Tuesday, 11 December 2012

Layout

Introduction
Literature Review  (2000 words)
Information on UA from Companies & Survey  (1000 words)
New Acceptance Model/Hybrid  (2000 words)
New Validation Tool  (2000 words)
Guidelines  (2000 words)
Limitations of Model & Validation Tool  (2000 words)
Critical Evaluation
Conclusion

Short Term Plan:
write on AGILE, SCRUM        ** DONE **
reread paper and fix flow, include papers on AGILE and SCRUM, waterfall - to introduce the topic
New Model
Validation Tools
Guidelines
Literature Review - more references + include them in the research paper -quote it (50)

Sun 23rd Dec 2012
Fixing the flow of the paper
Already wrote on agile and scrum

Issues found:
- Presence of trust, confidence and its impact on using the system
- Usage over time - affecting user acceptance changing as it becomes habit
- UA and development methods should be combined
- Agile  - SCRUM & DSDM  - how to solve large organisation, many users problem - if they choose not to    use it - possible use a change management solution
- Absence of a Validation Tool
- New Model
- Absence of UA guidelines

Mon 25th Dec 2012
Fix flow
New Model

Fri 28th Dec 2012 & Sat 29th Dec 2012
New Model
chapter on new model
validation tool

Lit review is too long
Tie back survey to Agile, and models relevance
New model - show the strength of certain factors for UA, some more than others - weights
Show how the model was derived from the research - CLEARLY

Questions for Moonesh
   -How well does scrum work for Company C
   - What other techniques they using
   - How long users using ISMIS
 
   - How long users using WebStar
   - How long users using Work Flow

Fri 4th Jan 2013
- add findings in abstract
-Write chapter on New model, tie in relevance of the existing models here
-Fix flow
-show how the research links to the creation of the model
-Include references

New UA model chapter  ** DONE **
Model in action
Limitations of Model
Limitations of paper
Validation Tool
Limitations of Tool
Overview of Paper
Conclusions & future work
Guidelines

References
Fix Flow


Wed 9th Jan 2013
Metric to measure UA
should be Large company vs small
1 location, different geographic location

conditions that would impact the emphasis on the determinants of UA

Sat 19th Jan 2013
Incorporate comments into it
Add in references

Tue 22nd Jan 2013
Redo Chapter 4 new model  ** DONE **
fixed then send to ravi           ** DONE **
Continue with finishing the rest of the paper


Overview of New Model
New Model in Action
Limitations of New Model
Critical review of New Model

Conclusion
Introduction
References & Reference List
Give Opal To read completed Project Wed 23 Jan 2013

Thur 24 Jan 2013
Email to Ravi       ** DONE **
Email to Opal      ** DONE **
Email to Kerrie    ** DONE **


Fri 25th Jan 2013
References and formatting
Compare below with supervisor comments and fix paper
Ensure not repeating past mistakes
Courses used
Sentence construction formal language
more on research methodology  ** DONE **
get 10 more references for paper ** DONE **
use references in the  last chapter  ** DONE **

Which is weighted more for me qualitative or quantitative data and why ** DONE **
Expand on research methodology observation, interviews, surveys   . ** DONE **
conclusion fix it


language - sentence construction
develop findings
  - make it clearly presented - add a chart       ** DONE **
  - what %  are significant and why                  ** DONE **
  - compare and contrast the companies          ** DONE **
substantiate my model with findings                 ** DONE **
identify key questions my paper should address    ** DONE **
once i have answered them - project completed

Review intro abstract conclusion - ensure it reflects my direction clearly

Ravi Comments Fri 25th Jan 2013
- do not start a section with acronym, put Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) then you can use TAM     again once in same section.
- lit review a lot better
- sentences overburdened
- your chapter 3 still hard to read ( weighting for sections, and even ness not there)

Saturday 26th Jan 2013
Bobby Comments:
if it is bespoke - what about bespoke that is different from generic
go deep for bespoke
why should companies use this model - what is the value        ** DONE **
get feedback from the stakeholders to validate it                    ** DONE **
strengths and weaknesses of the model compare with the previous models
don't want to be too generic or too prescriptive
will it work well alone or needs additional tools for better results
how is it going to be tested and evaluated
How does the model compare the lit review or objectives
sample size is this a limitation
Conclusion: link back to objectives and how well it met or didn't meet the objectives

Ravi Comments: Mon 28th Jan 2013
so i re read your paper
i understand what you are trying to say
you were able to develop a solution, but the solution seemed superficial, like each different stage felt more like a definition of word and was vague

i honestly did not see how the data that was achieved was tied back in to the applied
i assumed the data would have reflected the application of the mode

Lit review  Draw backs - ONLY was a small section on drawbacks - more detail needed

Field Research -
the field research section feels as though
you already had the model in mind and did research to do the model
and not the other way around
where in my research i allude to decision making process
need to tie to existing models

Model section - like a lit review - too many references ie social influence
not much differentiation
the Bespoke Model Applied, i did not see that tie back into your data
elaborate of short comings of the model
- need to expand on the how to use this model what questions need to be asked to make this model applicable and successful
-need to tie to existing models

I did not go deep enough
  - I could have used agile to go deep with user acceptance - but instead I mention it in passing
  - i identified trust is a problem - but I don't offer a solution to it - to fixing it ** DONE **

critical review  - was ok, a bit short but good

Critical Reflection

u need to be critical
ur critical reflection was hard to read
 u switch between 3rd person to first person when writing making it difficult

also try to tie ur sections in together

ur model seems so disjointed it does not have stage flow ** DONE **
but the factors seems disjointed from everything  ** DONE **

think of it like a cake
flour eggs milk  ** DONE **

drowning in quoting
little application of own thought  ** DONE **
***

Agenda: Mon 28 Jan 2013
Fix Findings + discussion chapters  ** DONE **
Then go through remainder of the paper  - taking into consideration ravi comments ** DONE **
Add 3 organisation feedback on the model ** DONE **
I don't know if discussion is too chatty - was there enough discussion ** DONE **

Issues to ADDRESS!!!!
  •  How does one  evaluate UA in the organisation as they change their strategy to know one's progress
  • How does 1 evaluate trust and confidence ** DONE **
  • did my research logically lead to my findings - were my findings justified ** DONE **
  • was my analysis deep enough
  • was all the issues of the last supervisor comments addressed here  ** DONE **
  • did i address how my model is different or better than the existing models ** DONE **
  • what does my model paper bring to the table for readers
  •  check my weights  ** DONE **
  • was there adequate depth ** DONE **
  • was there critical analysis  ** DONE **
Critical Overview
What is the model about – what is it trying to accomplish
How does this model rate compare with other models
What is special about the model
How is the model limited in terms of use
How does the model work with objectives and criteria
Strengths and weaknesses of the paper

