Rich Con

As a president off company, Marty should have concentrated on overall management of the company and lead it to meets its strategic goals. Instead, she became intimately involved in integrating the new IT system which demanded more than 75% of her time which she did not plan for. If Sawyer had appointed a board with IT expertise as well as Individuals with industry and process expertise, she could have been moderately involved with the project with more time to spend on the operations of the company.Deliverables from this IT am would then be from selection of an IT system based on Rich-con's need to flawless implementation of the system and then follow through its effectiveness for a period of time to make sure It Is working properly for all conditions. Lack of Fit-Gap Analysis: The business requirements were not defined to the vendor. The vendor did not care to understand the structure of the company, or the IT systems that Rich-Con already has in place. They were not familiar with t he knowledge and expertise of the staff and the expectations of the customers.Marty and Rich-Con Pete for an â€Å"off-the-shelf† software package to implement in their organization. The selection process of the new IT system was based on some factors true for metal industries and some generic questions posed by Marty. By doing so, Rich-Con failed to recognize the Incompatibility risk of the replacement IT system. C. Omitting test phases and pilot launch prior to mass deployment of the new IT system: Any big change implementation should go through several testing phases with progressive maturity of features.Rich-Con failed to work with their vendor to customize the new system and test it out at multiple phases. They also did not go through a pilot launch phase to pick up a portion of its operations, rather than forcing the whole operations Into this new system all at once. With test phases and plot launch, employees would nave gotten ten opportunity to test out ten system, of fer important feedback which would have resulted in minimal disruption to overall operations, should something go wrong. D.Insufficient training for transition to the new system: Marty Sawyer relied on the vendor to train her employees to learn he new IT system. There was no incentive for the employees to learn this system since they did not understand how their Jobs would change once the new system was in place. The vendor did a very poor Job in offering training since they took a push vs.. Pull method to offer help. They waited to be asked questions on features and usage rather than establishing a standard implementation methodology and guide the customer through that.The frustration of Marty showed in her comment, â€Å"We had people come in and do training. It Just never really took on a life of its own. † e. Lack of customization of application software to fit the need: Even though the vendor indicated that they would accommodate requests to modify the software, Marty di d not take advantage of that. Rich-Con did not get the software tailored to fit its unique needs. In comparison, Marty spent time to configure the software to align with Rich-con's business needs and importing all existing information to its database.Overall, to replace Rich-con's antiquated IT system, Marty took a centralized decision making approach, rather than decentralization it to engage leads from every functional apartment of the organization. She lost important inputs from different work groups in that process. Other issues that Marty needed to manage simultaneously were to address Union problems, ensure that management of making the newly purchased Round operational, and address the reason of dropping sales figures and the inefficiency of the new management team.All these issues compounded and created a disaster for Rich-con's operations. Question 2: Which CUBIT governance processes might have prevented these problems? The CUBIT governance processes that could have prevent ed these problems lie within Planning and Organizing' and ‘Acquiring and Implementing the software implementation process at Rich-Con Steel. Although ‘Delivery and Support' and ‘Monitoring and Evaluation' are critical components following the implementation of new software, the problems could have been avoided if the two former processes were defined and followed.