Sun 27 Nov - Survey 1 (2)

2 hours
3 months left

Survey 1 completed:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGZtYm1DOE5LWHIzNDF5blUycHN2Y2c6MQ


Perhaps do another 1 for what users think works.

Nov 25 - Literature Review (1)

Researched some articles to read or later

Nov 24 - Project discussing with UOG person (3)

Guidance on the project. Question and answer segment.

very beneficial. Now more focused on the project.

Nov 24 -System Integration Testing -SIT at GG (17 hours)

System Integration Test - SIT at GG  1 week = 5 days.

Researched them for 17 hours over the course of the week.

Spent time working with them ( PEOPLE FROM OTHER ISLANDS) and jotting down notes during their training/testing session.

PROCESS OF field research:


OUTCOME from it:

Nov 24 - Meeting at company B - (1)

 1 hour
Added notes to the Chapter outline.
Plan to go to user meeting ie next week.

***** TIME CHECK - 57 hours done so far. *****

Sun 20 Nov (2.5) - Update notes on findings

Nov 19 Make notes (2)

Added to my word document for project

Nov 7th (3) - notes from Meeting with HF

Users to survey later on :


 Ann Marie Spring - Automatic Payment Allocation
Mya - Home Blanket Scheme


Carmen, Tasmin, Bibi - Renewal Reports to Excel
Lockey - Margaret, filing clerks  - Physical File Tracking System
Motor home - Mya

e.g.

Automatic payment allocation – simple – good.  This is the normal accepted flow of an enhancement request requiring a system modification:

·         FRNT4077 – first request

·         \\Pelican\Departments\GGL - Information Technology\System Requests - Tests\GGLS1392 - Automatic Payment Allocation Agos J&C RMSGGL – look for BIF word document for further investigation of request

·         GGLS1392 – System modification information

·         Verification tests in the above pelican folder

·         Sign off received from requester

Good example of a task that went well. 

The request was clear and straight forward and followed another task. So this made it simple.

Email request was clear concise with example or reference given

 BIF was done - completed by BA

We do not measure our cost/quantitative our work - which is bad. This can be used for marketing of IT plus promote what we do as well as create a deeper appreciation for us as well as reduce the mystery around IS.

 It got the green light to go ahead and was prioritized.

It was fixed and verifed/tested, manual updated.

Promoted signed off.

Certain areas/tasks users are brought in to test. There is the perception that the BAs are skilled enough to test thoroughly. 

Observations if the requirements part of it is messed up then the whole thing becomes messed up. It is key to get the requirements correct first. 

Developers need t design with the correct requirements. Proper analysis must be done at the beginning.

******

Home blanket upload – delays experienced

·         Initial request very bland via Manager

·         O:\GGL - Information Technology\Enhancement Requests\2010\Home Blanket Certificates - BIF completed to gather more details.  This was continuously being refined view the timing between the first and last BIF – analysis was not thorough enough

·          Sign off received from requestor …. There should have been a proposal to follow up a part 2 – not formally followed up

it was not done the front line request. but a manager request to the head developer.

Proper requirements  was not done. Staff was short at that time. Close to end of the year plus there was no negotiating.

there was not a strong business analyst on hand to gather requirements.

requirements were gathered from one who gave a detailed view of the task. IT was under the perception that it was complete. Laizing with other people who use it was not done. He was not the one who directly interfaced with.

more people should have been consulted.

It was a brand new functionality from manual procedures.

Because the requirements were not complete, requirements kept changing. Taking longer.

Costs in terms of time and money.They should have said what they wanted front perhaps.

people signed off on it. 

Need to improve on analysis and requirements gathering. How can we do this?

Since it was brand new functionality it should have been treated as a mini project. TO take in consideration all the phases: for eg: launch date what needed to be done, hardware and software requirements.

Needs a string BA to shift through the stuff.

How do you make the most of a bad situation?

What do you do when you have red flags and how do you deal with reality when there are staff and time constraints?