Characteristics of Bespoke/in-house applications are:
·         The system features and functionality are based on a thorough understanding of the system.
·         The system does not have to wait for the next upgrade for changes. The organization’s stakeholders will decide on pace and priority of features.
·         The system does not have to accommodate the application, it is the reverse. The application is tailored to the needs of the system.
·         As the business needs changes, the system functionality is changed to accommodate the needs.

check my Harvard style  ** DONE **
Reread slowly for grammar ** DONE **
Go through all comments  & previous comments and ensure I covered it ** DONE **
Ensure data links to model ** DONE **






Sunday, 2 December 2012

Sun 2nd Dec 2012

Chapter - Survey Results
Chapter - New Model

Need to research SCRUM, AGILE, Waterfall & UA  - write it up
How does it fit in the paper
Questions:
Survey was not appropriate for the Company B
What can I do to make the information more meaningful.

How does Company C measure/validate UA?

Wed 5th Dec 2012
Summarised roughly the Company A & C results. Needs refining.
Do I sumarise it in total or by company?
Company B survey was not adequate. What to do?

Thur 6th Dec 2012
Ravis Comments:
Incorporate everything evenly - write about it each same amount
Take a spin on the existing model to show my own interpretation of the model
what ever is your creation
    - expand on it
    - limitations
    - what it encompasses
    - where the results would be supper high/low and why
    - variables in scores for types of organisation ( client vs development company)

UA survey
explain why scores in Company B would not score so high - development specific company
not user centric, they don't test everyday, the real test is the clients who buy the product, so in company B don't expect great scores.

Also point of limitation of margin of error - dishonest answers, incorrect misinterpretation of the survey questions.






Tuesday, 20 November 2012

Ravi's comments on Survey & test new model

Model is not a model. It is a definitions. Research how to design Models.

Survey:
If I am bringing system into UA....

system is not UA.
 Systems are business driven.
If a company decides to use SAP, users would adopt it. Business decision.
So be wary of bringing system into UA.

Saturday, 17 November 2012

Review Chapters - Notes

Critical Review of UA model

Critical Evaluation of UA tool


Conclusion
Limitations of thesis 
Research 


Organizational Input
Critical Reflection
Future Improvements
Overall conclusion



Meeting with Supervisor Sat 17th Nov 2012

Notes from Supervisor Meeting:

Survey questions quidelines:

How satisfied are you with  the system meeting your needs on a scale of 1-5

How reliable is the system?

Do you get the information you need easily or do you have to do additional steps? 1-5 range
easily
difficult

How easily does the system allow you to meet your objectives?

Bobby's Suggestion:
Write
-Introductory Chapters now since this is fresh in my head.
-Lit review fixes
-Methodology Chapter
-while waiting on Survey Results

Methodology Notes:   Include -
    -survey, how you gather info, how you analyzed info, how  you evaluated work gathered



Thursday, 15 November 2012

Week 2 November

1) reasons/direction of the project ** DONE**
2) New model    (I have a General Idea)
3) questions for companies ** DONE **
4) Collate Survey Results

5) Need to get more references and USE ALL in the Literature REVIEW else I will lose marks
6) Write Introductory Chapters now since this is fresh in my head. (WIP)

7) Methodology Chapter (WIP)
8) Validation Tool
9) Step by Step guidelines of achieving UA



 - Write out 2 chapters



In my model:
Why am I not using some parts of the model?
Be CLEAR - identify weaknesses or reasons why some parts were left out.



Questions for Survey:

How is User Acceptance measured/monitored in 3 organisations?

Trust & Confidence
Observation questions?
CompanyA - previous project genie - low confidence and trust in the sytem - very slow and they went back
Company B -
Company C -

Positive Emotions/Social Influence/Perceived userfulness/Ease of Use/Subjective Norm/
Observation Questions:
Was there PR to promote to enhancement?
Was social influence/peer influence used?

(PR needed specially in a negative environment to build hype and positive emotions)

Time with the System
How long are you using the application?
Did you like it from inception?
Did it take getting use to?

Facilitating Conditions
Was there adequate technical support for the system enhancement (IT/IS)?
Was there adequate help for the enhancement for e.g. Business Analyst support/user manuals/training?

Level of system accuracy of serving user needs
Is the system challenging to use?
Does the system cater for your needs adequately - allow you to process your work in an efficient/user friendly way?




Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Agenda for Week 1 November 2012

Agenda for Week 1 November 2012

Find articles on in-house applications/solutions, tie in with lit review
develop lit review limitations/merits in more dept

Companies questions
Compile it and send out to 3 companies
start this chapter



Chapter 2 - Research and rewrite Lit Review
Chapter 3 - Data from companies
Chapter 4 - Intro into new model, identifying the need for it

For the Lit Review

Findings absence of papers on in-house/bespoke solutions:
In the literature review, state this. that this paper is addressing a need.

If i show merits/limitations in terms of bespoke wont that be personal opinion in lit review?
It is really a judgement call, due to the lack of material on in-house solutions.
State shortage of papers - comparison limited application to bespoke to what extent the models cater for this environment.

Discuss the characteristics of bespoke versus off the shelf how it affects the applicability of the model in either case

what came out of the lit review that justifies the need for this project?
what are the shortcomings of the models that my paper will address?

Overall short comings of the models?



Issues with the Models

While the above models provided a better understanding of user behaviour in terms of the decisions making process, the models did not address issues of trust and confidence of system and the effect of it would have on user behaviour. The presence of these factors would have a weight on the decision making process.

There was no clear indication of a start to finish guideline on how to achieve the user acceptance in an Information Technology/Information System environment with bespoke solutions. The models had good suggestions but were too general. It was unclear how to follow through in a step by step process to achieve this goal of user adoption.
While user acceptance is a soft system approach and related to people and problems not clearly defined, there was no mention of the technical side of the system in terms achieving the user needs.

Questions for Companies?
How does the company measure/monitor UA?
Trust/Confidence in system
Trust/Confidence in team

Team
Are you satisfied with the technical support you receive from information System?
Are you satisfied with the technical support you receive from IT?
Is IT and IS the same to you?


Have you made requests before?
If YES Have they been taken seriously or been given a satisfactory explanation why it cannot happen?

