RUNNING HEAD: CASE STUDY ANALYSIS FOR CAPTIVA CONGLOMORATE
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
1. MAJOR FACTS
- S.O. Software contract implementation delay regarding the module on spares management.
- Delay of implementing the regional and centralized inventory management system delay by ten months.
- Substandard performance of the regional and centralized inventory management system and inconsistency in standards of the system
- The regional and centralized inventory management system specification discrepancies
2. MAJOR PROBLEMS
- Corrective actions that should be put in place to solve the S.O. Software contract issues regarding the delays.
- Whether Captiva Conglomerate can sue S.O. Software due to the substandard functioning of its regional and centralized inventory management system
- Best solution:
Al Carpenter and his team should investigate and identify the alternative reasons for the failures in the spares management module to meet the expected standards specifications , and why its difficult for the technical staff to run and the regional and centralized inventory management system and reasons for delay in implementing of both systems the contract by establishing the establishing the cause of the substandard performance for instance errors in the design specification either software or incompatibility with existing hardware as put in (Strong et al., 2010) or lack of orientation of the technical staff to the new system and the reasons for the delay by four months and ten months respectively and how they can make up for the lost time within the organization for instance by using the I.T department to rework the specification and correct the errors themselves without involving S.O. Software.
- Captiva Conglomerate will not incur additional cost on the system like it would if it were to take the system back to S.O. software to have them rework and identify were the problem is because the is an issue of the mix up with specification contract that was signed by Gerry Captiva president without confirming the specifications.
- This will save on time because both systems are behind schedule by four and ten months. If Captiva reworks the design itself it will work fast and save time already lost.
- Captiva will own the system and will be able to work the semantics in case of breakdown they will not require the services of a professional.
- Captiva will have to set aside a team the delay of the two systems to look into hence will have to suspend other responsibilities that the team could have been attending to.
- ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION
The other next best alternative would be to return the systems to S.O. Software for redesigning by renegotiating the contract because the current contract cannot hold water in court.
- Al Carpenter and his team will get time to concentrate on there core business other than focusing on problems of the system inadequacies.
- It will cost Captiva more money to or renegotiate the contract with S.O. Software.
- Captiva Conglomerate will also loose more time waiting for S.O. Software correct the errors.
- IMPLEMENTATION OF BEST ALTERNATIVE
The best alternative among the possible solution is to Captiva Conglomerate to redesign both systems using their information technology department. This will involve the team redesigning the specifications of the management module software and regional and centralized management system or changing the hardware to suit the system. The team should then implement redesigned systems by, retesting and then running it to ensure that it is s workable or meets the required standards. Al Carpenter should then instruct his team to put corrective measures in place to ensure that system continues to function as required.
Strong D.M. & Olga. V. (2010). Understanding Organization-Enterprise System Fit: A Path to Theorizing the Information Technology Artifact.