The first class was taught to a select group of existing project managers. The intent was to gain their acceptance of the program and have them become the “thought leaders” for the effort. Additionally, they were given the opportunity to discuss how the processes and related training should be changed. Using their input, the team made modifications as needed.
Gaining support and acceptance of the new management team and allowing the employees to have a voice in the development and implementation of the overall program created employee buy-in. Consequently, the new approach became
“business as usual.” As new employees joined the group, additional training classes were scheduled to assimilate them as quickly as possible into the organization and culture.
CONCLUSION
The major premise of this chapter is that culture change in large, well-established enterprises is often needed and very difficult to accomplish. Combine that situation with the need for effective project management, and managers have a very difficult task. In the case presented by the authors, the enterprise recognized the need for a major culture change to reflect the changing business environment, and a corresponding need for a much more disciplined project management approach than what was being used. The enterprise combined these two needs into a year-long program that involved the development and implementation of a project management approach that was used as the driver to effect a major culture change.
The most noteworthy measure of the success of this effort is that customer ratings of the IT organization went from barely adequate to excellent, and have been maintained over an extended period of time.
Chapter 23: Developing Applications with the User in Mind
Edward G. Cale, Jr.
Jerome Kanter
Donna B. Stoddard
OVERVIEW
The corporate scenario described in this chapter is an example of a common problem in the development of management support systems: in both systems design and implementation, too little attention is given to the needs and perspectives of the end user. Inadequate attention to ease of use in system design and lack of appropriate training and conversion preparedness affect applications aimed at salespeople, production people, administrators, middle managers, and senio r management. These shortcomings can be observed in companies across all types of industries.
ROLLING OUT A NEW SYSTEM — ONE CORPORATE
SCENARIO
A major investment company developed a new system that allows its portfolio analysts to obtain detailed analysis of the performance of a particular portfolio with comparisons to relevant industry benchmarks. The new system is a significant improvement over the current approach, and the company feels that it will provide a major competitive edge in acquiring and maintaining new customers. The rollout of the new system was planned for the beginning of the year, and more than 200
portfolio analysts in 20 locations throughout the world were to be involved.
Six months after the rollout, the company returned to the old system. Portfolio analysts found the new system difficult to use, leading to serious delays in sending statements to customers. Consequently, the company decided to postpone the conversion until problems could be resolved. The systems developers claimed the problems resulted from a lack of understanding on the part of the analysts, whereas the portfolio analysts said the new system was too complicated and prone to errors.
Part-time portfolio analysts in particular, who represent a significant portion of intended users, complained that the system was extremely difficult to use, and that what little training was provided was geared toward full-time employees.
Delays and Added Costs
Management estimates that system implementation will be delayed for nine months to a year. Some systems changes are envisioned, but the major difference planned in the future rollout is the formulation and delivery of a training program that first will be tested with a small but representative group of portfolio analysts and then extended to the entire staff before declaring the system ready to be used by all.
The cost of additional system tuning and training is significant: it includes the redesign work to make the system more usable, the training design and delivery
time on the part of the training group, the time the portfolio analyst group will spend in training, and the cost of hiring temporary help that may be required during the training period. Furthermore, although no specific monetary value has been assigned to it, the delay in obtaining a competitive portfolio analysis program could threaten the competitive position of the company. However, there is no question in the minds of developers that the benefits of the new system (i.e., increased level of business and the ability of the analysts to handle more accounts) will still more than justify the added training and conversion costs.
Although this scenario is only one example, it is typical of a real problem that is common in the development of management support systems — in both system design and system implementation, too little attention is given to the needs and perspectives of the end user.
For a good fit between an application and its intended users, designers must either create the system to fit the end user or develop a training and support program to make the end user fit the application. Attacking the problem both in design and in implementation ensures the highest probability of success. This chapter describes strategies that help companies ensure a good fit between an application and its intended users.
DESIGNING SYSTEMS TO FIT THE END USER
Three major factors affect the fit between an application and an end user: 1. The relative advantage of the application to the end user vis-á-vis whatever systems they were using previously
2. The relative technical complexity of the application compared to the end user’
s level of experience or comfort
3. The relative compatibility of the application with other day-to-day activities of the end user
Relative Advantage
Relative advantage addresses the questions, What is in it for the end users? Why should they use the new application? Will it allow them to better service clients and collect larger commissions?
Most users hope that an application will make their lives easier and help them to do their jobs better so that they will be justly rewarded. Users do not want to interact with applications that will isolate them from their fellow workers or allow management to better oversee and micromanage their daily activities.
Although developers usually do not consciously create applications that negatively impact users, sometimes it is necessary to develop applications that can, for example, increase the ability of management to monitor and control the employee. If this type of system must be developed, this fact must be dealt with both in system design and implementation. To reach a solution or compromise, there must be a close working relationship between system designers and intended users.
If a system must be developed that has negative ramifications for the users, one possible solution is to have the end user directly share in the benefits that fall to the organization as a whole (i.e., through bonuses or a similar reward). During training and implementation, trainers need to try to make the end users understand and identify with the overall gains to the organization.
Relative Technical Complexity
The relative technical complexity of an application refers to the level of technical sophistication that proper use of the application assumes in the end user. Whereas an airline reservation representative who is used to working with multiscreened systems with cryptic symbol input and output might find a new application with a similar interface easy to learn, the high school student working at McDonald’
s
probably would not.
As with relative advantage, to ensure system success, there must be a clear vision of the technical experience and educational sophistication of the intended users. Again, if a system must be built that stretches the technical abilities of the end user, this discrepancy must be addressed during training and implementation.
Relative Compatibility
The relative compatibility of an application refers to its fit with the end user’
s other
frequently used applications. For example, the new application may not define customer and product information in the same way that other applications do, which would require some retraining. The new system should fit with the way the end user is accustomed to viewing the world, rather than require the end user to keep two
“sets of books.” If the new systems do not mesh easily with other systems and procedures with which the end user is familiar, this is a strong indicator of the need for substantial training.
The best-case development scenario would result in systems that have a high relative advantage for the end user, that are not complex compared with the end user’
s capabilities, and that fit with the other activities, perspectives, and systems of the end user. To do so, it is critical for the system designers to be able to see the application from the perspective of the end user. The important point to realize is that ease of use is defined differently by systems developers who are experts and accustomed to dealing with complexity and by intermittent users who want to spend as little time as possible handling systems problems.