System
Are you satisfied with the system in terms of aiding you in everyday work?



System development
Rate emphasis on technical team in meeting objectives, in terms of over all importance in UA

What does the Model look like?
Will it look like the same UTAUT with just trust added as a bubble?
What other bubbles needed?

Model in action?

even though UA is user specific, the model does not refer to the system side of things, but
there still needs to be a solid development process that accurately builds the application according to the end user needs. Waterfall/Scrum/Agile whatever combination that gives the users what the need in a timely accurate manner.

How will organisations be able to validate and monitor UA and progress over time with the new model?

*** 

User Acceptance Model ( main focus)
In addition to this one still needs in the background:

1.      Development Solution
2.      Change Management Solution
3.      Long term strategies for the organisation








Sunday, 4 November 2012

Chapter Outline

Chapters Layout


Chapter 1 Introduction


Chapter 2 Literature Review


Chapter 3 User Acceptance Field Research


Chapter 4 Gap between the User Acceptance Models and the Field Research

Chapter 5 New Hybrid User Acceptance Model

Chapter 6 Limitations of the New Hybrid User Acceptance Model

Chapter 7 Critical Review of New Hybrid User Acceptance Model

Chapter 8 Conclusion

References

Appendix A - Survey Results for Company A       
Appendix B - User acceptance Metric/Validation Tool    
Appendix C - Results of the User Acceptance Metric/Validation Tool

Tables of Figures



Saturday, 3 November 2012

Recommendations from Supervisor - (LIT REVIEW)

Recommendations from Supervisor - (LIT REVIEW)

Marina,

It is a good start, but you need to include your references. 
If you can compare and contrast the models a little more in depth, highlighting further their merits and limitations and how it relates to bespoke applications it will be useful. All in all a good start. 

Regards,
KBS


Another person's Comments

Need to read in house applications - what expertes/authors say on it and
Tie it back to the models in my literature review
Grammar needs alot of work
Beware of audience, dont ramble, explain, dont repeat
Stay on topic and remember slant/angle of my paper to always connect back to it

the in house papers will hopefully help with the direction of the questions to pose to the companies

Thursday, 18 October 2012

Thur 18 Oct 2012 - Fri 2nd Nov 2012

Redo the Outline of the chapters ** DONE **

Complete Literature Review  ** DONE**  1st draft ( need more references - ONLY HAVE 16 so far) need about 50 - Fri 2nd Nov 2012

Determine and Gather info Need from the 3 companies. MUST complete by Oct 2012 to collate

Literature Review Feedback from Bobby:
  1. compare and contrast the models a little more in depth
  2. highlighting further their merits and limitations
  3. how it relates to bespoke applications it will be useful

Identify:
legal, social, ethical and professional issues pertaining to my topic. SWOT? SLEPT?
Does the type of organisation have different objectives to emphasis on UA might be different/vary?

**   **   **   **   **   **   **   **   **   **   **   **
From Project Handbook
  • Resolution of relevant legal, social, ethical or professional issues
  • Shown that the product has been tested and evaluated appropriately
  • Discussed the quality of the product in relation to original objectives and criteria
  • Demonstrated the usability and appropriateness of the product for the problem domain
  • Identified where and how improvement can be made

4. Conclusions and critical review
This section is about assessing the student’s ability to be critical of their own work and show reflective thinking.
• Demonstrated critical thinking in writing up the project
• Discussed lessons learnt whilst completing the project
• Identified any problems encountered and discussed how they were
tackled
• Identified mistakes made and lessons learnt
• Reflected on how the project plan changed during the development
• Made suggestions as to how the work can be improved
• Identified how the project might be taken further or expanded

Thursday, 27 September 2012

Thur 28 Sept 2012 (13) Literature - Thur 11 Oct 2012

Listed Questions to answer from reading papers.
Started Literature Reading

The whole point of this paper is to create and start to end solution/list of recommendations/model/guide that will achieve user acceptance. Based on articles read... it is unclear how to achieve this in a clearly defined way.

What does the List paper argue about in the papers about the models?
What are my views on the short comings of each of the models?
What is lacking in the models?
What works well in the model?
What was actually noticed in companies regarding what the model says?
What info I need from the companies to get this?
How does the plan below work/combine/contrast from the user acceptance models already in existence?
Compare and contrast what works well and what does not and how the model below makes up for this.
How does this plan below cater for the different types of companies being investigated?
Will it always work for Technology company? Insurance, School?
How do I continue to monitor and measure that the projects are maintaining the UA standards?


Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
perceived ease of use +  perceived usefulness = > behavioral intention to use it -> use. However if after the hype dies down and the system does not solve my needs in a user friendly way. I will resort to my old methods. My initial thoughts will change to a negative feeling towards it. Hence a proper development solution is also needed.

If no access to resources ( lit paper) so I don't get the support I need, I will abandon the idea to use it. I might have been willing to use it but not now.

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).

Theory of Reasoned behaviour

I agree - access to resources does affect user acceptance. ( help, continued , support, manuals, training)
Social Influence does affect whether some1 is willing to try something new. If however it fails to convince them, they will go back to their old practices.

Even before UA starts, sometimes users need a push to try it, and a plan needs to be in place to bump up the excitement and use levels before the negative notions and preconceptions start. Whether it is from top down management roll out, peer influence.

MY User Acceptance PLAN:
1
Understand target users(tech vs non tech, ages, culture, personal, office)
Every project has diff needs, diff users, diff skillet of people.
OBJ: understand target users in order to create solution for them that works, as well as to design PR campaign that works for diff users.
|

2                                                   3                                                              4
Design plan  ===>                   System changes (Dev solution)         ====> Continued support to users to
Mass Users on board
Positive Hype(PR)                  that actually solve the user problems              dispel fears, concerns, deal
Get as many users                  Hence proper user requirement gatherings,    with queries, enhancements
 on board with hyper              Iterative development to ensure user              (OBJ: foster trust, confidence in
OBJ: get initial buy in,              needs are adequately being dealt with             IS/IT team, solution)
  Positive thoughts                  UA testing
 (peer influence TRA)             Efficient User Requirement,
    TAM                                  development, user testing, strategy
                                              OBJ: solid solution that caters more than adequately for
                                              user needs
                                              ( initial trust/buy in, will not give you UA alone,
                                              they will just go back to their old procedures)
5
Celebrate with all and reward
employees who were key
to the success of the project
to project a culture of
ownership and change adoption
OBJ: create a culture of
ownership and create confidence in
users to help build a better system
Each 1 has a part to play

Company A has adopted this type of UA plan and it has worked for their recent WebStar project of a new interface for daily processing of work. UA can also be seen such that users are not coming forward to log recommendations and suggestions on how to make the system more tailored to their needs. users are no longer sitting idly by as they use to. They are taking more ownership.


