Tai Cleveland Doctorate Student at Colorado Technical University: Class CS822 Doctor Lance

Systems Analysis and Design

Tai Cleveland

In planning a system project for an entire enterprise or for a small departmental system, both cases include basic considerations. Planning an enterprise-wide system project, however, is different from planning a small departmental system in terms of additional factors as discussed in the following. The basic considerations include: (a) the specific data that need to be migrated into the new system; (b) the duration as well as the specific dates when data needs to be migrated into the new system; (c) the process by which data templates are to be developed; (d) how to “freeze” the current tools during migration of data; (e) technologies and other structures necessary to support the migration into the new system; and (f) the process of archiving data as it is transferred into the new system. Other considerations include the resources available for the system projects, as well as the personnel availability and proficiency in using the new system (Monk & Wagner, 2009).
In the case of an enterprise-wide system project, it is important to note that entire organization would involve a variety of units, with each unit having its own needs, capacities and limits. For instance, the HR department would need functionality that would address its needs in managing human resources or employees, as well as in recruitment processes. The HR department would have the capacity to have high proficiency and flexibility in adopting the new system, but would be limited in terms of actual know-how in using the new system and related technologies. In contrast, the IT department would need functionality that is highly suitable to technology proficient members. In relation, the IT department would have the capacity to readily accommodate the new system because of the knowledge and high proficiency of the department in using technologies. However, the IT department would be limited in terms of management of human resources as the department shifts or migrates towards using the new system. In this regard, the differences between departments would determine how the enterprise-wide system is to be planned and implemented. More importantly, in planning for an enterprise-wide system project, another major consideration is the way the various organizational units are connected with each other. This pertains to the structure of the organization. For instance, each department would be connected to other departments in a unique way. This means that the channels through which communications or data transfers are made between departments vary, depending on the departments involved. As a result, planning for an enterprise-wide system would require examination of the relationships among entities within the organization.
On the other hand, in planning for a smaller departmental system, the major considerations are limited to the basic consideration enumerated earlier. Aside from this, planning for a smaller departmental system does not require consideration of the differences among organizational units. It also does not require much consideration of how organizational units are interconnected, since the system would be limited within the bounds of the department. In addition, an aspect that makes the smaller departmental system significantly different from the enterprise-wide system is the availability of resources. It should be noted that, while the enterprise-wide system can be supported by resources of the entire organization, the smaller departmental system can be supported only by the limited resources of the department. In some cases, the department may be provided additional resources, but only after much deliberation by other organizational units, such as the Finance Department.
Overall, the depth and complexity of planning an enterprise-wide system project is considerably different from a simpler and more focused smaller departmental system. Planning for an enterprise-wide system requires examination of the needs, capacities and limits of the entire organization, while planning for a smaller departmental system requires focused consideration of the department only.

References
Monk, E., & Wagner, B. (2009). Concepts in Enterprise Resource Planning, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Course Technology Cengage Learning.

Week3

Review and Summary 1

REVIEW AND SUMMARY

Review and Summary

In APA Style

Tai Cleveland

Review and Summary 2

Tai Cleveland 25 January 2009

Authors: Tom L. Roberts Jr., Michael L. Gibson, Kent T. Fields, and R. Kelly Rainer Jr.

Title: Factors that Impact Implementing a System Development Methodology

Source: 640 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. 24, NO. 8,
AUGUST 1998

Keywords: information systems (IS), systems development manager (SDM), Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE), business modeling

Key Points:
• Importance of SDM in Organizations

• The Survey Questionnaire and Analysis of Information Gathered

• Five Factors in Implementing SDM

Detailed Overview: This article presents the outcomes of a study of more than sixty existing companies in the U.S. in order to distinguish the aspects that would affect application of a system development methodology (SDM). Moreover, this research utilizes a survey tool that can identify the implementation factors of SDM. The concentration of this survey is on the how functional managers, information system managers, system personnel, and external consultants view this subject matter. A thorough analysis of five essential factors in SDM application that were results of the survey/study was implemented. The outcomes are significant for all researches and practitioners of SDM.
SDM are the answer to the problem that IS managers are facing. It is difficult to offer a concise and sure definition for SDM since there are too many as there are kinds of them. Support tools have cropped up to aid in the application and implementation of SDM and articles written about them are more aimed at informing rather than being intensely methodical. Researchers and
Review and Summary 3

practitioners alike have been using SDM extensively and majority of reports say that it has improved entities greatly by addressing internal problems and conflicts.
Furthermore, this article talks about how a study was conducted among experts in the field and whose outcomes and information gathered were used to design the survey tools. Over-all, the article describes how the five essential factors in implementing SDM came about. Using the survey results, the authors were able to produce a concise description of the methodologies and the instruments that paved the way in making viable conclusions.
Entities who are implementing SDMs find the transition from the old to the new burdensome yet those who persevere always reap a good harvest, so to speak. This study is very useful for organizations that are still planning to implement and SDM or just starting up with one. This is a very effective guideline as many questions that would be raised are being addressed here. More importantly, this study proves to contain all the basic information that are needed to start and nurture existing SDMs.

What didn't the paper say or include? Although the paper was very thorough and concise in its presentation of the procedures in coming to a conclusive report, it would have been more interesting to know the historical background or the propagators of SDM. Readers might want to know of its origins and its evolution (if there is any).
How would you rate the paper?
Readability 7
Quantity and Quality of references 9
Contribution to the field 8
Personal Interest 7

If you could ask the author(s) one question, what would you ask?

If SDM proves to be advantageous to any organization, why are some not implementing any?
Reference

Roberts Jr, T. L., Gibson, M. L., Rainer Jr, R. K., & Fields, K. T. (1998). Factors that Impact Implementing a System Development Methodology. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 24 (8), 640.

Week5

Article Summary and Review

Tai Cleveland

,

Professor: _ _ _ _ _

January 27, 2009

Tai Cleveland
January 27, 2009
Author(s): Ranganathan, C., & Brown, C. V.
Title: ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms: Toward an Understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables.
Source: Information Systems Research, 17, (2), pp. 145-161.
Date of Publication: June, 2006
Keywords: enterprise resource planning; ERP; business value; planning system; IT system; information systems; business information system; business impact; business IT project; system project; project scope; IT investment; IT business value; business value.
Key Points:
• Through an organization integration lens that examines not just ERP projects made by the companies, but also other related investments complementary to the ERP projects, and through options thinking logic, ERP investments have varying potential advantage to business at the firm level.
• Variation in potential advantage is mainly because of differences in decisions on the ERP projects within the organizational context at the time the investment was made.
• ERP investments with higher functional scope lead to positive and higher returns.
• ERP investments with high physical scope lead to positive and higher returns.
• Negative returns were actually observable in ERP investments that have lower functional scope or lower physical scope.
• Other investments can positively contribute to the positive impact of ERP projects.
Detailed Overview:
The article discusses the effects of enterprise resource planning (ERP) projects on business organizations. The study examines the cases of actual companies that have implemented ERP projects. The authors, Ranganathan and Brown, indicate that the study is important because it contributes to existing literature on the importance of ERP projects in business. It is important to note that the study’s main focus is the firm level, where the effects of ERP investments are examined. The authors used an organization integration lens that examines not just ERP projects made by the companies, but also other related investments complementary to the ERP projects. The authors also used options thinking logic in examining the value of ERP. Through this logic, the authors argue that the ERP investments have varying potential advantage to business at the firm level. Such variation is mainly because of differences in decisions on the ERP projects within the organizational context at the time the investment was made.
The authors examined 116 cases of ERP investments, as announced by US-based 116 companies in the period 1997 through 2001. Upon analysis, it is shown that (a) ERP investments with higher functional scope lead to positive and higher returns; and (b) ERP investments with high physical scope lead to positive and higher returns. The authors indicate that functional scope includes such aspects as supply chains, while physical scopes include the number of sites at which the investment is made within the organization. Aside from this, it is also shown that negative returns were actually observable in ERP investments that have lower functional scope or lower physical scope. Also, other investments can positively contribute to the positive impact of ERP projects.
The authors conclude that the benefits of ERP systems in organizations can vary, depending on decisions made regarding such aspects as functional scope and physical scope. Also, complementary investments can increase the returns of ERP investments. Overall, at the firm level, the impact of ERP investments varies depending on such factors.
The paper did not include discussions on the limits and possible errors made in the study. These could have provided for a more realistic view the study. I would rate the paper as follows.
• Readability: 8
• Quantity and Quality of references: 8
• Contribution to the field: 9
• Personal Interest: 8
If given the chance, I would ask the author this: How extensive is the negative impact of contemporary investments on ERP investments?

