Case Study 3

Question 2
c) Explain two actions that the contractor could have done a better job of
developing systems.
1.
Firstly, the contractor had no understanding of the desired software systems.
The contractor also did not fully understand the requirements of the agency where the
terminology was vague and caused multiple delays or amendments. The contractor
should therefore have a proper and thorough discussion with the agency. The
discussions should also be repeated with several sessions afterwards in order clarify
any more misunderstandings and as a follow-up to progress done.
They should discuss properly what the agency really wants as their desired
software systems. The agency needs to be asked of the requirements of the systems
specifically so that the contractor can note down and work on it more effectively.
Furthermore, any misunderstanding or unknown terminology can be cleared up if the
contractor discusses and clarifies with the agency. Doing so could decrease many
problems and needs for amendments. This would be able to further do a better job at
developing the systems.

2.
Other than that, the contractor faced many agency delays for things to be
approved, mainly due to poor quality of documentation under review. With the delay
of approval, the contractor would have to waste more time waiting and many
activities would be more costly and caused even more problems in the long run. The
agency did not have to approve each separate development phase for things to
continued. This would have led the contractor to continuing work that might have the
wrong direction.

The contractor should confront the agency in a formal way to ask the reasons
for delaying approval of submitted items. They should draft out a risk of delaying
approval to show the extra expenses that could properly occur if the items are not
approved sooner properly. They should also improve the quality of the documentation
under review to further increase the efficiency and speed of any approval. Besides
that, the contractor should require the agency to approve each development phase
before moving on to the next phase. This is to safequard any possible future mistakes
or wrong way of direction carried out. The contractor could have conducted activities
or modified the system to a way which the agency would not approve or need. A
rework or redo of the systems could happen because of the unapproved phase, causing
more expenses to incur and generally waste both the agency and contractors time.
The contractor would need to set up guidelines for when a phase is completed and
present the new phases requirements or activities to the agency before continuing their
work. They should also constantly inform the agency of their progress and schedules
so that the agency can check back on them any time for minor changes before
irreversible actions are carried out.

d) If appointed as auditor of the agency, what is the verdict produced in relation

to agencys systems development project procedures?
As an auditor for the agency, the verdict is that the systems development
project procedures are not properly set up and have several risks.
Firstly there should be an audit procedure set up to make sure the agency stuff
all know the needs and wants for the desired software systems. This would point out
the staff who would not have a clear idea of the goal and requirements, further
preventing any misunderstanding among the agency and contractor.
Next, there should be an audit on the amendment times. There would need to
be properly check on the reason for amendments and the amount of expenses along
with the proper reasons to justify it. This could prevent or detect fraudulent activities
that could be going on between the agency staff and contractor trying to increases

spending for inappropriate activities or personal gain. There is also a problem with the
agency delays where time taken to review submitted items for approval. There is no
proper quality of documentation for the review, which should be modified for general
use in the future following a certain agreed upon framework.
Furthermore, there should be a pre-implementation audit carried out on the
systems before each phase is continued. During the development process, auditors
should check if the development was according to plan or schedule and certain
standards that align with the agency. The control framework that is designed for the
system should be thoroughly inspected and also the system development life cycle.
Post-implementation audits are also to be carried out after the software system
is finished completing. There could be no assurance of the system being fully
designed as wanted and maintained as needed.
Doing these audits could be cost-effective in the long run to correct certain
mistakes and weaknesses in the control framework during the development process.
Doing it before the implementation is carried out would prevent large quantities of
resources from being wasted due to the mistakes that could have occurred.

e) Can we generalise from this case that organisations should not try to have
custom software written for them? Why or why not?
Generally, based on this case, organisations should NOT try to have custom
software written for them. This is due to a number of various reasons.
Firstly, custom-made software requires ample time and effort to be carried out.
A lot of expenses are needed to improve any design changes or newer
implementations. The time taken to design is usually long as the contractors would
need a lot of effort to understand the agencys wants and needs and to cater to every
detail properly without compromising quality. In the long run, these effort, time and
expenses used would accumulate to more expenses that needs even more time to
reimburse with the profits or advantages generated from the desired software system.

Furthermore, maintenance of the custom software system is a hassle. Any

breakdown of the system needs a specialised team of the creators to fix or repair it.
The specialists would cause a lot of expenses as they are the only ones capable or
understand the system themselves.
Using the custom systems also require lots of training. The staff and members
of the agency need to be provided enough training to properly operate the systems.
Regular testing on the staff to make sure they understand the system well is needed.
This would also require much time of the staff which could be used on earning more
profits for the agency instead. The training of staff would also cause more expenses to
hire someone to teach them.
Other than that, regular updates or improvements of the systems would also
need more money to be conducted since they need to outsource the contractors again.
The agency would need to fork out a sum of money each period to be able to make
sure the system stays up to date and follows the changes that the agency is going
through. Further time is consumed to implement the changes and also leading to new
teaching expenses for the staff as well. If they choose to not update the system and
save costs, it might decrease the effectiveness of the workload or the profits in the
long run instead.
In conclusion, it is better for the agency to use a default and already made
software that is general. Accustoming to the new software could be easier since there
would be multiple guidebooks or cheaper methods to learn the system as opposed to a
custom one. Regular updates of the system could be cheaper due to many
organisations using it and causing the update expenses to be lower. In addition,
standardised software systems are already made which would not consume more time
and expenses for the agency instead of using a custom-made software. In the long run
a standardised software system would save cost, time and expenses for the agency.