Casepetries Electronics Determining Systems Requirements

Casepetries Electronicsdetermining Systems Requirementsalthough The

Casepetries Electronics is in the process of developing a customer loyalty program. Jim Watanabe, the project manager, has gathered information from key stakeholders, including marketing focus groups and studies of loyalty programs in other industries, to define system requirements and constraints. The requirements include effective customer incentives, ease of use, proven performance, ease of implementation, scalability, and reliable vendor support. Constraints involve cost limitations, implementation timeframes, and staff skills. The team prefers to avoid building an in-house system from scratch, favoring licensing existing solutions.

Jim evaluated several system alternatives: a data warehousing-based system from SBSI, a CRM-centered system from XRA, and a proprietary cloud-based system from Nova Innovation Group. Each alternative has advantages and limitations, and further detailed assessment is needed. Additionally, core functions for the system include recording customer activities, sending promotions, generating coupons, and providing customer reports. These functions are modeled with data-flow diagrams (DFDs) that define system boundaries and interactions with existing databases. The team discusses the importance of balanced DFDs and the value of creating visual models, even if coding is not performed by the team.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of a customer loyalty program at Petrie’s Electronics involves complex processes of requirements gathering, system analysis, and evaluation of alternatives. This case demonstrates the necessity of structured methods in defining system requirements, analyzing potential solutions, and ensuring the processes are well-understood through visual models.

Sources of information collected by Jim and his team are varied and include direct stakeholder engagement, market research, and analysis of existing systems used by other organizations. Jim conducted interviews with internal stakeholders—such as sales and marketing teams—to understand their needs and expectations. Additionally, focus groups with loyal customers were organized to obtain their insights and preferences regarding the loyalty program. Such qualitative data provided insights into customer expectations, which are vital for tailoring the system to user needs. Jim also studied industry best practices by examining customer loyalty programs in retail, airlines, and other sectors. This secondary research helped identify features that could enhance Petrie’s program, such as personalized rewards and multichannel communication strategies.

The collection of data was likely achieved through multiple methods: structured interviews, surveys, focus groups, literature reviews, and benchmarking studies. Interviews provide detailed qualitative insights into internal processes and expectations, while focus groups gather customer perspectives. Literature reviews and benchmarking help understand what functionalities are proven successful in comparable organizations. This multi-source approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of business needs, technical options, and industry standards, enabling the team to develop well-informed requirements and assess feasible system alternatives.

When seeking alternative approaches for Petrie’s customer loyalty program, initial steps should include extensive secondary research—studying existing products, vendor offerings, industry reports, and case studies. These sources offer a broad view of available solutions and their features. Networking with industry peers and attending trade shows or conferences can expose the team to emerging technologies and innovative practices. Consulting with system vendors directly allows for detailed demonstrations and discussions tailored to Petrie’s needs. Additionally, engaging with independent consultants or technology analysts can provide impartial evaluations of system strengths, weaknesses, and suitability.

The assessment of when the search for alternatives is complete hinges on achieving a comprehensive understanding of available solutions that meet the defined requirements and constraints. This involves comparing vendors’ offerings in terms of functionality, cost, implementation time, scalability, and support services. The team should establish evaluation criteria—such as scoring systems or decision matrices—to systematically analyze each alternative. Once a shortlist is created, involving key stakeholders for feedback ensures consensus. The process concludes when the team confidently selects a system that aligns with business needs, budget, and timeline, and when all necessary clarifications, demonstrations, and references are secured.

Petrie’s staff should avoid building their own custom system in-house primarily due to cost, time, and resource constraints. Developing a proprietary loyalty system from scratch demands significant investment in custom software development, hardware, testing, and ongoing maintenance. Such efforts are inherently time-consuming, risking delays beyond the three-month implementation window. Additionally, internal resources are better allocated elsewhere, and specialized expertise required for building and maintaining a complex, scalable system may not be available among existing staff. This approach could lead to elevated costs, increased risks, and potential failure to meet functional or performance requirements.

Standard industry solutions or licensed systems have matured through extensive use, offering proven performance, reliability, and support. Licensing an existing product accelerates deployment, reduces development risk, and provides vendor support, which is essential for ensuring system stability and timely issue resolution. Furthermore, licensed solutions often include built-in features, scalability options, and compliance with industry standards, making them better aligned with Petrie’s constraints on costs and implementation timeframes. Custom development would also require ongoing updates, which increase total cost of ownership, whereas licensing agreements typically include maintenance and updates as part of the package.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Petrie’s Electronics should focus on thorough requirements analysis, evaluation of viable off-the-shelf systems, and leveraging visual modeling techniques like DFDs to facilitate communication and understanding among stakeholders. Avoiding in-house development in favor of licensed solutions aligns with best practices for rapid deployment, risk mitigation, and long-term support. Effective decision-making relies on comprehensive data collection, systematic comparison, and stakeholder involvement, ensuring the chosen system effectively boosts customer loyalty while adhering to budget and timeline constraints.

References

• McGraw, G. (2020). Information Systems Project Management. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2020). Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital Firm. Pearson.
• Hall, J. (2018). System Analysis and Design. Cengage Learning.
• Pressman, R. S. (2014). Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Sharma, H., & Shankar, R. (2021). Customer loyalty in retail: A systematic review. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102352.
• Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2016). The Strategic Management of Information Systems. Wiley.
• O’Brien, J. A., & Marakas, G. M. (2016). Management Information Systems. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Turban, E., et al. (2018). Electronic Commerce 2018: A Managerial Perspective. Pearson.
• Weske, M. (2012). Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer.