Critical Success Factor Analysis Essay Example for Free

Critical Success Factor Analysis Essay This wasnt the case for AA. They had clear Organisational vision and views set out from the beginning. Their reason for the new system was to improve the standards of customer service for customer loyalty and to reduce their cost which is their organisational strategy.  This resulted in three main business requirements for the new IS. Development of a nationally-based system   Separation of the functions   The provision of a base for new products or services  AAs system was definitely a business-led system. They had the idea for AAHELP long before technology caught up enough for the system to be implemented. Their IS system was led by a long-term vision from way back. A lot could be contrasted during the implementation phase also. In AAs case, they used a phase-by-phase approach. Each phase would have a business case. This was to make the job of convincing the board easier. This proved useful not only in convincing the board, but also in that it allowed a certain degree of flexibility, as the system could be adapted in order to deal with the changes in the organisation more generally. This gradual incremental approach to the development meant that even though the overall time of the project took longer, the system was checked more thoroughly, and thus was much less likely to have problems later on when it would cost a lot more to fix.  This is shown very clearly in the Symons case. They hired ProSys to deliver the full system in one go. During implementation, they found a lot of costly errors such as differences in Numbering Systems, and changes to the system which cost them an additional à ¯Ã‚ ¿Ã‚ ½15,000. IT TEAM There were some differences between the two even in their I.T Team. Firstly, AA had their personal in-house I.T staff while Symons hired programmers. There are several benefits of in-house I.T staff. It takes shorter time for problems to be sorted out. Another difference was that the IT Team all worked in one location only. This built team spirit and encouraged formal and informal communications. Working so close together also meant that problems would be noticed, and sorted out much faster. Strategic Information Systems Planning Methodologies  The task of strategic information systems planning is difficult and often time organizations do not know how to do it. Strategic information systems planning is a major change for organizations, from planning for information systems based on users demands to those based on business strategy.  Vitale, et al. (1986) classifies SISP methodologies into two categories: impact and alignment. Impact methodologies help create and justify new uses of IT, while the methodologies in the alignment category align IS objectives with organizational goals. Impact Methodologies  Value Chain Analysis  A form analysing business activities. It helps in devising information systems which increase the overall profit available to a firm and identifying the potential for mutual business advantages of component businesses, in the same or related industries, available from information interchange. It concentrates on value-adding business activities and is independent of organizational structure. Strengths: It concentrates on direct value adding activities of a firm and thus pitches information systems right into the realm of value adding rather than cost cutting  Weaknesses: Basic concept of a value chain is difficult to apply to non-manufacturing organizations where the product is not tangible and there are no obvious raw materials. It also fails to address the developmental and implementation issues. Critical success factors analysis can be considered to be both an impact as well as an alignment methodology. Critical Success Factors (CSF) in the context of SISP are used for interpreting more clearly the objectives, tactics, and operational activities in terms of key information needs of an organization and its managers and strengths and weaknesses of the organizations existing systems. Critical success factors are limited areas of the business where if the result is satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organisation Strengths: CSF analysis provides a very powerful method for concentrating on key information requirements of an organization, a business unit, or of a manager. This allows the management to concentrate resources on developing information systems around these requirements. Also, CSF analysis is easy to perform and can be carried out with few resources.  Weaknesses: CSF analysis by itself is not enough to perform comprehensive SISP because it does not define a data architecture or provide automated support for analysis. CSFs also focus primarily on management control and thus tend to be internally focused and analytical rather than creative