Issues not addressed by the models the importance of
-Trust and confidence in the system - absence can lead to lack of use and lack of acceptance
-Start to end implementation in the IS/IT system change and UA journey - how to achieve UA in terms of    the Actual live environment with a system. Models too general
-Solutions that deals with the user needs








Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Wed 26 Sept 2012 (4 hours)

Review my paper
clear up aim, objectives    **DONE**
narrow search - lit review

Redo/Tweak Proposal      **DONE**
Submitted Proposal to Bobby and Ravi to read.   **DONE**

Meeting with Supervisor wed 26 sept 2012

Meeting with Supervisor Bobby Sookram

Outcome
Figure out what the aim is
Then narrow the literature review based on this
Then use the compare/contrast method for internal and external projects in company
Start writing


T - 2 months

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

Plan ( 2)

Structuring Direction of the paper and identifying further areas of research to drill down into.

What am I trying to achieve? (objectives and slant)
How user acceptance varies across different industries/companies?

How am I going to accomplish this?
What data I need from the companies?
Evaluate and critique the information from companies. Not just 2 dimensional

What kind of data from the 3 companies do I need?
How do you measure/monitor user acceptance. Meaning that you have achieved what you set out to do.
Is there a benchmark?
Does it vary across projects or same orojec
What happens when you do not meet the standard/benchmark?


What is the end result?
  What does the lit say?
  What is actually being done? Across companies? What worked in which companies? Will it work in all           companies?
  What are I think should be done?

Reading (10 hours)

THinking process of new slant. Brain storming session. Reading papers.

Saturday, 4 August 2012

(8 hrs) Maturity Model - reviewing a Distinction research paper

read A model essay paper: on Maturity Models
observations:

clear history/background on topic
nice seammles flow into hybrid model
clear outline on what the hybrid does, in intro
detail compare contrast of 3 models he discussed, as well as his personal views on their short comings
He did a over view of hybrid AFTER introducing hybrid - in order to discuss in detail the correlation of the steps
Limitations of hybrid
Critical Evaluation of Hybrid
Conclusion
   - Critical Reflection
    - and other sub categories

over all a good paper
common factor - smooth flow into each section
 lit review was directly linked to the direction of the paper.
No ambiguity
clear, concise paper

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

4th Aug 2012 () - Critique my paper


Notes from reading my Paper:

Introduction would have to change. Can be done at the end of the paper.
Objectives remains the same
Do I want to create a new model for UA as part of my objectives?

Lit review - do more for lit review look for back up evidence on the UA findings - look for linkage

Lit review and findings of UA - did not link the with lit review with the findings.disjoint

Survey was linked to Lit review - good

Recommendations

The recommendations did not lead up from what was said before. More flow needed.
Out of nowhere the recommendations showed up with not enough into into the recommendations.

Development solution - did not see how the lit review catered or supported this angle or part  of the solution


The final recommendations is jus combining UA, change mangement solution with dev technique - is this anything new?
or can be augmented  into something bigger and new/original

Change model - I am jsut reusing someone else's model, but what can i add to make it better model, more accurate

Link long term strategies what was referenced in the lit review for flow

User acceptance metric


Critical Eval on user acceptance metric


Thursday, 5 July 2012

Supervisor Meeting - (2 hours) Thur 5 July 2012


Thur 5th July 2012
Notes from Supervisor Meeting:
Compare contrast companies
Dig deeper- more analysis needed
Get more information from the SBCS and Teleios
Revisit literature review – review same articles, get more articles,
More Breadth, More Depth
Link lit review to direction and conclusion of the paper
Don’t leave things hanging, connect everything
This project will be a complete rewrite of this paper. Same topic but fresh rewrite of the paper
If 3 articles say the same thing – then say 3 people agreed to this

Next steps:
Reread the paper be critical about it, make notes of things to fix, redo
Revisit the lit review, read articles tie in stuff.
Identify next steps for directions
Make reference list in alphabetical order
See what information I need from Teleios and SBCS again
Email Bobby

Saturday, 28 April 2012

Sat 28 - Mon 30 April 2012 (45)

Continue reading and tweaking.
Get feedback in class today

Get Company C to do metric - 3 people
Correct Grammar issues
Match the handbook requirements
Put in Ravi, Kris and Ruselle comments
metric results

Read Ravi paper - give him comments

provide a better introduction/abstract and look to remove the repetition of the same thing
abstract
introduction
overall flow
conclusion future work
limitation

MERGE references and appendix


so like explicity state ur weights
why agile is rated at 30%
why is that the same as change management

put agile,scrum in research findings to beef up process.


There is also a demo done for users every two weeks, so they can see the progress of the project as it builds up as well as requirements can be collected along the way as well as bugs detected early.
could read as


A demonstration, is done every two weeks, so users can evaluate the progress of the project. By doing this demonstation of the product at this point, new and changing requirements can be gathered, and issues with the software can be detected early.


link recommendations with metric very closely show how they work in tandam
and explain ur metric




but i think u should tie it in to ur metric section
then tie that into recommendations

jagony - the agile and scrum section


 have a paper on like User Acceptance of Agile IS
so can u expland ur future work
to include how better integrates
User Acceptance and the methodology




u making the assumption that the reader knows what a print is, what a standup is
what a sprint review is


u cant get the real story by simply sitting in on a meeting
u have to do like u had said speand a few whole days there
and be a snoop
to ge the full story



explicitly state this is a step by step guide to user acceptance, practical approach to applying it to organsations

Meeting with supervisor:

expand explanation on UA metric
how it can be expanded/augmented?
in what cases it can be used for?
what does it need it to work...
how it can be modified to work differently?
so it is not just a generic solution
limitations of the metric
dissect it

limitation
scores 9 people - use a larger cross section of people ssample next time


i can use an agile diagram from a web site. jus reference it

Friday, 27 April 2012

Fri 27 April 2012 (15)

Tweak/Reread Chapter 5                             WIP
Collate Results of Metric
Start back rereading fresh
in corporate Ruselle and Ravi comments in paper

Prepare questions for both of them        DONE

Call Ruselle                                           DONE
Call Moonesh                                        DONE

Thur 27 April 2012(5)

Reread: Limitations, Critical Reflection Conclusion & Future Work

Wednesday, 25 April 2012

Wed 25 April 2012()

Tweaking of chapter 5 and the rest

Metric Volunteers:

Company A:
Nirvana
Opal
Kion

Company B:
Ravi
Russell
Geon                       DONE

Company C:
Moonesh
Vincent
3rd person?







