Consider The Reasons Implementations Fail For At Least Three

consider The Reasons Implementations Fail For At Least Three Of The

Consider the reasons implementations fail. For at least three of these reasons, explain why this happens, if there is one (or more) type of implementation likely to minimize the occurrence, and if there is one (or more) type of installation more likely to induce failure for this reason.

Two members of your project development team are disagreeing about the relative importance of training and documentation. Sam strongly believes that training is far more important because it will ensure the successful implementation of the information system and that the early usage is a positive experience. Pat encounters that the user documentation is far more important because its impact can help not only the current users but also future users. Which do you think is right, and why?

Due to advances in technology and widespread computer literacy, many organizations use e-learning extensively to train employees. If you were managing a system implementation and had to train on a limited budget, you may find yourself choosing between e-learning or conducting face-to-face training with a subset of users who would then train their departments (called train-the-trainers). Which would you choose and why?

Is it good or bad for corporations to rely on vendors for computing support? List arguments both for and against reliance on vendors as part of your answer.

Paper For Above instruction

Information system implementation is a complex process fraught with potential pitfalls that can lead to failure. Understanding the common reasons for implementation failure is crucial for project success. Among the myriad causes, three significant reasons stand out: poor planning, resistance to change, and insufficient user training. Analyzing these causes reveals strategies to minimize their occurrence and highlights the types of implementations that might be more resistant or susceptible to failure.

Poor Planning as a Cause of Failure

Poor planning is frequently cited as a primary reason for implementation failure. When projects lack clear scope definition, unrealistic timelines, and inadequate resource allocation, they are prone to delays and failures. Poor planning often results in unforeseen issues that derail the implementation process (Somers & Nelson, 2001). To minimize this risk, organizations should adopt comprehensive project management methodologies like PMI or PRINCE2, which emphasize detailed planning, risk assessment, and stakeholder engagement (Kerzner, 2017). A phased approach with pilot testing can also identify issues early, reducing the likelihood of failure in the deployment phase.

Resistance to Change

Resistance from end-users and stakeholders is another major challenge. When users perceive the new system as threatening their routines or job security, they may resist adoption (Hirschheim & Sabherwal, 2001). Factors such as insufficient communication, lack of involvement, and fear of the unknown exacerbate resistance. Strategies such as change management programs, involving users early in development, and demonstrating the benefits can mitigate resistance (Kotter, 1997). Implementing incremental changes rather than abrupt shifts can also foster acceptance and reduce pushback.

Insufficient User Training

Inadequate training is a common reason for failed implementation. Users unfamiliar with the system are likely to make errors, have reduced confidence, and ultimately resist using the new system altogether (Seddon & Currie, 2000). The type of implementation that minimizes this failure is often one that includes structured, ongoing training programs that are tailored to users' needs. E-learning modules paired with hands-on workshops can reinforce learning and increase proficiency (Clark, Mayer, & Deimeke, 2015). Conversely, implementations lacking comprehensive training are more likely to fail because users are ill-prepared to leverage the system effectively.

Training vs. Documentation: A Comparative Analysis

The debate between the importance of training and documentation hinges on their roles in user competency and organizational knowledge. Sam's emphasis on training highlights its role in delivering practical, hands-on experience that builds confidence and skills quickly. Well-designed training sessions foster immediate understanding, especially critical during initial rollouts (Aladwani, 2002). On the other hand, Pat's focus on documentation recognizes its value as a reference tool for ongoing support, troubleshooting, and onboarding new users. Proper documentation ensures knowledge retention beyond initial training sessions, making it an essential component for long-term system success (Davis & Olson, 1985).

In my view, both are vital; however, if I had to prioritize, I believe training takes precedence during the initial implementation. Effective training ensures users understand and adopt the system rapidly. Nevertheless, exemplary documentation should complement training, serving as a permanent resource that sustains and augments user proficiency over time. The optimal approach integrates both strategies to maximize system success and user satisfaction.

Choosing Between E-Learning and Face-to-Face Training on a Limited Budget

When managing system implementation under budget constraints, choosing the appropriate training method is critical. E-learning offers scalability, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness, making it attractive for limited budgets (Clark & Mayer, 2016). It allows multiple users to learn at their own pace without the need for physical venues or travel expenses. However, e-learning may lack immediate feedback and personalization, which can limit engagement and effectiveness for some learners.

Conversely, face-to-face training with a train-the-trainers model ensures direct interaction, immediate clarification of doubts, and tailored instruction. This approach can foster a higher level of engagement and confidence among primary trainers, who then disseminate knowledge within their departments. Although this method incurs higher upfront costs, it can be more effective for complex systems requiring hands-on practice (Garrison & Anderson, 2018).

Given budget constraints, I would favor e-learning supplemented with targeted face-to-face sessions for critical or complex topics. This hybrid approach balances cost-efficiency with quality, leveraging technology to maximize reach while addressing the need for interpersonal interaction where it matters most.

Reliance on Vendors for Computing Support: Pros and Cons

Dependence on vendors for computing support presents both advantages and disadvantages. Advocates argue that vendors bring specialized expertise, up-to-date technological knowledge, and access to the latest innovations (Blokdijk & Kelbaugh, 2014). Outsourcing support can reduce the burden on internal IT staff, enabling organizations to focus on core business activities. Additionally, vendor support can ensure systems are maintained efficiently, reducing downtime and operational risks.

However, reliance on vendors also entails risks. It can lead to loss of control over support processes, increased dependency, and potential conflicts of interest (Lacity & Willcocks, 2017). If vendors do not deliver quality service, it can compromise system security, data integrity, and overall organizational performance. Furthermore, vendor lock-in may limit flexibility and innovation, as organizations may be hesitant to switch providers or make changes due to contractual constraints.

Ultimately, a balanced approach—where critical systems are supported by vendors with clear service agreements, while maintaining internal support for core operations—can mitigate risks and leverage vendor benefits effectively.

References

• Aladwani, A. M. (2002). Toward effective management of end-user training: A case study of an ERP implementation. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(1), 29-41.
• Blokdijk, G., & Kelbaugh, R. (2014). Vendor management: Building effective vendor relationships. IT Support Resources.
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Practices for Technology-Based Teaching. Wiley.
• Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (2018). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge.
• Hirschheim, R., & Sabherwal, R. (2001). Detours in the path of the information systems development process. Communications of the ACM, 44(8), 95-98.
• Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Wiley.
• Kotter, J. P. (1997). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Lacity, M., & Willcocks, L. (2017). Robotic process automation at maturity: Making the most of the business opportunity. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 105-124.
• Seddon, P., & Currie, W. (2000). A model of user responsiveness to information technology change. Information & Management, 37(3), 151-164.
• Somers, T. M., & Nelson, K. G. (2001). The impact of organizational responsiveness on user perceptions of information system success. MIS Quarterly, 35-52.