Reference
Ranganathan, C., & Brown, C. V. (2006, June). ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms: Toward an Understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables. Information Systems Research, 17, (2), pp. 145-161.

Week6

Running Head: Interactions between IS Professionals

Interaction quality between IS professionals and users:
Impacting Conflict and Project Performance

Your Name: _____________________________________ Date: _____________
Authors: Eric T. G. Wang, Henry H.G. Chen, James J. Jiang, Gary Klein
Title: Interaction quality between IS professionals and users: impacting conflict and project performance
Source: Wang, E., Chen, H. Jiang, J. et. al., (2005). Interaction quality between IS professionals and users: impacting conflict and project performance. Journal of Information Science, 31 (nd), 273-282. doi: 10.1177/0165551505054169.
Keywords: interaction, information system, project management, stakeholders’ working relationships
Keypoints:
• The link between the IS professional and the user of the system does not imply the success of the project
• Conflicts on the external and internal relationship in the system matter, and this is found to be affecting the interaction quality is such a negative way.
• In order to address the effects of this conflict, the organization should look up to these conflicts, so as to attain project goals.
Detailed Overview:
The paper discusses the effects of conflict on the IS professionals and its end users. a good number of studies were done in order to deduce facts that lead them to the conclusion. at the end of the study, the authors of the study found out that the interaction between he IS system and the user of the plan does not dictate the success of the project. Conflicts are regarded as independent entities which have nothing to do with the results. Likewise, the conflicts experienced by the project team leaders are independent to that of the users' and the project team members. Having the idea that these conflicts are mutually exclusive; the organization should find it vital to monitor interactions and stakeholders' relationship within different projects, since this will contribute to the success rate of the development project.
What didn’t the paper say or include?
The authors of the article have included a lot of concept discussing management of the people in the workplace, as well as the roots of the possible conflicts that may arise.
May I suggest that the author include psychological explanations of the mentioned conflicts? The concept of psychoanalysis will facilitate the more effective management of the team members, the leaders and the users as well. It is in the study of the dynamics of the brain that the managers can very well motivate the workers to work and result to effective development plans. Given that psychology is the study of how the brain works, how the human thinks, it is always included in the introduction to management course back in the undergraduate curriculum.
Rating: 7 (It has very well expounded the ideas regarding the topic)
Readability: 8 (it is quite of high bracket, which is just appropriate since it targets the graduate studies)
Quantity and Quality of references 7
Contribution to the field 8
Personal Interest 7 (I really am into this field of study. This is kind of a fresh topic that had attracted my attention)
Questions for the author:
1. What brought you to the idea of the topic? Any experience? Field of interest? Or line of job you are into?
2. What have you found interesting upon accomplishing this article?
3. Are you on a further research to improve the currently available information about this topic?

References:
Wang, E., Chen, H. Jiang, J. et. al., (2005). Interaction quality between IS professionals and users: impacting conflict and project performance. Journal of Information Science, 31 (nd), 273-282. doi: 10.1177/0165551505054169.

Week 8

Week8_Testing and Documentation

Testing Tips for Controls 2X – Version 2

These suggestions are for completing BSA Testing for Controls 2.X and do not include all possible scenarios.

Control 2.1

General notes: For mainframe access, supply your high level application code (aka tech guide prefix, e.g. FL*, OI*, etc.) and the production frame to Information Security (Tim Mathis) and request a RACF listing of entities with WRITE or ALTER access to your program code, files, databases and other objects your application owns on the frame.

Test Step A Part 1: Review the listing(s) you receive, and note all generic or group sign-on ids with access to your objects, such as CRIS, OPER, NGL2, or any APA IDs. Document all of the people and/or processes which can log on to these userids. This will be part of your testing evidence.

Your evidence sheets also should include part or all of this listing and a written explanation. If it is too many pages (more than 25), you can include the first couple of pages and an excerpt showing some of your objects.

Make it easy on yourself -- make sure you circle, underline and label the appropriate call-outs. Remember that your evidence sheets will ultimately be reviewed by non-IT, non-JCPenney people, and they must be able to clearly understand exactly what they are reading.

Test Step A Part 2: If you use Endevor to store your source code, link to http://jweb.jcpenney.com/infosys/infosc/compliance/soxaudit.htm and scroll to the bottom of the page. You will see two links for Endevor Information. The first link contains a master listing of Endevor libraries, and the second link contains tips on reading the Endevor listing and locating the access listing for your application. Your testing show follow the same pattern as you used in Part 1, and your evidence sheets should be similar as well.

