David Taylor: What Should It Do? Collapse Top Of Form Within

David Taylorwhat Should It Docollapsetop Of Formwithin The First Five

Within the first five days of the system going live, the primary concerns are verifying that the pre-existing information was accurately migrated into the new system and ensuring that system users, such as runners and registration personnel, can register for races without issues. Monitoring the functionality and accuracy of race data within the system is critical; if discrepancies or malfunctions are encountered, corrective maintenance must be initiated to restore proper operation, often involving the IT department.

After four weeks, the focus shifts towards enabling guest accounts linked to runners and specific races so that friends and family can track racers' progress in real-time. The system must effectively integrate with the event’s tracking and timing systems, providing continuous updates on location and timing data. At the race's conclusion, the system should compile and update individual racer statistics and develop ongoing progression reports to analyze performance over multiple races. When issues arise, either adaptive or perfective maintenance is necessary. Adaptive maintenance introduces minor or major improvements to enhance usability without altering fundamental system architecture, while perfective maintenance involves extensive modifications that overhaul system components (Rosenblatt, 2014).

Both types of maintenance are resource-intensive, demanding significant IT support and planning to implement effectively. By the six-month mark, the system is expected to generate detailed race result reports for runners, summarizing their performance metrics. If the system cannot produce these reports, corrective or adaptive changes might be needed. For instance, if the problem involves simple data retrieval issues, a minor fix might suffice. Conversely, if the system fails to associate race results accurately with individual runners, a more substantial system update is required, but not a complete overhaul.

Paper For Above instruction

Implementing and maintaining a race management system requires a comprehensive understanding of system lifecycle management, including initial deployment, ongoing monitoring, and subsequent maintenance activities. The initial days after launch are critical for validating data migration and user registration functionalities. Ensuring that pre-existing race information is correctly transferred into the new platform prevents future discrepancies and operational delays. Additionally, user registration processes should be seamless, facilitating a smooth experience for both race organizers and participants. Regular system monitoring during this early phase allows identification of issues that could compromise data integrity or registration processes. Immediate corrective maintenance is vital to address any discrepancies, which might include correcting data migration errors or fixing software bugs that inhibit registration functions (Rosenblatt, 2014).

As the system stabilizes over the following weeks, additional features such as real-time tracking and guest access become priorities. Enabling spectators—friends and family—to monitor runners in real-time enhances engagement and participant satisfaction. The system must integrate with event tracking hardware to retrieve live location and timing data continuously. This integration requires careful calibration and ongoing support to prevent data loss or latency issues, which could detract from user trust and system reliability (Rosenblatt, 2014).

Post-race, the system’s analytical capabilities come into focus. It should accurately record and update each runner's statistics, such as race times and rankings. Building progression reports provides valuable insights for runners’ performance trends over multiple events. Any failure to generate correct or comprehensive reports indicates underlying problems. Corrective maintenance—like fixing data association errors—or adaptive maintenance—such as enhancing report-generating features—may be necessary. Both approaches require dedicated IT resources and strategic planning to ensure minimal disruption and optimal system performance (Rosenblatt, 2014).

At the six-month milestone, system capabilities should include generating detailed reports based on race results. These reports serve as motivational tools for runners, providing feedback on performance and progress. Should the system fail to produce these reports or produce inaccurate data, targeted corrective or adaptive updates are crucial. For example, fixing the logic connecting race results to individual profiles could resolve reporting issues. In cases where foundational integration problems exist—such as race result matching errors—more significant system modifications could be needed, but a total overhaul should be avoided unless absolutely necessary (Rosenblatt, 2014).

Overall, effective system management involves a layered approach, balancing initial deployment, continuous monitoring, and iterative maintenance activities. Corrective maintenance addresses immediate issues, adaptive maintenance introduces user-centered improvements, and perfective maintenance enhances system robustness and functionality. Strategic planning for maintenance activities ensures the system remains reliable, efficient, and capable of supporting race operations, participant engagement, and data analysis over time.

References

• Rosenblatt, H. J. (2014). Systems Analysis and Design. 10th ed. Boston, MA: Course Technology.
• Hoffer, J. A., George, J. F., & Valacich, J. S. (2016). Modern Systems Analysis and Design. 8th ed. Pearson.
• Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. McGraw-Hill.
• Leffingwell, D., & Widrig, D. (2003). Managing Software Requirements: A Use Case Approach. Addison-Wesley.
• Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H., & Roth, R. M. (2015). Systems Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Peffers, K., Rothenberger, M., & Chatterjee, S. (2008). The Design Science Research Methodology in the Field of Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 16-27.
• Parnas, D. L. (1972). On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Communications of the ACM, 15(12), 1053-1058.
• Gall, J., & Thomas, G. (2010). Agile and Traditional Systems Development Methodologies: A Comparative Review. International Journal of Information Management, 30(2), 195-202.
• Somerville, I. (2011). Software Engineering. 9th ed. Addison-Wesley.
• Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley.