What I want, what you want – John Juan and Peter Pedro’s Point of view based on Experience - Assignment # 6

What I want, what you want – John Juan and Peter Pedro’s Point of View based on Experience

Consider the following dialogue between a systems professional, John Juan, and a manager of a department targeted for a new information system, Peter Pedro:

Juan: The way to go about the analysis is to first examine the old system, such as reviewing key documents and observing the workers perform their tasks. Then we can determine which aspects are working well and which should be preserved.

Pedro: We have been through these types of projects before and what always ends up happening is that we do not get the new system we are promised; we get a modified version of the old system.

Juan: Well, I can assure you that will not happen this time. We just want a thorough understanding of what is working well and what isn’t.

Pedro: I would feel much more comfortable if we first started with a list of our requirements. We should spend some time up-front determining exactly what we want the system to do for my department. Then you systems people can come in and determine what portions to salvage if you wish. Just don’t constrain us to the old system.

As what I’ve notice on their conversion, the department that Peter Pedro manage has its existing system already but it somehow not good enough to provide the department a solution to its problem. Now John Juan here has an idea on how they will conduct the analysis phase but also, Peter Pedro has its on idea with regards on how should be the analysis phase is done on the propose system. They both have an idea on how do they conduct the analysis phase and they both have their point. John Juan wants that they should include the existing system and its environment in the analysis phase while Peter Pedro just wants that the analysis should be done within the requirements given. In my own perspective, this ideas that John Juan and Peter Pedro shares with each other are based on their field experiences. John Juan thinks of the possibilities way beyond the project requirements while Peter Pedro only thinks of an immediate solution to the department’s problem. This will dictate the process and the time the system should take through its development.

For me, I will take John Juan’s idea on how they will conduct the analysis phase of the project. Why? Because by taking into account those factors as to what John Juan have mention (the existing system, the workers and key documents) in the analysis phase will help the system development team (John Juan’s part) to formulate and design the system that will not only provide solution to the problem but also fit’s in the working environment in which the system will be deployed. This approach in the analysis phase falls into the predictive way of analysis, so the development team should be able to define and determine those aspects that should be dealt and should have enough details to that part of the system. Also, the predictive approach provides lesser technical risk on the system developed therefore it lessens the redundancy of the process within the system’s development.

The analysis on the existing system on why it is not successful will help the development team on pin pointing the faults and lapses on the existing system and provide guidelines when (if it is required) creating a new system for the department for example or making revisions of the existing system. Faults on the system itself like poor structural design, loose programming functions and weak data security and distribution. Faults on the end user side like irresponsive to the changes required by the system to its users and failure to report found bugs on the system. So by knowing these, it would be much convenient for the system development team in the way that the team will not start its system development from zero. Also, by analyzing the existing system, the development team could get an idea how did the existing system tries to solve the problem and where did it fail.

The analysis on the person’s performance involved in the system is also important because they are the ones who will use the system. Also people, in my opinion, are an unstable factor that needs to be handled on the system development for they are critical to changes. How could I say? Well the changes in the system affect their work performance especially if they are not familiar to it. For an example if the company is still doing manual in issuing receipts and wants it to be automated, the people who are working on that section should know at least how to use a computer. So for those who are not familiar to computer would find the system troublesome because for them to use the system they still need to know how to use a computer then they should know how to use the system which is time-consuming and a headache especially to those people who needs to “scroll down a combobox in just to select their year of birth” and by that they would rather prefer the casual way of issuing receipts which is “nakasanayan”. The worker’s performance dictate’s if the system is a success or a failure in general. If the worker’s becomes more productive on his or her work then the system is good or else it is bad. Also, the proposed system should be easy and user friendly. For example, the graphical user interface of the system should be clean and all of its buttons, fields and menus should be clearly placed and displayed on the GUI.

Another factor that was mentioned by John Juan is the key documents. Key documents could be the existing system’s analysis results, information on the department where the existing system is being deployed or the requirements that the existing system should meet. The existing system’s analysis result serves as one of the references which the development team should look up in order to have an idea on what are the previous methodologies that are used to come up with the existing system and why it was not a success. Also, the development team could get some idea on the existing analysis result to produce a better analysis result that will serves as a pillar to establish the new system and for it to solve the problem efficiently. The development team should also know what is the nature of work that the department undergone, what are the documents that goes in and out of the department for example. And lastly are the requirements that the existing document should meet. The system sole existence is to provide solution to the problem in which the department or company deals with. So the requirements that were provided by the department or company should be take into account through the development of the system intended for the department or company. The requirements set the road on which the development team should follow in designing and building the system.

Unlike to Peter Pedro’s idea on how the development team should conduct the analysis phase which is just to know what are the requirements set by the department of company and then just work with the part that needs to improve. The way that John Juan wants to take in the analysis phase of the project would take some time. Why? Because the development team will still conduct an observation during the actual working hours to see how the system works through the working process undertaken by the department and how workers would interacts with the system but the time it could consume will be reduced dahil narin sa results that was generated on existing system.  Also, the development team will review all the documents including the existing system analysis result and the requirements of the existing system before to come up with a method on dealing the problem. This approach that John Juan suggests follows the waterfall model of the system development life cycle. Thorough analysis is conducted on different aspects that would affect the system before proceeding into the next phase of the system development. Whereas to Peter Pedro idea was just provide what is required on its department and then later improve other components of the system. Peter Pedro’s idea was okay due to the system was new to the department and developed in a short period of time.

