Reference no: EM131553376

Question: 1.Case analysis

Jackson Insurance and Title Company

Mark Suturana joined the Jackson Company sixmonthsago. He is an experienced management information sytems executive who has been given the task of improving the responsiveness of Jackson's data processing group to the end user. After several months  of investigation, Mark felt certain he understood the current situation clearly enough to proceed. First, approximately 90 percent of all end user requests came to data processing (DP) in theformof a project, with the DP output either the ?nalproductof the project, or, more commonly, one step of a project.

Accordingly, Mark felt he should initially direct his efforts toward integrating DP's approach to projects with the company's formal project management system.It has been Mark's experience that most problemsassociatedwith DP projectsrevolvearound poor projected? nition and inadequate participation by the enduserduring the system design phase. Typically, the enduserdoes not become heavily involved in the project untilthenew system is ready to install. At that point, a greatdealof work is required to adapt the system to meet end-userrequirements. Mark decided to institute a procedure thatputend-user cooperation and participation on the front endoftheproject. The idea was to de?ne the objective anddesignof the system so thoroughly that implementationwouldbecome almost mechanical in nature rather than anintroductionto the end user of "his or hernewsystem."

Mark also recognized that something had to be donetocontrolthe programming quality of DP's output. Amoreeffective front-end approach to DP projects would subject DP managers to more intense pressure to produce results within user's needs, including time constraints. Markwasconcerned that the quality of the DP output woulddeteriorateunder those conditions, especially given the lack of technical expertise on the part of end users and outside project managers. To solve this problem, Mark recommended the creation of a DP quality assurance (QA) manager who would approve the initial steps of the projects and review each additional step. The QA manager would have the authority to declare any step or portion of the output inadequate and to send it back to be reworked.

Questions: Is this a good control system for DP? Why or why not? Does it also represent a good control point for company projects using DP to accomplish oneportionof the project objective? What would be your answerifyou were a non-DP project manager? Might scope creep become a problem under this new system? If so, how should mark control it?