Sunday, 22 April 2012

Saturday, 21 April 2012

Sat 21 Apr 2012 (15)

tweak

Bobby says: watch language - still too conversational
substantiate information against research papers
watch marking scheme - format foundation to suit - methodologies


survey refer to stats in appendix less conversational - more co relation
more on agile if it is 30% important or explicitly state which is more important
state limitation of the paper
emphasis on company A less info on B, C
should have spent a day in Teleios, meet and greet and chat with people - to get better quality information, staying for an hour meeting or 2 hour meetings you would not get much info


reworked chapters 1 - 3  DONE

Friday, 20 April 2012

Fri 20 April 2012 (5)

Fri 20 April 2012

Reread:
Look for typos, grammar, spelling, restructure, cut down words

Explicitly state:
- what the problem is
- what the solution is
- how it will fix the problem

Don't assume anything
Don't give opinion, show supporting evidence

Tie in goal to other parts of the projects
Background  into  user acceptance what we trying to achieve



Thursday, 19 April 2012

Thur 19 April 2012 (15)

Edit based on:
Kris Comments
Ravi Comments
Geon Comments                                                 DONE

write up the explanation for the matric -weights    DONE

Format the document based on handbook rules spacing font etc   DONE

Reread entirely again
Include Completed list of REFERENCES and APPENDIX

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Mon 16 April 2012 (2)

meeting with tertiary institution on progress with training

Wed 18th April 2012 (15)

reread and tweak
email people TODAY!!! no later

training session with tertiary institution 
observation of user perception and reaction    DONE

app is very user friendly did not seem resistant through there were stories of some.

Tuesday, 17 April 2012

Sunday, 15 April 2012

Sun 15th April 2012 (15)

Identified areas need changing                                              DONE
change the fixes  by 3:00pm
reread

prepare questions for moonesh

Read 2nd read over
email kerrie,bobby,ravi, russele, anton, sharmilla

TO DO:
chapters - must be linked and clear
step by step instructions
link metric to chapter to recommendation to conclusion

Saturday, 14 April 2012

Sat 14 Apr 2012 (18)

Write Chapter - Conclusion                                                 DONE

Identified areas need changing                                              DONE

Read 2nd read over
email kerrie,bobby,ravi, russele, anton, sharmilla

TO DO:
chapters - must be linked and clear
step by step instructions
link metric to chapter to recommendation to conclusion
make sure I am 100% into the solution to cover all bases

Thursday, 12 April 2012

Thur 12 May 2012 (5)

TO DO:
Create the List of  questions and weights for Metric          DONE  
Create Excel for it                                                            DONE

Write Chapter - Conclusion

TO DO:
chapters - must be linked and clear
step by step instructions
link metric to chapter to recommendation to conclusion
make sure I am 100% into the solution to cover all bases

Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Wed 11 April 2012 (5)

TO DO:    =(D15+D29+D42+D56+D63+D75)  =SUM(D75,D63,D56,D82D42,D29,D15)
Create the List of  questions and weights for Metric             DONE
Create Excel for it                                                               DONE

Write Chapter - Critical Evaluation                                     DONE  ( 600 words  but add more)
Write Chapter - Conclusion

TO DO:
chapters - must be linked and clear
step by step instructions
link metric to chapter to recommendation to conclusion
make sure I am 100% into the solution to cover all bases

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

Tue 10 Apr 2012 (5)

TO DO:

Reread Audit assignment due tonight                                   DONE

Create the List of  questions and weights for Metric
Create Excel for it

Write Chapter - Critical Evaluation                                     DONE  ( 600 words  but add more)
Write Chapter - Conclusion

TO DO:
chapters - must be linked and clear
step by step instructions
link metric to chapter to recommendation to conclusion
make sure I am 100% into the solution to cover all bases

Monday, 9 April 2012

Mon 9th April 2012 (10)

TO DO:

Reread Audit assignment due tonight

Reread Chapter 5 tweak cut down                                  DONE

Create the List of  questions and weights for Metric
Create Excel for it

Write Chapter - Critical Evaluation
Write Chapter - Conclusion

Sunday, 8 April 2012

Sun 8 Mar (15) - Revising

TO DO:

find out student and staff count of sbcs for chapter 3
what does company use - methodology?

Reread research paper and tweak                                              WIP        reach chapter 4
Finalise the questions and weight for the metric for UA               TO DO
Chapter Critical Evaluation                                                        TO DO
Chapter Conclusion                                                                  TO DO


Research how to do the metric thing in excel... *sigh*                DONE

Sat 7 Mar 2012 (5)

Metric calculator web page still to be done.       TO DO

Did i tie back the acceptance models? to my topic area? should I have incorporated it into my model?

Chapter - Limitations                                         DONE
Chapter - Critical Overview                              do not know what to write
Chapter - Conclusion and Future work              do not know what to write

Friday, 6 April 2012

Fri 6 Mar 2012 () - write up

wrap up recommendations

Metric calculator web page still to be done.

Did i tie back the acceptance models? to my topic area? should I have incorporated it into my model?

Chapter - Limitations
Chapter - Critical Overview
Chapter - Conclusion and Future work

Thursday, 5 April 2012

Thur 5 Mar 2012 (5) - write up

still tying up recommendations

Chapter - Limitations
Chapter - Critical Overview
Chapter - Conclusion and Future work

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Saturday, 31 March 2012

Sat 30 Mar (7) Consultations + partial write up

Business vs academic paper.

Once there is critical evaluation of the paper then that makes it academic.

Recommendations - too deep or too narrow dilemma?
Write everything on paper then filter out after.

Recommendations -2 models
Agile & change management model
-It's ok  make sure the 2 groups communicate to work seamless
-does the agile work for all solutions?

Monday, 26 March 2012

Mon 26 Mar 2012 (4) -write up

To Do:
Chapter 5 - Recommendations (started)
Chapter 6 - Limitations of paper
Chapter 7 - Critical Analysis of Paper
Chapter 8 - Conclusion

Sunday, 25 March 2012

Sun 25 Mar 2012 (10) finish up chapter 4 - issues with UA

Status Update:

Done:
Chapter 4 - Issues with User Acceptance - 1st draft 

To Do:
Chapter 5 - Recommendations
Chapter 6 - Limitations of paper
Chapter 7 - Critical Analysis of Paper
Chapter 8 - Conclusion

Did some restructuring hence the time spend on it. Next I am looking to write the recommendations.