                Both have made their point it both makes sense only that they don’t agree with each other because their idea doesn’t coincide with each other in some aspects but both of them wants the same thing after the system development process which is a system that would address to the problem in Peter Pedro’s department. In my idea, I would propose that different aspects that affects the system should be analyze first before proceeding on the other phases on the system development, taking into recognition to what was John Juan said and not just ask for the requirements for the system. For it will create less risk due to that every detail on the system development should be taken up and discuss through the group and then come up with methods through collaborated ideas from the developing team and to avoid uncertain changes on the existing system which has done its part efficiently. I could suggest also that if the existing system is still good but with just small errors and lapses, it does not necessary that it should be replace with a new system developed. Peter Pedro may not take notice this but if he insists on what he wants, the new system that will be developed will cause its department to spend more and on the side of John Juan is that the development team will go back to zero and repeat the same analysis conducted on the existing system previously upon its development process whereas if the developing team will just update and fix the existing system, the time on the analysis phase will be shorten and it will cost less for the company.

                I would also suggest that they follow the modified waterfall model because in this model phases could overlap with each other. This will answer to what Peter Pedro wants during the analysis phase which is there should be enough time to determine what they want the system should be for their department but this model does not apply it only to the analysis phase of the system development but all throughout the other phases. The development team should always think ahead what will happen next to the current phase they are working with to adjust or reformulate their approach to the problem on the latter part of the development process. Also, it is a good thing that the requirements are presented and available together with other documents which I could say that it can be produce at the same time because the existing system have already its analysis results and the only thing is that they will gonna do is to integrate the data that was collected and if any requirement that was not tackled in the analysis document of the existing system then that will be the time to conduct other analysis but only to the specify requirement that was lacking on the analysis document of the existing document.

Conclusion

                Peter Pedro and John Juan have different jobs, John Juan was a systems professional while Peter Pedro was a manager. Upon observing their conversation, they based their suggestion with regards to the nature of their jobs. On John Juan side as a system professional, it should be more specific with the details of the project for it is very important in the sense that details serves as the blueprint of the propose system and should be sufficient enough to meet the needs and provides solution to the problems stated. John Juan’s decision is based on what was presented to him and to what he thinks would be better for the proposed system will be. While Peter Pedro as a manager, he is more specific on what he sees and what is needed on the present and sticks to what was planned. There is nothing bad on this, but it is pretty had to deal with this kind of clients. For some times, it would be an experience of a lifetime as a system professional to have clients like this. For this client will surely shape up the very professional of you by having to provide what is on the agreement and to be formal as a professional. I my opinion, Peter Pedro will be a good client because he has sense of responsibility over its workmates and dedicated to what is committed.

                In this case, Peter Pedro would understand that it is not always be that a new system is the solution if John Juan could defend and state its opinion with regards to the kind of analysis they should implement. And if ever a new system will be implemented even though it meets with the requirement set by the department or company, it will create a negative impact to the workers on the department or company for the people on the company or department will adjust to the new system that was being implemented. Otherwise if the existing system is still be in use but with some modifications and upgrade made, it will not take for the workers to greatly adjust to the system because they are already familiar to the system already. They will just inform with the changes so that they workers will be updated and be able to adjust to its operations. And as long as possible, the solution on the problem should not be a new system for the sake of time, money and resources. Also, it should be clear to the client where in this example the client is Peter Pedro every step that the system will undergo for it maybe he could contribute important information that will fasten the development time of the system.

Peter Pedro was discouraged by the outcome of those previous systems that his department have. Kahit sino man ang pinangakuan ng isang bagay pero ng dumating na ay hindi iyon ang bagay na pinangako ay magagalit o maiinis – “tuga-tuga ra”. But it should not be the basis Peter Pedro should set
upon system’s development. Since I propose that John Juan’s idea will be followed on the analysis phase of the project, it was also clear to me what are the sentiments of Peter Pedro with regards to the system development analysis phase. Peter Pedro doesn’t tell exactly that those previous system was not good, the only thing is that the developer proposed a NEW system and so Peter Pedro expected that the solution would be a new system. I think that there is just some communication gap between Peter Pedro and to the developer team, maybe the agreement was a new system for the department but along the way, the developers would found out that it would be better if they will just modify the existing system but they failed to acknowledge Peter Pedro about the changes. I should advise to the both party that the communication should be constant not all the time but only when it is needed. Also if possible, the development team should meet the requirements that were client has given and meant what he or she has proposed.

In this scenario, Peter Pedro is the client and John Juan is the system professional but it does not tell that the client as the customer is always right especially in this scenario. It is a good thing that the client suggests what he thinks that would be the best for its department. It is not the fact that his idea will be rejected but instead it will be taken into consideration for he is still the client and John Juan should satisfy Peter Pedro’s wants on the system for his department. Also, John Juan should be also open to what Peter Pedro’s sentiments and should not let that Peter Pedro feels that his idea is disregarded. The very common and should be establish first aside from formal parts on the system development, both Peter Pedro and John Juan should develop good client-developer relationship for in which this one is put up, it makes the conversation which regards to system development and its other component much easier because both are open to with each other. Also, both should be friends so that it could cut the formalities especially when having short meetings which could not be a formal one, so instead of going to the company and set on the both edge of the conference hall table and discuss boringly what should be done, how about going out just like going for a brewed coffee on a café then have some good time while actually both of you are working.

To sum it up, it still depends on the current situation of the department of the company in which the kind of analysis should be taken into action. In the department that Peter Pedro handles, it has experienced not good no the system the previously implement and maybe affects the productivity of it so Peter Pedro takes an action and makes it clear to John Juan that the system that should be developed with strict compliance to the requirements set by himself. This is not just to insure that the system will provide the solution to the problem on the company but also to improve the department also. On John Juan’s part, he has to follow the model which he thinks that would be the best for the department’s system. We could not blame John Juan on how he sees the propose system. John Juan’s judgment on what approach to take on the system development particularly on the analysis phase is based on the details and component that will contribute and affects the system upon its implementation.