Case Study III-8 Jefferson County School System (Revised)
Teaching Note on Case Study III-8
Purchasing and Implementing a Student Management
System at Jefferson County School System
Objectives
The purpose of this case is to teach managers what is involved in successfully purchasing a major
system, and also to emphasize the importance of implementation activities no matter how the
system is acquired.
Overview
This revision of the previous version simply updates the technology but does not change the
issues in the case.
This case study teaches how to purchase and implement software by illustrating virtually
everything about how not to do it. The case study also vividly shows the consequences of not
doing it well. The case has two parts: (1) The process used to purchase the system; and (2) the
conversion to the new system.
Then they did a miserable job of implementing the new system. The users were not prepared for
the changes the
what was provided was poorly done. The user documentation was terrible. And they did not test
the system before the users tried to use it for production work under intense time pressure.
The JCSS managers who made the decision to convert from their old system to a purchased
system did not realize what would be involved and provided no support or direction. They did
not provide the resources to install the system properly money and time for training and
programmers to adapt the system to their needs. And they did nothing to motivate the user
community to make the system successful, so many users basically took the attitude that if it
y the way they wanted it, then they would opt out.
Case Study III-8 Jefferson County School System (Revised)
230
Questions for Discussion
Depending on what you wish your students to get from this case study, some of the following
questions may be helpful to guide and stimulate discussion.
1. Evaluate the process that JCSS used to select its vendor and software.
They did the things you are supposed to do when purchasing a system. They set up a task force
of representative users and produced a RFP, sent it out to possible vendors, evaluated their
responses and selected the three best vendors for detailed evaluation, invited them in for
demonstrations, involved the members of the task force in contacting users of each of the
software packages, and finally selected what appeared to be the best system for their needs.
Why was the user participation so casual? First, the users did not understand how important
precisely defining their needs would be. Second, they were all very busy people, and this was
just another committee assignment to them. JCSS management did not provide any motivation or
incentives to them to put in the intense effort that doing the job properly would have required.
Finally, Andrews was willing to write the RFP herself, although she did not understand the details
of the system they wanted.
231
2. Evaluate the implementation of the student management system at JCSS.
One can argue that, despite their inadequacies in the selection process, the new system would
have served their needs well if they had done a good job of implementation. Certainly the terrible
disruption of the schools at the beginning of the semester could have been avoided.
It is almost inconceivable that they could have tried to use the system without having tested it
thoroughly with their own people, hardware, and data. There was very little training of the users,
3. Critique the performance of JCSS management in the purchase of this system.
At one level the JCSS management seemed to know what they were doing the administrative
task force that recommended they purchase a new system rather than building their own had some
good ideas. In particular, using an integrated database and report generation software was an
excellent idea. But the JCSS administration was completely ignorant of the practical aspects of
acquiring a new system.
4. The implementation problems illustrated in this case may occur when you obtain a
system by having your IS department build it using the SDLC methodology. Do the lessons
of this case apply to the SDLC?