Test Step B: From a listing of members in your own security group (you can find this through SANS), randomly select five (5) individuals, and verify that they are current associates or contractors. You can verify their status either through Associate Lookup or through SANS. A screen print of each associate’s information will serve as sufficient evidence.

Control 2.2

General notes: Most applications authenticate using MPAS and/or NSP, which enforce the password security policies located at http://jweb/infosys/infosc/polpronew/gen/pass-s.html. These policies require a password to be a minimum length, contain both alpha and numeric characters, and be changed every 45 days.

Test Step A: This test step is mostly related to server access and database access by IT developers “outside” of the application; it does not include a test of the access a user has. If your application is on a server for which your group does not have administrative access, state so on your testing template, and indicate who does have administrative access. If your servers are maintained by Tech Services, for example, include a reference to the Tech Services Control Roadmap for further information regarding server administration. “Administrative access” means that you have access to the server or database under an administrative id other than your own userid.

Do you have administrative access to a server or database through an administrative id that is not your own userid? Do you have a database (SQL or other) which has its own security? Do you have access to a UNIX server? AS400? Tandem? These are authentication situations which are not handled through MPAS or NSP. Do you maintain your own table of developers who can access and modify your application code or objects? How do you authenticate? If you operate on a platform that is not provisioned through MPAS, how do you enforce the password change policies? Do you have unique userids that can be traced to an individual?

If your application uses only userids and passwords administered through MPAS or NSP, indicate that on your response.

Test Step B: This test step relates to application access. As with Test Step A, this test is for “IT developer only” access to the application on production or staging platforms/servers/frames. This test has no concern whatsoever for the user’s access. Can you change production or staging data, application code, objects from outside the application? Ask the same questions from Test Step A, and document your answers.

Control 2.3

Test Step A is directed toward the issue of developers being in very large security groups which support a broad array of resources, resulting in developers having base (or default) access to resources not required for their job function.

Test Step B attempts to verify that access permission was granted by the resource owner when access to that resource was not granted as a default.

These instructions assume that access to your resource is managed through the SANS system. Due to the variation in systems design within the Company, these steps may not be suitable for your application.

**NEW** For this control your sample group should be limited to associates who transferred into your security group during fiscal 2006. If your resource is managed by SANS, you will be able to retrieve the SANS request; however, SANS is not the only method of requesting/granting access.

Test Step A: To complete this step, access SANS and select the help screen that lists BASE access for your security group. Locate the resource item(s) for your application. Then access the help screen that lists Security Group members, and get the list for your security group (do not limit it to a specific AOR or unit). Randomly select five (5) users and verify that they should, in fact, have access to your resource.

Test Step B: Contact Information Security (Tim Mathis) to request a listing of all users with “on-request” access to your resource items(s); this/these will be the same item(s) you used in Test Step A. Choose 5 users randomly from the list and locate documentation that permission was granted by the resource owner for those users to have access to that resource. Permissions documentation may be in the form of an email you sent, or which may have been sent to you through the SANS system. Recent SANS requests have an audit trail; contact Information Security to request a copy of the approval documentation for each of the 5 individuals.

Control 2.4

This control is specifically testing system administrator privileges (related to operating system access). Does anyone in your group have this type of privilege on the mainframe? Unix? AS400? Tandem? Servers? Others? Document all individuals who do and what level of access they have. Verify that this type of access is necessary and appropriate for each individual listed. If your servers are administered by Tech Services, your response should note that fact and should reference their Control Roadmap.

This control is different than Control 2.2A and 2.2B, which reviewed the password security policies for access. This control reviews the validity of the users’ access.

Control 2.5

This control is similar to Control 2.4, except that it refers to developers with powerful administrative access to databases and applications. Mainframe access to DB2-type resources will be limited to Stan Mann’s group, and your documentation can reflect the fact that you do not have access to any high-level SYSADM-type ids. Other platforms, such as Oracle, are frequently maintained by the developers, and individuals with this type of access should be documented in a list and reviewed to determine whether or not access is still appropriate. Any limitations or controls that are in place to restrict access or use of these ids should also be documented.