Marina.

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Sun 18th March (15) Reading research

Thur 22 Mar 2012 (10) Write up

Restructure of Chapter with

-Research Findings about User acceptance

-Recommendations on achieving user acceptance


Write the 2 chapters base on this new layout


Assess Limitations of each recommendations
Smooth flow

Thursday, 15 March 2012

Thur 15th Mar 2012 (15) -TO DO

TO DO:

Look up slides from outsourcing
Look up change management in conjunction with my points
Look at user curve
Look up Agile
Look up Kurt Lewin - Model of Change
Get supporting articles for evidence of each point
Follow layout of my checklist of questions for each point

devise the change management model to use wip

Write up base on information gathered - chap 4, 5  - not yet done :(

Thur 15th Mar 2012 (15) Check list of questions WIP

Question to be answered in each point of Chapter 4 and 5
-Root causes of acceptance issues
-Recommendations


What are the root causes of each point?
What is the recommendation for each point?
How do we measure it in terms of the success or failure of implementation the recommendation?
Limitations of each recommendations/point?
Is it mixing up under normal human behavior? Make sure to separate.
How does change management fit into the point?

Saturday, 10 March 2012

Sat 10 Mar 2012 - (2) Consultation Meeting with Supervisor

IMPORTANT: if i say trust is important in org - how does one measure it? quantify it?
Look at Change management in relation to other concepts such as trust, etc

Dont deal with it in isolation.

Look at user curve. Find data at each level of the curve. if data is gathered in Jan = Fear, Data in Dec = acceptance.

So beware these are normal reactions of user, may or may not reflect the trust issues. How much is trust, how much is normal curve.

Look at outsourcing notes for user reaction to change curve. and another slide - compromise, supporter etc.
lecture 5 slides also

**
Find papers, to support trust, etc,don't just let it be an anecdotal tale.


Look at model by Kurt Lewin - Model of Change
Freeze, Unfreeze,release

**

Thursday, 8 March 2012

Thur 8th Mar 2012 (9) - Write up session

Thur 8th Mar 2012


Agenda:

-Reread the research paper to ensure flow                               - done
-Include the Company C findings from today's meetings
-Continue write up for Chapter 4/5

Thur 8th Mar 2012 (2) - Company C - meeting

Meeting with Company C - tertiary education center.

Projects
-CMS  site they maintain but staff does the updates of the content
-Information systems project

Students & staff needs are priority
Customer service comes 1st


Methodology
Scrum now implementing it. learning curve. after this phase it will be revisited and things learnt will be modified and added to scrum structure right now.

scrum = 2 week sprints

AGILE

This phase student registration and scheduling of courses/classrooms - end date end of Mar 2012

Process

The final product is not when it is in production.

Production will have a functional version that users/staff can work with, without the nice to haves.

Once dust has settled and recommendations, issues have been taken, list is prioritized and the enhancements/fixes are done then promoted to production.

Short coming - users on board kinda
- takes away from their work so it is difficult to get the a lot of testing fro users- they have other obligations and they may not see the value of it as yet.


User acceptance/monitoring sessions:
sit with staff while they register a student and monitor the findings

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

Tue 6 March 2012 - ( 4) Meetings with research companies

Meeting with Programmer in Company A (1 hour ) about requirements gathering issue - getting it right

Meeting with team for Company B on status update ( 3 hours)


Notes updated on word doc

Sunday, 4 March 2012

Sun 4 MAR 2012 (15) chapter 4 wip

Chapter 4 - user acceptance issues
1st draft of trust part

chapter 5 - recommendations
1st draft of trust part

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Sat 25 Feb 2012 (4) - Chapter 4 - WIP

Fri 24rd Feb 2012 (2) - Survey - ask around to complete it

Fri 24rd Feb 2012 (2) - Survey - ask around to complete it

Sat 25 Feb 2012 (3) - Meeting with Supervisor

Sat 25 Feb 2012 (3 hours )

- Meeting with Supervisor
- Internalization of discussion coming out of meeting

Status Update
Chapter 3 - Introduction of the Research Company Introduced
Started Chapter 4 - what causes User Acceptance Information ( WORK IN PROGRESS)
Survey Ongoing - 18 responses so far ( about 30 responses should be ok)
                         - Social Media did not work well - due to limited user interaction in work with users, limited                                                                                              -online presence
                         - Spoke to them in work then send the Google docs link.
                         - Training still going on so there should be more responses soon.

Next steps: 
- Finish Chapter 4.
- Look at short notes on the metrics.
- Add notes to the metrics.
- compose solid plan for the solution to user acceptance

- revisit models
- tweak Literature Review

Sunday, 19 February 2012

Sun 19 Feb 2012 - Social Media - Survey (2)

Looking on Facebook for Company A- users to send out survey
Friends added.
Survey link sent thus far to about 23 people.

Not all the users had training as yet.
Will see how it goes.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dENZUWg4bTBHbjU5emo3UV9NSDgyaGc6MQ

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Mon 13th Feb 2012 (3) - Meeting with Consultant and Lead BA at Company A

(3 hours)

Meeting held at Company A.

Consultant chat:
got access to where there are macros to run to get
- Which screens are in use by whom, date of last use.
- Genie and 5250 users are recorded- the count

Company A is proactive
- a list was compiled of which screens to get rid of -they are taking initiative to clean up as well as monitor users.

Lead BA  - Helen Ford chat:

Lead BA confirmed that users always create their own work around.
The continuous struggle she mentioned is getting users/managers to co corporate
-i.e. sometimes BAs might perceive there is room for improvement in a particular area, when the managers/user are approached to discuss a better solution, the users allege they do not have the time to spare, is lack of willingness => more linked to lack of enthusiasm for change?

e.g. multiple reports being done when 1 or a few would do the same thing? when 1 user goes on vacation there is no back up for that functionality.

*** Perhaps there is need to do ownership of work. push that idea.
Also -> users/managers might have a blind spot for how they do work, therefore cannot see beyond what they do on a daily basis.
Is it a training issues for manager - people who might be on the job for many years without proper training of the managerial aspect of things? hence the lack of insight of being able to make things better?

