Overall, prototyping is well suited for projects where requirements are hard to determine and the confidence in the stated requirements is low. In such projects where requirements are not properly understood in the beginning, using the prototyping process model can be the most effective method for developing the software. It is also an excellent technique for reducing some types of risks associated with a project. spry MethodologyAgile methodology is an approach to project management, typically used in software development. It helps teams serve to the unpredictability of building software through incremental, iterative work cadences,10 Key Principles of Agile parcel conveyment,Active user involvement is imperative2. The team must be empowered to make decisions3. Requirements evolve but the timescale is fixed4. Capture requirements at a high level lightweight visual5. Develop small, incremental releases and iterate6. Focus on frequent delivery of products7. Complete each feature before moving on to the next8. Apply the 80/20 rule9. Testing is integrated throughout the project lifecycle test early and often10. A collaborative cooperative approach between all stakeholders is essentialIT/IS Projects Fail. And How Agile Principles HelpCommon cause of failureHow agile helpsProject Initiation prep IssuesPoor definition of project scope and objectivesAgile projects also benefit from clear definition of scope and objectives, even though details are allowed to emerge throughout the development.Insufficient time or money given to projectIf only agile could solve thisLong or unrealistic timescales forcing project end dates despite best estimatesAgile projects encourage short and regular iterations, developing the software and delivering working product in small bite size pieces.Technical Requirements IssuesPoor or no requirements definition incomplete or chang ing requirementsAgile projects expect requirements to be incomplete and changing. Thats the nature of software. Instead of resisting this, agile projects provide for it by allowing requirements are allowed to emerge and evolve. Requirements being produced on a feature-by-feature basis, just in time to be developed, help with definition because it breaks this intensive task into small pieces instead of being a mammoth effort up front.Unfamiliar or changing technologies lack of required technical skillsAgile methods dont help at once with this issue, although can help to surface such issues early, and make them visible.Stakeholder Management Team IssuesInadequate visibility of project statusAgile projects provide clear visibility of measurable progress on a nonchalant basis.Project team members lack experience and do not have the required skillsAgile principles may help to surface such issues early, as they may well be evident in early iterations of the software. Frequent delivery of iterations and continuous testing can help to mitigate this risk when it might other than go unnoticed until much later in the project.Poor collaboration, communication and teamworkClose cooperation and collaboration between all stakeholders is essential.Project Management IssuesWeak ongoing management inadequately trained or unskilled project managersAgile methods and principles are just management tools. A fool with a tool is still a foolIneffective time and cost managementDaily visibility of measurable progress.ConclusionThe most Causes for Software Projects to fail Changes in RequirementsClassical Software Development life cycles assume that the requirements are fixed at the beginning of the project, guest only sees the product at the end of the software development, Customer is not aware of the current status of the Software Development. This happens due to changes in the Business environment, as the customer uses a software module, he/she will see natural features that a re necessaryAll redbrick software development methodologies (such as Agile) encourage shorter iterations, usually iterations are measured in weeks, and the developers demo the new features during the meetings with the customer at the end of each iteration. The customer can provide valuable feedback that will ensure that the software developed will meet the customers actual requirements.