Week 7

Week 7
Tai Cleveland Date: February 22nd, 2009
Authors: Mark I. Hwanga, Ron G. Thorn
Title: The effect of user engagement on system success: A meta-analytical
integration of research findings
Source: Elsevier Science B.V

Keywords: User involvement; User participation; System success; Meta-analysis; Organizational impact; Information System; Controversial areas in information system; User engagement;

Key Points:
• There are quite a number of studies that focused on the involvement of user engagement to system success, but empirical results have been found controversial and inconsistent.
• Inconsistencies lie on the theoretical foundation of system success and user involvement and participation, and on the methodologies that were used in the research studies.
• Meta-analysis is commonly used to integrate the results of two or more studies. This method also reduces sampling errors that were made in the studies in order to give a more accurate summary of the literature. Meta-analysis is used in this research to show the effect of user engagement on system success.
• User engagement is positively correlated with system success.

Detailed Review:
This study aims to find out the effect of user engagement on system success. There are numerous studies already that focus on this subject, but the authors find the results of independent researches inconsistent with one another. With this problem at hand, the researchers try to give more accurate results by using meta-analysis, a method that is used to integrate the results of several studies. Reviews have been made to point out the differences between the empirical results of the researches that deal with user engagement and system success. The biggest contribution that this study could offer is that it intends to make sense of the inconsistencies that are revealed in the previous literature.
The process of meta-analysis brings the outcome of a number of researches together, and gives a more concrete picture how user participation and user involvement can affect system success. Results show that the user engagement is definitely positively correlated with system success, despite the apparent differences of individual studies involved. However, there are still many untapped areas in this subject, and it is recommended that further researches look into the moderation of different variables used in the study.

What didn't the paper say or include?
The paper did not give a clear picture of the theoretical foundations of user engagement in the context of system success, which may confuse the first-time reader of what the study is all about. The methodological parts used in the paper were not given in detail as well. The authors could have given the scope of their study. Although meta-analysis sounds attractive as a tool of integrating the results of several studies, the authors were not able to justify why they picked the studies that they used, and how is it possible to correlate the results of different studies given that they have different theoretical background.

How would you rate the paper?
Readability 8
Quantity and Quality of references 7
Contribution to the field 6
Personal Interest 6
Overall, I find the paper easy to read. It can be easily understood by someone who would read it the first time. However, I don’t feel that the paper gave justification to their conclusions, hence the relatively low scores in contributions to the field.

If you could ask the author(s) one question, what would you ask?
What are the criteria that you used in choosing the studies that you involve in your research?

Week8 Article Review

Week8 Article Review
Tai Cleveland Date: March 01st, 2009
Authors: Jane Coughlan, Mark Lycett, Robert D. Macredie
Title: Communication issues in requirements elicitation: a content analysis
of stakeholder experiences
Source: Elsevier Science B.V. 2003

Keywords: Communication; Requirements elicitation; Content analysis; Stakeholder experiences; System development; Stakeholder participation;

Key Points:
• This is a pioneer study grounded upon the theoretical foundation of communication concerns in the gathering of stakeholder requirements
• Requirements elicitation among stakeholders exists in a highly complex social/technical environment which leads it to become a very communicative process. Communication issues are built upon this type of environment.
• This study is an offshoot of previous research studies that were made to analyze the communication process within a social context. It adapts the four-dimensional framework that used previously to present and analyze their data
• The study is limited to a small number of sample size, and the framework used is still in its infancy
• Each dimension (i.e. stakeholder selection and participation, stakeholder interaction, communication activities, techniques) of communication has an equal importance in the process of communication in requirements eliciting
Detailed Review:

Requirements elicitation (RE) among stakeholders is both continuous and crucial in system development. It involves a very complex communication process, the nature of which is highly vulnerable to errors. This is due to the fact that stakeholders are subject to both the behavioral and technical aspects of requirement elicitation, and therefore must maintain the balance between the two. Having the need to undergo a complex process, the users involved in requirement elicitation must then be subject to a communicative and continuous process, which could then become a strong foundation of the repetitive RE process. The purpose of this paper is to point out highly problematic areas involved in the communications process.
The researchers used interview to acquire data from business consultants and project managers of several companies. The questions cover a broad area of the communication process in RE. Then they categorized the information that they gathered, and presented it in a four-dimensional framework: Dimension 1: Stakeholder1 participation and selection; Dimension 2: Stakeholder interaction; Dimension 3: Communication activities; and Dimension 4: Techniques. These comprise the dedicated structure of activities performed during the requirements process as part of engaging stakeholders in the design process.
The researchers used a highly qualitative approach to their study, which they claimed made up for the lack of a large number of participants. They claimed that this approach gave a more in-depth insight to the issue. The results of this study show that communication process is highly thematic, and themes can be further grouped into different categories. Each of these categories, however, is of equal importance to the entire process itself.

