The article that I chose for this week is about a project that the US government new C.I.O. Vivek Kundra has proposed in order to keep track of federal technology projects. According to Mr. Kundra there is a lot of money wasted every year on federal government technology projects that get abandoned for one reason or another. In his opinion, the Federal Government has been wasting time and resources trying to come up with a custom designed system for every problem instead of using what's already available commercially.
Mr. Kundra is now in charge of managing $76 billion that is spent yearly to maintain 10,000 government systems as well as 800 active projects to build new systems. His answer to managing all these projects and systems and avoiding failures lies in the use of dashboards. He is planning to start another federal web-site that will allow officials as well as public accessing information about all of the government technology projects, their purpose, schedule and budget. It will also show the name of the official responsible for the project, and it will also keep track of any changes that are done which sometimes may be a sign that the project may fail if the number of changes is significant, more than 10, according to Mr. Kundra. The dashboards will also be able to show if "the start date of the project was retroactively moved forward to make it look less late." Based on a number of key indicators, every project will be rated from 0 to 10. The data from these dashboards will be available for people who want to build their own applications for analizing federal technology projects. Applications will also be available for posting on social networks.
Mr. Kundra believes that these dashboards will be particularly useful because people looking at them will be able to make suggestions about the technology. He thinks this might prevent government technology projects from failure.
I personally found this article very interesting. It seems that this guy has some great ideas that might save a lot of tax dollars from going nowhere.
References:
1. "The Nation’s C.I.O.: Government Needs a Dashboard." Saul Hansell. June 15, 2009.
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/the-nations-co-government-needs-a-dashboard/
Monday, June 15, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Case Study: Nestle Tries for an All-for-One Global Strategy
Question 2.
Originally Nestle adopted the multinational business strategy. Ther headquarters were set up in Switzerland, but each local organization was given a lot of freedom to condct business as it saw fit and adjust products to local cultures. So the company was largely decentralized. The same can be said about their IT system. To support a lot of variation and diversity Nestle was using 80 different IT units. Over the years Nestle discovered that such strategy and corresponding IT was inefficient and was starting cost the company a lot of money affecting its bottom line.
Question 3.
There were several challenges that Nestle's management had to overcome to standardize its processes. First of all, the original deadline for converting most of the company's operations to GLOBE was underestimated, and it had to be postponed several times from December 2003 to 2006. Secondly, it was extremely difficult to convince managers of operations across the world to change to a unified system. The GLOBE project manager Chris JOhnson basically had to tell the managers that if they didn't back im up, he sould simply get fired, and the CEO would choose one of them to do the job. Another challenge was to identify and describe the main processes which had never been put on paper before and had been passed by word of mouth.
Question 4.
Nestle dealt with these challenges in several ways. The implementation deadline had to be postponed and instead of setting the goal of converting 70% of business to GLOBE by 2003, they decided to conver the majority of businesses to GLOBE by the end of 2005. To compile the Best Practices Library Chris Johnson made sure he chose the best of the best people he could find, people from different backgrounds with different experiences who knew exactly how the company was functioning. He used his leadership skills to convince the managers of different units to back him up. In my opinion, he was very successful with dealing with these complex issues.
Originally Nestle adopted the multinational business strategy. Ther headquarters were set up in Switzerland, but each local organization was given a lot of freedom to condct business as it saw fit and adjust products to local cultures. So the company was largely decentralized. The same can be said about their IT system. To support a lot of variation and diversity Nestle was using 80 different IT units. Over the years Nestle discovered that such strategy and corresponding IT was inefficient and was starting cost the company a lot of money affecting its bottom line.
Question 3.
There were several challenges that Nestle's management had to overcome to standardize its processes. First of all, the original deadline for converting most of the company's operations to GLOBE was underestimated, and it had to be postponed several times from December 2003 to 2006. Secondly, it was extremely difficult to convince managers of operations across the world to change to a unified system. The GLOBE project manager Chris JOhnson basically had to tell the managers that if they didn't back im up, he sould simply get fired, and the CEO would choose one of them to do the job. Another challenge was to identify and describe the main processes which had never been put on paper before and had been passed by word of mouth.
Question 4.
Nestle dealt with these challenges in several ways. The implementation deadline had to be postponed and instead of setting the goal of converting 70% of business to GLOBE by 2003, they decided to conver the majority of businesses to GLOBE by the end of 2005. To compile the Best Practices Library Chris Johnson made sure he chose the best of the best people he could find, people from different backgrounds with different experiences who knew exactly how the company was functioning. He used his leadership skills to convince the managers of different units to back him up. In my opinion, he was very successful with dealing with these complex issues.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Article review: "The Bar Code Is Taking a Leap Forward"
This article is about a new bar coding technology that's finding its way into supermarkets across the country. It is called GS1 DataBars; they look slightly different than the traditional bar code and can be used for several applications. The new bar code can store a lot more data and can help supermarkets better monitor their inventory.
The GS1 DataBars is already helping a lot of supermarkets with their loose produce which always causes a bottleneck at the checkout. The DataBar is attached to the produce and instead of entering a 4 or 5 digit number a cashier scans a fruit or a vegetable just like a box of cereal. This technology also prevents cashiers from making mistakes when ringing up organic, more expensive produce at the prices for the conventional produce. The Data Bar also allows to scan variable weight products, like produce.
GS1 DataBars can also be used in the deli and meat department. The bar code can contain not only the price but the sell by date, so if a buyer picked an outdated package, the label will be able to alert the cashier.
The bar code can also be used on coupons that will combine offers on several products. It is also possible that in the future the coupons will be scanned off of customers cell phones. Coupons will be sent directly to the cell phone via a text message. The bar code is small enough to fit onto the screen. After the coupon is scanned it will be automatically deleted from the cell phone to avoid coupon fraud. Customers can register for coupons from their computers or ask the supermarket to text them available coupons.
