Introduction
The case study touches a number of issues associated with the existing system of Midsouth Chamber of Commerce (MSCC) in relation to the new system to be implemented for the purpose of improving operations. Lessita who is the project director is seen pushing for a new project implementation after getting an approval from the top executive committee. It is evident from the beginning that the team responsible for the final migration from the existing to the new system seemed to be against the idea. Kovecki and Hedges who are directly responsible for the implementation under the leadership of Lessita appear to be all against this implementation and therefore they try to sabotage it through their failure to fully cooperate. In the end, the future of the new system is not clear even after staff training by the UNITRAK software firm.
Issues from the case study
It is apparent from the case study that lack of cooperation from various staff is the cause of all problems in the new system implementation at the right time. This lack of cooperation is due to existing problems in role assignment that makes a number of staff dissatisfied with their jobs. It is evidenced by the reaction of Kovecki from the time new roles were assigned to them by the top executive. In fact, he began to be uncooperative and against every idea immediately after the role assignment. The same case applies to Hedges and Wilson who all seem to be against every idea from Lessita. The reality of the matter is that any successful project implementation requires the support of all stakeholders within a business entity (Kerzner, 2013).
It is also clear from the case study that the existing customized system is not efficient enough for the operations of MSCC both at present and in the future. UNITRAK firm has proved very economical to offer a new system which even worked perfectly when it was sold to Northern State Chamber of Commerce(NSCC) which operate the same business as MSCC. Lessita has also carried out his study extensively about the UNITRAK system and its benefits in terms of profits and payback period. He was therefore able to convince the top executive basing his idea on the cost and benefits, making the executive buy the same idea by approving it. Wilson at first argued that implementing a new system and hiring full-time system analyst would be very expensive. He was still against the cost effective system proposed by Lessita from UNITRAK but this time without any solid reason. In short, those against the new system were just trying to express their indirect personal differences with Lessita.
As a result of the inherent issues in the MSCC, I would recommend the following: First, the top management of MSC should always consult with other staff members before making various appointments. It will be very important since good management is a corporate thing and not a one man show or an idea for a particular group( Roth, 2014). If this is done everyone will end up being comfortable with their job and issues of incorporation and project sabotage will not exist as witnessed in this case study. Secondly, the current roles held by Kovicki and Hedges should be assigned to other willing and competent staff. This is the case if the success of the new project is to be realized since their reasons of being against the new system implementation are not that substantial in my opinion to be taken into an account. Wilson’s role also needs to be changed since he seems to be ever clashing with Lessita right from the beginning when it comes to the idea of new system. The future of the new system will therefore be much certain if the role modification suggested in this paper are considered.
Recommendations for third party vendor contract
I would fully recommend the management of MSCC to continue contacting UNITRAK vendor since their system has proved efficient at Northern State Chamber of Commerce (NSCC) which does similar business as that of MSCC. Their system is also cost effective and is a potential solution for both the present and future problems faced by MSCC. In other words, the top management should support Lessita fully in their quest to implement this system given that he has excellent reasons for it which he has also justified and confirmed by the executive. In fact, Lessita’s idea is future oriented and fit for future improvement of MSCC operations.
Recommendations for adopting new information technology in the future.
I recommend the adoption of new information technology in the future if MSC is to realize increased profits. It is because information technology is a better tool for sales and marketing in the current business world. The increase in sales will thus directly translate to increased profits as justified by Lessita to the MSCC executives. I would further suggest that all departmental operations within MSCC to fully use the new system in future. It is for better improvement in throughput and efficiency since the current system is not future promising as explained by Lessita and seconded by others in the case study.
Conclusion
Technology is good for the improvement of any business operations. The success of implementing an information technology system depends on full participation of all the stakeholders. Any attempt to tolerate partial support from one or few of the stakeholders is a way of jeopardizing the whole process of implementation. The full participation can only be achieved if the top management takes the center stage in the whole process of change (Davenport, 2013).
References
Davenport, T. H. (2013). Process innovation: reengineering work through information technology. Harvard Business Press.
Kerzner, H. R. (2013). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.
Roth, S. (2014). The things that go without saying: on performative differences between business value communication and communication on business values. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 15(3), 175-191.