What didn't the paper say or include?
The paper is highly theoretical and qualitative. It lacks empirical data to support the conclusions and interpretations of the data. Also, the paper is limited to the small sample size, which I think is not representative of the entire population.

How would you rate the paper?
Readability 6
Quantity and Quality of references 7
Contribution to the field 7
Personal Interest 6
The paper is a bit draggy and confusing, especially in the first part. It does not immediately point out the problem.

If you could ask the author(s) one question, what would you ask?
I understand that this study breaks down the communication issues in different categories so that it can easily point out problematic areas. Given that, how can you translate your results to one concrete problem that may be looked upon in future research studies?

Week 9 Article

Week 9
Tai Cleveland Date: March 08th, 2009
Author(s): Steven J. Simon, Varun Grover, James T. C. Teng, Kathleen Whitcomb
Title: The Relationship of Information System Training Methods and Cognitive Ability to
End-user Satisfaction, Comprehension, and Skill Transfer: A Longitudinal Field Study
Source: Simon, S. J., Grover, V., Teng, J.T.C., & Whitcomb, K. (1996). The Relationship of Information System Training Methods and Cognitive Ability to End-user Satisfaction, Comprehension, and Skill Transfer: A Longitudinal Field Study. Information Systems Research. Vol. 7, No. 4, Series 471
Keywords: Lewin Experimental Leaming Model, Kolb's Learning Model, traditional and nontraditional training techniques
Key Points:
 Comparison of traditional and nontraditional training techniques in computer related training
 Analysis of trainees’ performance outcomes, end-user satisfaction, cognitive ability and system use on both traditional and nontraditional training techniques
Detailed Overview:
As an essential factor for the success of decision support systems, the effectiveness of training techniques can greatly augment the maximum outcome performance of the trainees. Using the Lewin Experimental Learning Model and Kolb's Learning Model as framework, a field experiment was conducted to two hundred members of active duty U.S. Naval Construction Battalion to compare the effectivity of traditional and nontraditional training techniques
with regard to computer related training. The experiment also aimed to determine which of the two training methods provided maximum trainee's retention of material and transfer
of learning.
The trainees underwent lectures/instructions, independent study or exploration and behavior modeling as nontraditional technique being an enhanced combination of the other two methods. To test the effectivity of the two training methods, the trainees were evaluated prior to training, immediately after the training and four weeks after the training in terms of performance outcomes, end user satisfaction. The study utilized cognitive ability and system use as covariates.
Results of the experiment revealed that trainees who underwent hands-on training methods particularly behavior modeling have superior knowledge retentions, transfer of learning and end-user satisfaction. Meanwhile, the cognitive ability was not able to properly predict the success of the trainee. However, it can be noted that system use, training methodology and end-user satisfaction has a direct link on the trainees’ performance outcome.
What didn't the paper say or include?
The paper did not include the trainees change in behavior pertaining to computers or computer related anxiety. As novice computer users, there could have been a number of stumbling blocks on the trainees attitudes that they were able to hurdle as they undergo the training process.
How would you rate the paper?
Readability 7
Quantity and Quality of references 8
Contribution to the field 8
Personal Interest 9
If you could ask the author(s) one question, what would you ask?
What extent does traditional and nontraditional training technique affect the trainees’ performance results and computer usage over time?