Tue 14th Feb 2012 (2) - Survey tweak

Tweaked the survey. Is it available at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dENZUWg4bTBHbjU5emo3UV9NSDgyaGc6MQ

Since got strict orders from company A not to bug users during work, started to look up some users on facebook.

Will have to run the survey by my project manager 1st to get the ok to go ahead.

Then will send out the survey links.

Sunday, 12 February 2012

Sun 12 Feb 2012 (1) Compiled questions for BA and Consultant Interview at Company A



Questions to ask Dave & Helen:

In terms of the system - how do we know those parts of the system that might not used?

For instance the screens usage macro.
Is there any macro that will tell us screens not in use at all?

What was the issue with the Reinsurance Insurance and many reports used to generate data that 1 could have been used?

What about the bank Rec person, Daoud, who does not like to report issues - he feels it's a bother to harass the IS team. So bugs go unnoticed for years.

What kinds of audits do we have? what does it tell us? Logs of the system.

For instance people might be using an excel sheet to do all their work and limited stuff in the database.

Manual upload was being done for a while. Only for end of year did they actually call in to make the request to fix the bug because they didn't want to have to manually do all the uploads.

Sun 12 Feb 2012 (3) - Survey for training users

Users were silent during the training session so it was difficult to determine their reaction to the new changes for the web interface for Company A

a survey has been created to follow up with this:


Questionnaire
(1-3 – TAM- perceived ease of use and usefulness of the change)
(4, 5 – Theory of reasoned behavior -Co-workers influence on the users, how much does their opinion matter)
1 Have you seen ways of how the new web interface - WebSTAR changes will make your job easier?
Yes    No
2 Is it easy to use? Yes    No
3 Will it take long to get accustom to the changes? Yes    No
4 Was the new web interface WebSTAR showed to you by one of your co-workers? Yes    No
5 Did you view any of the videos that your co-workers posted up about their opinion on the web interface – WebSTAR?   Yes    No
(6 Could this explain the silence during the training session?)
6 How do you describe yourself?
   - Introvert- shy, prefers alone time than being around people. Prefer to do a lot of thinking of ideas and concepts.
OR
  - Extrovert – prefer to be around people rather than being alone, social individual

(7-8 I am trying to figure out if there is a correlation with motivation and acceptance. The more motivated employees are, the less hostile they might be with regards to work. Could this lack of motivation pertain to lack of signs during training sessions?)
7 Do you feel motivated at work? Yes No
8 What are the reasons for lack of motivation and enthusiasm if answer is No to # 7? Tick those below
  • Lack of faith in one's abilities.
  • Fear of failure, due to failure in the past.
  • Low self-esteem.
  • Lack of enough interest.
  • Fear of what others might say.
  • The habit of procrastination.
  • Laziness.
  • No awareness of the importance and usefulness of the subject or goal.
  • The feeling or belief that there are other more important things to do.
  • Not having the time to delve into the subject or goal.
  • Being too stressed or nervous.
  • Absence of enough stimuli or incentives.

Sun 12 Feb 2012 (8) - looking at the literature

No luck yet.....

Saturday, 11 February 2012

Sat 11th Feb 20 (4) research into post implementation reviews

research into post implementation reviews

found some pdfs have to read them to see the relevance

Also found some pdfs on user satisfaction - must read these also

Sat 11th Feb 2012 - Detailed Plan for Project

Plan:
40 hours a week from February – April
Most of the research paper write up needs to be done by March 30th
Weekdays 6:00pm – 10:00pm - 4 hours per day
Weekends 10 hours per day
****
Update the Chapters layout daily
Update the critical reflection daily to write the hardships of the project
Write 1000- 1500 words weekly
Revise the flow of the chapters weekly

Meetings with supervisor for Sept = 8 hours

Meetings with supervisor for Jan = 8 hours

Meetings with supervisor for Dec = 8 hours

Meetings with supervisor for Nov = 8 hours

Meetings with supervisor for Oct = 8 hours

Jan = 31 HOURS ******************************

Dec= 11 HOURS ******************************

Nov = 44 HOURS ******************************

Oct = 39 HOURS ******************************

Sept = 25 HOURS **********************************************

Wed 8th Feb 2012 - (8) Monitor Training session

Wed 8th Feb 2012 - (8) Monitor Training session with Company A - GG
Silent reaction. not much zeal or enthusiasm. Same reaction as Mon.

Is it due to top down management forcing their hand or they just don't care? No wow what so ever.

Do they see the value of the work they do?
Must follow up with questionnaires/interviews to bring out the acceptance models that I have been looking at.

perceived usefulness/ease of use + other models.

to get their real detailed feedback.

Sat 11th Feb 2012 (4) Meeting with Supervisor & internalization

Sat 1:00 - 3:00pm (2 hours) - meeting with  supervisor
(2 hours) internalization of the outcome of the meeting & documentation

Feedback

Question:

************ 
************
During the monitor training session this week with company A, felt like there was no real reaction besides silence during session. Not enough info gathered. Did not feel fruitful.
What are my options in terms of getting real data from them?

1) Maybe the monitor sessions that were done this week can be followed up with interviews and questionnaires , since the group of users during the training session in Company A were silent during the training session.
2) possibly also investigate company culture in this regard, also top down management pushing to no choice in the matter


************ 
************
I am afraid the solution will be generic. For e.g. Have a flat company culture/structure in companies.,
1) a better solution would be have a solution for each type of culture in the different types of organisations
   e.g. flat company might have more communication but top down management style might not hold weight to            force implementation of process.
      - bigger organisation - not flat but have stronger top down influence. find a solution tailored to each type   of culture organisation
customized solution for the type of org culture - tailored metrics






************ 
************


The models I mention deal with people and behavior and applying it to user acceptance.
Comment: this can be quite useful and possibly a hybrid approach could be used to devise a User Acceptance Model for the research paper. To devise the metrics for the user acceptance checklist

See if the questionnaire can be used to bring out the models in actions the percieved usefulness of the system, perceived ease of use etc

use the metrics to analyse the data



************ 
************
I do not see statistics for strictly user acceptance. There are stuff on Successful and failed projects and the causes
Comment: see how well the root causes of the success and failure of projects are linked to end users.
Look at past projects ie post implementation reviews about how well users fit into the  project.( lit review)


************ 

************


Information gathering for user acceptance
Some parts of a system might be successful but others not successful. 3 out of 5 units might actually be used. What happens to the other 2 modules of the system. why don't users use it?