I thought this was a pretty cool new technology that I would like to share with the class.
References:
1. The Bar Code Is Taking a Leap Forward. By Anne Eisenberg. June 6, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/business/07novel.html?th&emc=th
The GS1 DataBars is already helping a lot of supermarkets with their loose produce which always causes a bottleneck at the checkout. The DataBar is attached to the produce and instead of entering a 4 or 5 digit number a cashier scans a fruit or a vegetable just like a box of cereal. This technology also prevents cashiers from making mistakes when ringing up organic, more expensive produce at the prices for the conventional produce. The Data Bar also allows to scan variable weight products, like produce.
GS1 DataBars can also be used in the deli and meat department. The bar code can contain not only the price but the sell by date, so if a buyer picked an outdated package, the label will be able to alert the cashier.
The bar code can also be used on coupons that will combine offers on several products. It is also possible that in the future the coupons will be scanned off of customers cell phones. Coupons will be sent directly to the cell phone via a text message. The bar code is small enough to fit onto the screen. After the coupon is scanned it will be automatically deleted from the cell phone to avoid coupon fraud. Customers can register for coupons from their computers or ask the supermarket to text them available coupons.
I thought this was a pretty cool new technology that I would like to share with the class.
References:
1. The Bar Code Is Taking a Leap Forward. By Anne Eisenberg. June 6, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/business/07novel.html?th&emc=th
Case Study: Can the U.S. Army Pay Soldiers Correctly?
Question 1.
Over the years the Army has been using several separate systems that did not work well with each other, required a lot of manual data entry which resulted in a high percentage of errors. Before 2004 the Army was using the Defense Joint Military Pay System for about 40 years. However, this system needed information from the personnel system, the Regional Level Application Software system, and the two were not well integrated. Manual data entry was required to make any changes in the system which increased the chance of mistakes. It was very difficult to make changes to the system due to its obsolescence. The Army needed a comprehensive, integrated human resources and payroll system. Such a system was under construction since 1998 and its roll out was being constantly delayed. It was noted that the delay was caused by leadership turnover, inconsistent support from senior management as well as by a number of agencies trying to influence the project. The impact of all of these problems was tremendous. Thousands of soldiers were either underpaid or overpaid. Soldiers couldn't easily track mistakes either because their pay often varied due to different entitlements. The Army was wasting a lot of resources trying to fix the mistakes and recover overpayments. The requirements for the new system include complete integration of the payroll and personnel modules, maximum automation, automatic data uploads and user-friendliness.
Question 2.
The Forward Compatible Payroll system was a temporary solution while the Defense Integrated Military Human REsources System was under construction. The FCP was more automated than the previous sytem. Here is how the system worked: a pay administrator uses a Web browser to access the personnel system and review mobilization orders. The mobilization application requests info, such as dates of deployment before setting the pay rate and adding entitlements. After the pay rate is set, the unit commander has to sign off a hard copy of the mobilization order after which the data are transmitted to a Microsoft SQL Server database at the Reserve headquarters. Then the data are uploaded to the local server at a pay processing center where pay records were manually reviewed by staff. Then the data are trasmitted to the payroll system. The process had to be improved to avoid mistakes with adding entitlements and to make the system even more automated to avoid human errors.
Question 3.
When developing and implementing a new information system it is very important that end users and technical specialists work together.TEchnical specialists need to be there to listen to the users concerns . A lot of times this is a big problem. There often are communication difficulties between the users and IT staff. End users find IT people speaking a different language and not understanding each other. So the two parties need to find a way to communicate effectively.
Over the years the Army has been using several separate systems that did not work well with each other, required a lot of manual data entry which resulted in a high percentage of errors. Before 2004 the Army was using the Defense Joint Military Pay System for about 40 years. However, this system needed information from the personnel system, the Regional Level Application Software system, and the two were not well integrated. Manual data entry was required to make any changes in the system which increased the chance of mistakes. It was very difficult to make changes to the system due to its obsolescence. The Army needed a comprehensive, integrated human resources and payroll system. Such a system was under construction since 1998 and its roll out was being constantly delayed. It was noted that the delay was caused by leadership turnover, inconsistent support from senior management as well as by a number of agencies trying to influence the project. The impact of all of these problems was tremendous. Thousands of soldiers were either underpaid or overpaid. Soldiers couldn't easily track mistakes either because their pay often varied due to different entitlements. The Army was wasting a lot of resources trying to fix the mistakes and recover overpayments. The requirements for the new system include complete integration of the payroll and personnel modules, maximum automation, automatic data uploads and user-friendliness.
Question 2.
The Forward Compatible Payroll system was a temporary solution while the Defense Integrated Military Human REsources System was under construction. The FCP was more automated than the previous sytem. Here is how the system worked: a pay administrator uses a Web browser to access the personnel system and review mobilization orders. The mobilization application requests info, such as dates of deployment before setting the pay rate and adding entitlements. After the pay rate is set, the unit commander has to sign off a hard copy of the mobilization order after which the data are transmitted to a Microsoft SQL Server database at the Reserve headquarters. Then the data are uploaded to the local server at a pay processing center where pay records were manually reviewed by staff. Then the data are trasmitted to the payroll system. The process had to be improved to avoid mistakes with adding entitlements and to make the system even more automated to avoid human errors.
Question 3.
When developing and implementing a new information system it is very important that end users and technical specialists work together.TEchnical specialists need to be there to listen to the users concerns . A lot of times this is a big problem. There often are communication difficulties between the users and IT staff. End users find IT people speaking a different language and not understanding each other. So the two parties need to find a way to communicate effectively.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