Week 10 Article

Week10
Tai Cleveland Date: March 15th, 2009
Author(s): Demosthenes Akoumianakis and Constantine Stephanidis
Title: Building Consensus in Human–Computer Interaction Design: Integrated Activity-Oriented
Design Environments
Source: Akoumianakis, D & Stephanidis, C (2005). Building Consensus in Human–Computer Interaction Design: Integrated Activity-Oriented Design Environments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 18(1), 85–103
Keywords: activity-oriented design environments (AODE), human–computer interaction (HCI), alternative design perspectives
Key Points:
 Prominent designs of human–computer interaction (HCI)
 Activity-oriented design environments (AODE) as proposed design support tools to facilitate increasing complexity of HCI
 Need for integrated design platforms that ensure interoperation between
design perspectives, tools used, and corresponding outcomes.
 Sharing of experience on the Activity-oriented design environments (AODE) proposal
Detailed Overview:
Activity-oriented design environments (AODE) design was proposed to augment the increasingly complex nature of human–computer interaction (HCI) design. The principle of AODE is that there is no specific tool category that will best suit the wide range of design tasks and that there are various tools that can be consolidated in operable manner to augment different tasks. As an integrated design platform of, AODE ensures interoperation between tools used, design perspectives and respective results.
Based on the author’s experience, AODE aimed to facilitate accessible HCI design revealed that such environment should be consolidated systems of interoperable components that served as conduit across different problem-solving schemes, the people that use them and the tools that serve them. Hence, the different data can receive and transmit data from one another to support the gamut of activities via progressive and persistent computational protocol.
Hence, the proposal of AODE and similar proposals should be designed within a wider organization change in perspective to replace the current passive documentation and reproduction design into more active mechanisms.
What didn't the paper say or include?
The paper did not include any setbacks that the authors encountered during their experience with the activity-oriented design environments (AODE) proposal.
How would you rate the paper?
Readability 8
Quantity and Quality of references 7
Contribution to the field 8
Personal Interest 7
If you could ask the author(s) one question, what would you ask?
What quantitative parameters did the author explored in designing the AODE proposal?

Week5 Article

Week5 Article Summary and Review
Tai Cleveland February 08th, 2009
Author(s): Ranganathan, C., & Brown, C. V.
Title: ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms: Toward an Understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables.
Source: Information Systems Research, 17, (2), pp. 145-161.
Date of Publication: June, 2006
Keywords: enterprise resource planning; ERP; business value; planning system; IT system; information systems; business information system; business impact; business IT project; system project; project scope; IT investment; IT business value; business value.
Key Points:
• Through an organization integration lens that examines not just ERP projects made by the companies, but also other related investments complementary to the ERP projects, and through options thinking logic, ERP investments have varying potential advantage to business at the firm level.
• Variation in potential advantage is mainly because of differences in decisions on the ERP projects within the organizational context at the time the investment was made.
• ERP investments with higher functional scope lead to positive and higher returns.
• ERP investments with high physical scope lead to positive and higher returns.
• Negative returns were actually observable in ERP investments that have lower functional scope or lower physical scope.
• Other investments can positively contribute to the positive impact of ERP projects.
Detailed Overview:
The article discusses the effects of enterprise resource planning (ERP) projects on business organizations. The study examines the cases of actual companies that have implemented ERP projects. The authors, Ranganathan and Brown, indicate that the study is important because it contributes to existing literature on the importance of ERP projects in business. It is important to note that the study’s main focus is the firm level, where the effects of ERP investments are examined. The authors used an organization integration lens that examines not just ERP projects made by the companies, but also other related investments complementary to the ERP projects. The authors also used options thinking logic in examining the value of ERP. Through this logic, the authors argue that the ERP investments have varying potential advantage to business at the firm level. Such variation is mainly because of differences in decisions on the ERP projects within the organizational context at the time the investment was made.
The authors examined 116 cases of ERP investments, as announced by US-based 116 companies in the period 1997 through 2001. Upon analysis, it is shown that (a) ERP investments with higher functional scope lead to positive and higher returns; and (b) ERP investments with high physical scope lead to positive and higher returns. The authors indicate that functional scope includes such aspects as supply chains, while physical scopes include the number of sites at which the investment is made within the organization. Aside from this, it is also shown that negative returns were actually observable in ERP investments that have lower functional scope or lower physical scope. Also, other investments can positively contribute to the positive impact of ERP projects.
The authors conclude that the benefits of ERP systems in organizations can vary, depending on decisions made regarding such aspects as functional scope and physical scope. Also, complementary investments can increase the returns of ERP investments. Overall, at the firm level, the impact of ERP investments varies depending on such factors.
The paper did not include discussions on the limits and possible errors made in the study. These could have provided for a more realistic view the study. I would rate the paper as follows.
• Readability: 8
• Quantity and Quality of references: 8
• Contribution to the field: 9
• Personal Interest: 8
How extensive is the negative impact of contemporary investments on ERP investments?

Reference
Ranganathan, C., & Brown, C. V. (2006, June). ERP Investments and the Market Value of Firms: Toward an Understanding of Influential ERP Project Variables. Information Systems Research, 17, (2), pp. 145-161.

Tai Cleveland Doctorate Student at Colorado Technical University

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Class CS822 Doctor Lance

No comments:

Tai cleveland Blog Archive

About Tai Cleveland