When the dusts settles and at the end of user acceptance curve, how many models pf system actually used? This tells how much of it was accepted.

Comment:
-Monitor by using audit logs of screens pages used
-How many people use 5250 and how many used genie? whats did the #s show?
-what about the RI part of it - user was running a bunch of reports to do something when one would have done the job. why the round about process to get the job done?



************ 
************







Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Mon 6th Feb 2012 -Training monitor session (8)

Mon 6th Feb 2012 -Training monitor session (8 hours)
Day 1 of 2 day training.

Was present during a training session to show users how to process on new interface at Company A

Notes made:

quiet crowd - dont know if they were overwhelmed lost or confused.

Day 1 - intro to the screens hand holding users and BA
Day 2 - actual processing with actuall data - staff processing it on the new screens

Saturday, 28 January 2012

Literature Review WIP Sat 28 jan 2012 (8)

Reading how to write one,

collating the articles and actually doing the write up

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Thur 26th Jan 2012 -Interim Report WIP (2)





A dissertation submitted to the University of Greenwich
in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science
in
Information Systems Management

An investigation into why there is user acceptance issues in organisations despite having a methodology and practices in place.

Name:                            Marina Maharaj

Student ID:                   648810





Supervisor             : Mr Kumar Bobby Sookram
Submission Date   : March 2012
    Report                    : Interim Report
Word count           :




13. The Interim Report (Minimum of 2500 words)

It is assumed that significant progress towards the project’s completion will have been made
when this is written. The interim report should be a more substantial document than the initial
report. There is
􀂾 a header sheet plus two parts,
􀂾 Part A which is the Progress Report and
􀂾 Part B which should be a draft of the final report that produced to date.

􀀄 Header
This is also available on the website.
􀂾 Identifying information (student’s name, id).
􀂾 MSc Programme Title
􀂾 Project title
􀂾 The Supervisor’s Name
􀂾 Project Submission Date
􀂾 Keywords associated with the project

Part A which is the Progress Report and

Part A – Progress Report (500 - 1,000 words)
This follows the same format at the initial report and has 3 sections:
Current Situation: This section should include scheduled objectives/sub-objectives and
whether they have been achieved. If not why, those in the process of being achieved,
preliminary results, work completed, etc.

Problem areas: This should cover current problems and plans for their resolution.
Key work during the next period: Specify methods, tasks and activities and the estimates of
time to complete them. Indicate the actual progress made and identify any deviation from the
original proposal and plan.


 Part B – Draft of Project Report to Date (minimum of 2000 words)
This must include:
draft table of contents for your final report, with annotations concerning your intentions
for the chapters

Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................
1.1 Background..............................................................................................
1.2 Research methodology.............................................................................
1.2.1 Scope of study.......................................................................................
1.2.2 Objectives of the study..........................................................................
1.2.3 Justification of the study.......................................................................

Literature Review....................................................................
2.1 Definition of User Acceptance..................................................................
2.2 Comparison of Acceptance Models..........................................................
2.3 What works and what does not work in user acceptance..........................
2.4 People factor in Information Systems/Information Technology...............
2.5 Social Implications on Information Systems.............................................
2.6 Culture dimension on Information Systems..............................................

Overview of the Companies being investigated......................
3.1 Background.................................................................................................
3.2 Methodology in the companies...................................................................
3.3 Types of projects the companies are involved in........................................
3.4 Standards adhered to by companies............................................................
3.5 Culture within the companies......................................................................
3.6 Perception of User Acceptance within the companies................................

Companies, Projects and People...............................................
4.1 Investigation into Projects that worked........................................................
4.2 Investigation into Projects that did not worked so well................................
4.3 Differentiation Factors across Companies and projects...............................
4.3.1 Team Involved...........................................................................................
4.3.2 Sub cultures...............................................................................................
4.3.3 Project roll out...........................................................................................
4.4 Survey Results.…………………………………………………………………………………...……..

Acceptance Models revisited......................................................
5.1 Aspects of the Models that work...................................................................
5.2 Limitations of the Models..............................................................................
5.3 Recommendations for the Models.................................................................

Recommendations on achieving user acceptance..........................
6.1 Factors that must be present to achieve user acceptance.....................................
6.2 Conditions that are not encouraged.....................................................................

Limitations of Research Paper........................................................
7.1................................................................................

Critical Evaluation and Reflection of Research Paper
8.1................................................................................................................................


Conclusion..........................................................................................
9.1................................................................................................................................

References..........................................................................................
Appendix.............................................................................................







draft of at least two chapters – one of which must be the literature review.
Your supervisor will give you feedback on your progress at this stage and will make
recommendations for the final stage of the project.



Part B which should be a draft of the final report that produced to date

Chapter 1 Introduction

Abstract
1.1  Background..............................................................................................

Organisations are investing into technology as well as implementing methodologies and best practices to achieve successful information systems projects.  In addition to this, end users are brought in early to get their feedback on the system in order to stay on point with the user needs. Hard and soft system methodologies) are also used as well as user input, yet there is still an end user acceptance issues in organisations in Trinidad.

This end user problem was noticed in one organisation in Trinidad and then informal surveys were carried out in other organisations that implemented methodologies and the common issue arise that is end user acceptance problems.

This research paper seeks to investigate company (ies) in Trinidad which after implementing the known standards and best practices, there is still a disconnect with what the users need and what is actually developed and hence, leading to not high user acceptance in some areas. By understanding the challenges of user acceptance in companies, recommendations will be made to improve the acceptance levels in organisations.


1.2  Research methodology.............................................................................
The approach that was taken in this report was investigative work involving research with three companies. Interviews were carried out with people from the 3 organisations. Surveys were also sent out the keys person hand picked due to their involvement in projects.


1.2.1 Scope of study.......................................................................................
1.2.2 Objectives of the study..........................................................................

Metrics
The objective of this research paper is to understand the factors that inhibit user acceptance. By understanding what these conditions will one be able to adequately work towards achieving end user acceptance. The companies that are being looked at are those with and Information technology and Information System background.
At the end of this paper a list of metrics will be shown that one can use as a guide in attaining user approval.

1.2.3 Justification of the study.......................................................................







Literature Review....................................................................
2.1 Definition of User Acceptance..................................................................
2.2 Comparison of Acceptance Models..........................................................
2.3 What works and what does not work in user acceptance..........................
2.4 People factor in Information Systems/Information Technology...............
2.5 Social Implications on Information Systems.............................................
2.6 Culture dimension on Information Systems..............................................