Physical File tracking system:

WIA had a bandwidth issue. When the task was ready the user was not available at the time. There was no one to market the issues in the other islands.

Once the bandwidth issue was resolved people came on board and used the task.

Investigation into not just the task but the feasibility of the issue in the given environment.

Perception : IS know what they want - hence there is not a need for being in depth and specific about  requirements.

Depends on the people:  For instance you need the managers driving the change. In the other islands you need this kind of environment.

Trans nemwil had that support when they transitioned to i90. He had his staff on board and pushing the change. The team made sacrifices both sides is and trans nemwil and it paid it. Smoother transition.

Guyana did not have the push from management. hence took longer and still doing support for them.

**** 

Renewal listing

functionality did not change but the work flow changed. this what can turn out tramatising.

People not longer waiting for hard copy of reports but had to generate it themselves and use excel. 

Drive was for people to take ownership of it. each department.

there was alot of hand holding. demos. etc.

newer staff picked it up faster. Older staff -p hand holding.

**************** 

Physical file tracking 

Live meeting helps with long distance communication, demos, hand holding. support. It can work to bridge the gap in islands. Might lead to faster adoption.

We have to be careful not to force our own perception of how it should be on the users.

We should not dominate the requirements with our own needs.

For instance the way we use a system is not the way the users might be using the system. We have to understand the users. 

Renewal reports to excel – workflow changes were involved.

Physical filing management system  - the user who requested it was not ready when it was – similar to image processing

Motor home – the objective was unclear amongst all parties.

Market IT - to promote to IT.

How does Scotia or RBC roll out to users since they are not in the same country.

Nov 2nd - Literature Review (3)

3 hours:

Literature Review


HOW HABIT LIMITS THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF
INTENTION: THE CASE OF INFORMATION
SYSTEMS CONTINUANCE1  - ACM

Nov 7th - (1.5) Meeting Helen Ford - on Task selection @ GG

From: Marina Maharaj
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 2:16 PM
To: Helen Ford
Subject: Objectives of today's meeting

Meeting with Helen Ford as at Fri 4^th Nov 2011

Objectives

·         Find projects that are good  and bad cases to work with for investigating user acceptance

·         Select users to work with to set up interview/surveys

Projects with the Criteria:

Ø  There was room for improvement

Ø  Some things were not handled properly

Ø  People part of it that was problematic

Ø  Team support was it there

Ø  Managing expectations of managers and users

Ø  Users and Managers – different language/perspective

Ø  Where generally some conditions were just not right or conducive for success

Ø  Projects that works well, what were the conditions for it that allowed this success in user acceptance

From: Helen Ford
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Marina Maharaj
Subject: RE: Objectives of today's meeting

e.g.

Automatic payment allocation – simple – good.  This is the normal accepted flow of an enhancement request requiring a system modification:

·         FRNT4077 – first request

·         \\Pelican\Departments\GGL - Information Technology\System Requests - Tests\GGLS1392 - Automatic Payment Allocation Agos J&C RMSGGL – look for BIF word document for further investigation of request

·         GGLS1392 – System modification information

·         Verification tests in the above pelican folder

·         Sign off received from requestor

Home blanket upload – delays experienced

·         Initial request very bland via Manager

·         O:\GGL - Information Technology\Enhancement Requests\2010\Home Blanket Certificates - BIF completed to gather more details.  This was continuously being refined view the timing between the first and last BIF – analysis was not thorough enough

·          Sign off received from requestor …. There should have been a proposal to follow up a part 2 – not formally followed up

Renewal reports to excel – workflow changes were involved.

Physical filing management system  - the user who requested it was not ready when it was – similar to image processing

Motor home – the objective was unclear amongst all parties.

Regards

Helen Ford

Team Leader – Information Systems

Oct 30 - Literature Review (4)

******** ******** ******** 
Oct 30 - Literature Review
4 hours
4 months Left
******** ******** ******** 



Measuring the influence of social abilities on acceptance
of an interface robot and a screen agent by elderly users - ACM





Consumer Mashups: End-User Perspectives and
Acceptance Model  ACM