Early Mistakes
The Analysis phase of the systems lifecycle is the beginning, the time when nothing may be known apart from the need for something new and, at the end of the phase, requirements have been defined. During the Planning phase, the project takes shape until a new system has been selected, a contract has been negotiated and signed and implementation work can start.
Disappointingly, it is often only during the Review phase that mistakes made during the Analysis and Planning phases become apparent and it is realised that the cumulative effect of the earlier mistakes adversely impinged upon the implementation activities. In many ways the early work is more important because it is during this time that the objectives are defined along with the means to achieve them. A system can be likened to a building where it is not unusual to find problems appearing in other parts that can be traced back to problems in the foundation.
There follows just a few of the many examples of mistakes that can damage a system implementation before traditionally recognised implementation activities begin:
| The time and financial, human and physical resources required to plan and manage a project of this nature and to specify, evaluate, acquire, implement, operate and maintain a system of such impact have been underestimated. |
| The specification of system requirements has either not been done at all, or the appointed personnel have insufficient knowledge of requirements, infrastructure, legacy systems, relevant strategies and the functionality provided by a wide variety of systems to produce an accurate specification of requirements and influence the evaluation and selection of a replacement system. |
| Key departmental users, teaching staff, information systems professionals, administrative functional experts and/or those with executive authority have been alienated by limiting their input and involvement, particularly in the early stages of the project. |
| Insufficient research has been undertaken in finding and visiting a number of reference sites that are sufficiently advanced in their use of the preferred new system and in gathering and/or acting upon meaningful recommendations or vetoes. |
| Rather than thoroughly examining the mundane, but critical, issues of quality and support of the current version of the preferred system, organisations have instead been hoodwinked by the promotion of future features and 'vapourware' from software suppliers, who are all too often focused on the promises of the next release and the 'bells and whistles' of future versions. |
| Negotiations about a suitable contractual arrangement with the supplier at an early stage have been neglected, instead contractual matters are left to the very end of a lengthy and tiring system selection process and the preparation of a contract rushed through in the belief that all things will go well and the signed contract will go into a drawer never to be looked at again. |
| Perhaps surprisingly for organisations concerned with educational activities, some institutions have only made superficial plans for training and staff development and, consequently, have underestimated the costs both during the implementation process and afterwards as further changes are made and new staff arrive. |
Other infoKits within the series are available to help alleviate some of these common errors:
Process Review offers a step by step guide to analysing and remodelling an institution's business processes to ensure they focus on delivering benefits for the learner.
System Selection provides a scalable and structured approach to selecting software and its related Kit on Contract Negotiation enables you to chart a course through the minefield of contract negotiations.
Good Project Management is essential to the success of any Implementation and our popular infoKit on this subject leads you through a robust project management model based on tried and tested techniques, tailored to the education sector.
