Introduction
In this case, we study the problems that the Jefferson County School System, JCSS, incurred as part of a major data systems overhaul. The intended purpose was to provide a smooth transition and completely replace the old system that the JCSS had been using for many years. We can see that while the old system had many faults and shortcomings, one of the things people seemed to like the most about it was that they could have it tweaked to do exactly what they wanted it to do. The old system was an in-house system that relied upon the IT team constantly making changes to support users’ desires. While the overall process of submitting the a request for proposal, RFP, appears to be done well enough, it is only after the fact that we see that members of the selection committee did not take this serious enough and that more research and more detail were needed throughout the process.
Background
This Case Study provided very detailed background information on how this data systems migration came to fruition. For instance, we learn that when Dr. Greene was hired as the Superintendent of Schools, one of the first things he did was assemble a task force to analyze the current data system and make recommendations for the future. More specifically, this included the implementation of a purchased software package to meet their needs and to eliminate the programming staff. The Director of Data Processing, David Meyer, was infuriated that he was not included in this task force and upon learning of their desire to eliminate his department, chose to resign from his position. This introduces the new Director of Data Processing, Carol Andrews. While Carol had thirteen years of experience, this threw a major migration under her supervision though she was a novice in the current system.
We then learn that the JCSS sent out RFP’s to twenty-three possible vendors. The RFP stated, “The proposals will be evaluated on functional requirements, support services and a 5-year life cycle cost” (Brown, Dehayes, Hoffer, Martin & Perkins, 2012). We also see some sample information from this RFP, which was a seventy-one page request. Of the twenty-three RFP’s sent out, only seven proposals were submitted to the JCSS. It was then Andrews’s job to narrow that list down and she decided on three potential candidates. These candidates were asked to make presentations of their software to the selection committee. This committee appeared to be a good cross-section of JCSS users as it included assistant principals, deans, counselors, teachers, the personnel director and the chief accountant. It was also intended to have representatives from each of the different levels of schools from the larger school locations. Later we learn that this may not have been the best cross-sectional group, in reality, as many did not take their roles as serious as they should have.
Ultimately, the list was narrowed down to three possible vendor solutions and again we see a potential failure on behalf of this committee. While it was intended that the committee would visit a school that used each of these vendor’s systems, budget issues limited the visits to two sites. This essentially ruled out one of the possible vendors immediately. Thus, the evaluation process in which these three systems were compared did not fairly analyze the system from Orian Computer Systems. Only schools with Data Systems, Inc. (DSI) and Scholastic Systems received visits from committee members. Therefore, when we look at the evaluation of bids, it is very likely that Orian received a rating of three on every category because not enough information was known about their systems. Members of the committee did make phone calls to schools that were using all three of these systems and reports from all schools came back with equally high remarks. This tells me that more information needed to be obtained on the Orian system, especially when we consider that it was the most economical option available. Ultimately, the JCSS decided to purchase the DSI system and loaded the software on the JCSS servers in December. This is where the trouble began.
Discussion
We quickly learn that it appears there was a lack of solid training from DSI, as most schools had to figure the system out on their own. This led to scheduling issues, inability to produce needed reports on attendance and difficulty in submitting grades for the staff. DSI did not offer much help in this matter as rather than looking into a possible software bug, they blamed the issues on user error. While it does eventually appear that this was the case, this only highlights the fact that DSI did a poor job of training the JCSS staff on how to use this new system. The staff was used to a proprietary system that they could have JCSS programmers manipulate in any way they wanted to perform their desired tasks. When dealing with vendor software, it is imperative to know the limitations of that software and to work with the system, as opposed to working around it. The latter proved to be the case in many instances described in the Case Study as we learn that several schools wound up doing things by hand because they could not figure out how to use the software properly.
It becomes apparent at the end of this study that after the fifteen-month implementation, everyone is warming up to the system and has started to learn how to use it effectively. Again, this points back to a terrible training program offered by DSI. For example, Dr. Ruth Gosser, who is the Assistant Principal for Central High School, pointed out a major flaw in the training provided by DSI. “They weren’t very well-organized, and they spent too much time on the technical aspect of the system. I just wanted to know how to use the system, but they tried to give me a lot more and it really confused me and made me angry,” (Brown, Dehayes, Hoffer, Martin & Perkins, 2012). This is a prime example of poor training for end users. If DSI is going to provide in-depth technical training, that should be reserved for Andrews and her staff. End-users do not need to know the details of how a program operates, rather they should be getting detailed information on how to properly execute the program and manipulate it to their needs.
I believe the statements from Andrews and Gosser are the most revealing in this Case Study. For example, Gosser points out, “My participation in specifying requirements and evaluating the proposed systems was minimal. It was a big committee, and I was busy with other things, so I didn’t even read the materials very carefully. I disliked spending the time that I did, and I was really turned off by the details, especially the technical details. I remember thinking: Ugh! I’m sick of this. Just go ahead and buy something!” (Brown, Dehayes, Hoffer, Martin & Perkins, 2012).
This is an unfortunate reality whenever making major decisions like this, especially when committee members are seemingly uninterested. The obvious down side here is that this “uninterested” member of the committee quickly became a very interested member when she did not like the new system. It is clear that Gosser is not very technically savvy as she was bored by the details in the selection process and was frustrated by the high level of technical details provided in the training from DSI. Unfortunately, we learned in the study that many members who had to learn this new system had little to no computer experience prior to using the DSI system. This provides more evidence that a better training package was needed to make this a seamless transition.
In following with the concept that the committee may be partially to blame for the troubles encountered, Andrews pointed out in her reflection of the process, “It was hard to get effective participation from the members of the computer selection committee. …I couldn’t even get the people to read the RFP, let along the responses. Actually, it should have been more detailed.” (Brown, Dehayes, Hoffer, Martin & Perkins, 2012).
She also provides more evidence that DSI did not provide proper training, “DSI hasn’t had much experience with training, and they just didn’t do a good job with. They left me, a new user, with too much responsibility for setting up the training and making sure that everything in the system was ready for it. And they didn’t provide me with the training I needed.” (Brown, Dehayes, Hoffer, Martin & Perkins, 2012).
If DSI did not provide enough training to the Director of Data Processing and her staff, how we can possibly expect that they provided enough training to less technical users of the system?
Possible Solutions
Possible solutions include a more detailed RFP that would have outlined in detail the needs from each department. This could have led to a different group of potential vendors completely. Even if it led to the same group of vendors to be evaluated, the evaluation process was also flawed in that not all vendors were given fair consideration. Orian Systems was essentially written off without just cause simply because a site visit was not conducted. Ultimately, the biggest issue I see in this study is the lack of training provided by DSI. Again, this could point back to a more detailed RFP. Knowing that many of the system users are not technically savvy, training programs should have been rated very high in the evaluation process. I also agree with Andrews in that this system should have probably been tested in a pilot setting, implementing the software in a single school, working out the bugs, and then doing a complete deployment.
Conclusion
Ultimately, this case study boils down to a break down in two major areas, a weak RFP and poor vendor training. It would appear that a more technically savvy committee should have been assembled to provide a more in-depth analysis of the software considerations. While representation from each department was a good idea, I think the IT department should have been making most of the evaluations and deciding upon the criteria. Instead, it appears a group of technical novices were left to make a rather expensive decision for the entire school system. This may have led to a hasty decision as members seem to have been bored with the process and since most reports coming back from other schools showed all the systems to be equal, it is apparent that more research was needed and this should have been done by Andrews and her department.