View
222
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Computer System for Asylum SeekersComputer System for Asylum Seekers
• £77 million system• Plan to reduce time consuming paperwork• Installed 1998 and dogged by problems• Immigration Service Union
– current methods of dealing with asylum seekers virtually collapsed– process is a “criminal racket”
• Immigration and Nationality Directorate have had to take thousands of extra staff
• 69,000 processed in 2000, only 9000 left country• 2001 - 66,000 application backlog• Political party involvement• 2003 - 15,000 asylum seeking families allowed to stay in the UK
NHS Systems ModernisationNHS Systems Modernisation• System designed to allow doctors to access information
(through patient records) whether at local GP surgery or in hospital or outside local NH Trust area
• Declared cost £6.2 billion• Estimated total costs between £18.6 and £31 billion• NHS systems developer quoted in Computer Weekly
(2004)– “It is generally accepted in the IT industry that implementation
costs are some 3 to 5 times the cost of procurements.That is reflected in the business case that was made for the national programme”.
User concerns with systems User concerns with systems developmentdevelopment
• IT people have too much power and control over departments through use of technology
• IT people have elevated status in the organisation
• IT people continue to be highly paid even though IT systems often fail !
• exacerbated by lack of communication and use of jargon
Principle of User Centred Principle of User Centred ApproachApproach
• Addresses many of the issues associated with system development / software development failure
• Ownership of process• Helps address risk• Taps into source of knowledge• Embeds socio-technical, cultural and
organisational issues
Reasons for User ParticipationReasons for User Participation
• Ethics– people have the basic right to control their own
destinies
• Expediency– if people do not have a say in decisions or changes,
they are more likely to reject
• Expert Knowledge– people who do the job are experts on the job
• Motivating force– participation is a great motivator
Principle of Involving Users in Principle of Involving Users in System DevelopmentSystem Development
• Derived from socio-technical satisfaction fit model
1. knowledge fit• knowledge being developed to make staff increasingly competent
2. psychological fit• job matches employee’s status, advancement and work interest
3. efficiency fit• effort-reward bargain• work controls matching employees expectations• supervisory controls
4. task-structure fit• degree to which tasks are demanding or fulfilling
5. ethical fit• match between employee values and organisational values
Who are the Users ?Who are the Users ?
Potential users?
Internal/external
Position inorganisation
Skill & knowledge
Frequency ofuse
Prescribed orad hoc use
Physicalcharacteristics
Values, interests,background...
Direct / indirect
Other considerations ...
StakeholdersStakeholders
• “all those claimants inside and outside the organisation who have a vested interest in the problem and its solution.”
(Mason & Mitroff, 1981)
Systems Development and Systems Development and OrganisationOrganisation
Systems Development Organisation
Purpose
Direction
ChangeProgramme
ChangeProject
ActionsandDeeds
AllowableBehaviour
Culture
BeliefSystem
GuidingPrinciples
IT, the User, and Organisational IT, the User, and Organisational ChangeChange
• Eason (1988) states that “the introduction of information technology can revolutionise organisational life”.
• add in the pace of change and the magnitude of change and the impact becomes greater !
• organisational change can take one of two forms– planned, as part of the introduction of systems
development, see Collinson (1993)– reactive, as a result of implementing information
system, see Buchanan and Huczynski (1991)
Model of DevelopmentModel of Development
Feasibility
Analysis Prototype
Design andBuild
PlanIncrement
RollOut
UserAcceptance
Development spectrumDevelopment spectrum Rapidity ofDevelopment
Degree ofRigour
Hacking CodeTogether
Development Projects
Formal Methods
highly visible user interfaces
well defined narrow user community
few system interfaces
definable immediate business value
quality criteria not a big issue
time-boxing is viable
high degree of potential commonality
wide user community
stringent quality criteria
value is not always immediate
interface between legacy software, dbases and software packages
timeboxing not viable
Users and DevelopmentUsers and Development
Working together or against each other ?
??Empowerment or Deskilling?
Types of user (1)Types of user (1)
Primary - regular, direct users of the system Secondary - occasional users of interactive
systems, or those who work with system outputs
Tertiary - people who don’t use the system themselves but are affected by its operation, often customers or suppliers.
From Eason, (1988)
Types of user (2) Types of user (2)
• Governing body– part of organisation which determines strategy
• Sponsor– commissioner of system
• User specifier (ambassador user in DSDM)– key user with knowledge
• End user– operators
• Input generator– non-direct users who generate data, e.g. sales rep
• Output receiver– non-direct users who get information from the system
From Lodge (1989)
Types of Computer UserTypes of Computer UserUser Type Task Frequency
Complexity of Use Adaptability
Professional High High High
Enthusiast High Low High
Servant Low High High
Malleable User Low Low High
Needful User High Low Low
Demanding User High High Low
Habitual User Low High Low
Forgetful User Low Low Low
Derived from (Eason, 1988; Smith, 1997)
Factors in Measuring User Skill LevelFactors in Measuring User Skill Level
Low High
HighHigh
IT literacy
ApplicationKnowledge
Specific systemKnowledge
Novice
Expert
The Needs of the User Modelled !The Needs of the User Modelled !
