Questions 1, 2, 5, And 6 - Page 3561 Consider The Reasons Im

Questions 1 2 5 And 6 Page 3561consider The Reasons Implementati

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

Implementing information systems within organizations is a complex process often fraught with challenges leading to failure. Understanding the common reasons for implementation failure is critical in designing strategies that mitigate such risks. Among these reasons, three prominent ones are poor planning, inadequate user training, and resistance to change. Each reason can be explored to understand why failures occur and how specific approaches can reduce their likelihood.

Firstly, poor planning often leads to project failure because it results in unrealistic timelines, underestimated resource requirements, and unclear project scope. Inadequate planning may be due to insufficient stakeholder involvement, lack of expertise, or poor communication among teams. To minimize this risk, adopting a comprehensive project management approach, such as structured planning methodologies like PRINCE2 or PMBOK, is beneficial. These methods emphasize upfront planning, stakeholder engagement, and risk management. Conversely, a high-frequency, ad hoc implementation approach with minimal planning typically induces failure due to unpredictability and unmanaged scope creep.

Secondly, inadequate user training frequently results in system underutilization or misuse, ultimately undermining the investment. Lack of proper training leaves users ill-prepared to adapt to new systems, leading to frustration and resistance. Implementing blended training strategies, combining hands-on sessions, tutorials, and ongoing support, can significantly reduce this risk. Training programs that are well-integrated into daily workflows promote better adoption. On the other hand, poor or superficial training sessions, often conducted as one-off presentations without follow-up, tend to induce failure by failing to develop user confidence and competence.

Thirdly, resistance to change is a psychological and organizational barrier often causing implementation failure. Employees may fear job loss, feel uncertain about new processes, or distrust management initiatives. Addressing resistance involves change management strategies, including effective communication, stakeholder involvement, and demonstrating the benefits of the new system. Top-down mandating without employee involvement is more likely to induce resistance and failure. Successful implementations tend to involve change ambassadors and user feedback to foster acceptance.

Regarding the debate over training versus documentation, both are essential components of a successful implementation. Sam’s emphasis on training stems from its ability to provide immediate hands-on experience, build user confidence, and promote quick adoption. Well-executed training helps users understand system functionalities, reduces errors, and accelerates productivity. However, Pat’s focus on documentation highlights its importance as a reference resource for current and future users, ensuring long-term usability and knowledge retention. Relying solely on training or documentation is risky; an integrated approach that combines initial training with comprehensive, accessible documentation is most effective. This ensures ongoing support and caters to different learning preferences, ultimately leading to a higher success rate in system adoption.

When managing a budget-constrained system implementation, choosing between e-learning and face-to-face training involves considering cost, effectiveness, and organizational context. E-learning offers scalability, flexibility, and lower costs, making it suitable for large or geographically dispersed workforces. It allows employees to learn at their own pace and provides consistent content delivery. Conversely, face-to-face training, especially via train-the-trainers models, can foster interactive learning, immediate feedback, and clarification opportunities. This approach tends to be more personalized and effective in complex or sensitive topics. If cost efficiency is paramount, e-learning might be preferable; however, for topics requiring greater engagement, face-to-face training might be more impactful, despite higher costs.

Reliance on vendors for computing support presents both advantages and disadvantages. Support from vendors can guarantee access to specialized expertise, latest technology updates, and prompt issue resolution. Vendors often have a vested interest in maintaining system functionality, which can lead to more dedicated support. Conversely, over-reliance on vendors can result in dependency, reduced internal capability development, and potential loss of control over system management. This dependency might also incur higher costs over time, limit customization options, and lead to conflicts of interest if vendor priorities diverge from organizational needs. Therefore, a balanced approach—maintaining in-house support capabilities while leveraging vendor expertise—is advisable to ensure operational resilience and strategic flexibility.

References

• Barrett, D. (2016). Successful System Implementation: Strategies and Pitfalls. Technology Management Journal, 24(3), 50-67.
• Gallear, D., & McClurg, F. (2012). Change management and user resistance in IT projects. Journal of Information Systems, 26(4), 243-262.
• Hertzum, M., & Simonsen, J. (2015). The role of documentation in successful IT implementations. Interacting with Computers, 27(1), 69-78.
• Koskosas, I. (2018). Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Review. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2761–2785.
• McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2017). Harnessing automation for competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 126-133.
• O'Neill, S., & McCarthy, S. (2020). Cost-effective training strategies in IT implementation projects. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 180-192.
• Rainer, R. K., & Cegielski, C. G. (2018). Introduction to Information Systems: Supporting and Transforming Business. John Wiley & Sons.
• Smith, J. (2019). Vendor partnerships and organizational IT support. MIS Quarterly Executive, 18(2), 89-104.
• Williams, C., & Zenger, T. (2014). Change management in IT implementation. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 45-66.
• Zhao, J., & Wallin, J. (2017). Strategic approaches to e-learning in corporate training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29(4), 283-298.