UserNeeds
Functionaloperational taskrequirements
Physicalability / disabilityergonomic adaptability
Aspirationaljob satisfactionrewards
Functional - performs the specific tasks which the users require itto do in the operational situation
Physical - performs the tasks in a manner that is well suited to thephysical characteristics of the user
Aspirational - supports the medium to long-term personal goals of theuser
Initiation
Feasibility
Analysis
Design
TestingImplementation
OperationMaintenance
Users in the Development Life CycleUsers in the Development Life Cycle
Managers commission project and givestrategic requirements
Mangers and end users providefunctional requirements
Mangers and end users provide functional requirements, possible role in participativedesign
possible role in participativedesign
Mangers and end users,
End users take part in trials
Allusers
User Choice in Involvement !User Choice in Involvement !
• Do users have a choice in getting involved in systems development ?
• Do users have a choice in whether they use systems or not ?
• Managers may have discretion in whether they get involved or not !
• Operational users are more likely not to have the choice !
Changing RolesChanging Roles
• nature of systems changing
• nature of project development changing
• skills required changing
• tools available are developing
• need to work closely with other groups
• more technical requirements ?
UserUser AcceptabilityAcceptability
• Acceptability consists of usability and satisfaction• ISO definitions :
– usability “the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals”
• to take into account the user and the organisation
– satisfaction “the comfort and acceptability of the system”• relates to individual attitude within an organisational context
• Acceptability affected by :– resistance and rejection– attitude and behaviour
Change as a Result of Systems Change as a Result of Systems DevelopmentDevelopment
• introduction of computer systems leads to some form of change !
• change processes often involve conflicts of interest• successful implementation of systems requires careful
negotiation between affected parties• conflicts need to be brought into the open• Fullan (1991) argues that “conflict and disagreement are
not only inevitable but fundamental to successful change” • Mumford (1995) argues that “successful change strategies
require institutional mechanisms which enable all interests to be represented...” –
Levels of ParticipationLevels of Participation
• Consultative– design by IT, input by users
• Representative– design team includes user representatives
• Consensus– users are involved throughout the design
process
Issues in ParticipationIssues in Participation
• may result in polarising or fragmenting groups of users
• possibility of manipulation through selection of ‘tame’ users
• participation can cause resentment– from analysts / designers– from other users– from management
• growth in end user computing !
Problems (potential) in Problems (potential) in Participative DesignParticipative Design
• trust• election versus selection of the design group• conflicts of interest• stress• communication and consultation• role of professional systems designers • role of functional or departmental manager
Views on ParticipationViews on Participation
• management– a way of achieving changes that would otherwise have been
rejected– a means of democratising the development process
• user– lip service to concerns– opportunity to contribute to inevitable change (progress !)
• IT developer– nuisance, waste of time– method of getting it right by getting users on the “side” of
the development
Levels of InvolvementLevels of Involvement
• support
• active time
• training
• skills development
• knowledge
• understanding
• responsibility
Impact on User of ParticipationImpact on User of Participation
• new skills
• empowerment
• changing status
• changing expectations
• new stress
• relationship with management
Conflicts for the UserConflicts for the User
• job / role requirements
• task complexity
• speed / accuracy of information
• departmental requirements
• organisational requirements
• political constraints
• developmental concerns
SummarySummary
• User centred methods potentially lead to improvement in systems development and a reduction in development failure
• Opportunity to embed organisational, cultural, political and socio-technical change
• Systems development takes place in a complex and complicated environment
• Often it is not only the technical issues which are challenges to development teams
ReferencesReferences• Beach L.R (1990) Image Theory : Decision Making in Personal and Organisational
Context, Wiley
• Buchanan and Huczynski (1991) Organisational Behaviour, Prentice Hall
• Collinson D. (1993) ‘Introducing on-line processing: conflicting human resource policies in insurance’, in J. Clark (ed) Human Resource Management and Technical Change, Sage
• Eason, K. (1988) Information Technology and Organisational Change, Taylor and Francis
• Fullan, M., G., (1991) The New Meaning of Educational Change, London: Cassell
• Lodge, L. (1989) “A user-led model of systems development” in K. Knight, ed. Participation in systems development, UNICOM Applied IT Reports, Kogan Page, London
• Marcus (1983) ‘Power, politics and MIS implementation’, in Baecker, R.M., and Buxton, W.A. (eds) Readings in HCI, Morgan Kaufman
• Mason, R.O. & Mitroff, I.I. (1981), Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions, New York: Wiley.
• Mumford, E., (1995) Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach, Macmillan
Recommended