CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSION
10.2.2.3 Reasons for a New System
The key areas under this heading are cost, results of the user needs analysis
and integration.
Most participants stated that cost and the rand / dollar exchange rate were the
fundamental reasons for needing a new system. This area would have been
difficult to predetermine at the point of purchase, 1993, and involves much
The research states that a user needs analysis was conducted in the post- implementation stage and the information from this analysis was used as support for the decision not to continue with Banner upgrades. As mentioned in a number of places throughout this document, this kind of user needs analysis is essential to a systems implementation and should have been done prior to purchase.
The final reason uncovered by this study was the issue of integration. The university was operating with a number of systems that did not communicate with each other and hence difficulty was experienced when trying to interface between the systems. The research indicates that Banner was decided upon without much reflection into the implications of this system for the wider university computing system.
10.2.3 Training
The training model implemented was particularly problematic. It was an event- driven, repetition-based model that produced a number of unexpected
outcomes.
A major problem with the training system was that it never produced a group of core, power users that had a good global view of the full functionality of the system and what it could do. People were shown what to do for certain events that were rapidly approaching in the university's calendar. It was shown that this was sometimes done without even explaining to the trainees why they are doing it. The training seemed to be a very technical 'step-by-step1 process that failed to create any depth of understanding in terms of potential for use among the users. This again adding to the system of dependency that was created in the way the system was implemented.
Another unexpected development was the strong informal network that developed within the system. I would argue that this was mainly a result of a non-confrontational learning system (Model O - I Learning System, Argyris
168
and Schon, 1978) whereby people created another level of complexity within this system rather than confront the issue at hand.
As a final observation in terms of the training aspect of the implementation process, I would suggest that the strongest influence on the perceptions of Banner's usefulness within the university were faculty officers. How well these people could use the system and how much of a grasp of what the system could do for the university these people had, had a strong influence as to whether Banner was perceived in a positive or negative manner. This is directly related to the training of users.
10.2.4 Information
What emerged from the research was that the system was used more for administrative purposes than other functions. Access to useful management information was inherently problematic within this system. In fact, the complexity of the system grew again with the development of MIBS to cope with this type of reporting.
A guiding principle within the Banner system is that of being relatively report free. This is due to the different requirements of each university for reporting.
In principle, I can see the benefit of this, but this needs to be matched with the requisite resources to make use of the inherent potential within the system.
A common comment from participants was that all the information was there, it just wasn't used. I raised the question at that point in regards to the value of unrealised potential. If the technology is capable of something, but the system as a whole is not operating effectively then is it fair, or even useful, to say that the potential is there. It would seem to be more of a blame shifting strategy
than a useful suggestion.
10.3 Overall Findings
Two other areas of importance have been shown through the research. The first is the complexity of the system and the second is the question of what exactly the Banner system was.
When I began to map out the extent of the overall system, I was amazed at the complexity that I saw. What amazed me even more was that this complexity existed in an environment where technology had been implemented in an attempt, one would hope, to bring about a greater degree of efficiency and effectiveness with regard to workplace procedures and operating practices.
I have attempted to show this complexity visually with the rich picture presented below. It shows a total of six systems operating within the one larger system and I have also attempted to show how these systems interact with one another. Although sometimes it is the case that the systems have developed very much so that they do not have to interact, and that is also shown. See Figure 12 on the next page.
The other area mentioned leads on from the discussion above and is concerned with what exactly the Banner system was. I think the results have shown that to think of it purely in terms of the technology implemented would
be to dismiss aspects of the system that have had a vital and powerful impact
on the Wider Banner System.
As mentioned before, I would argue that this is the route the university took. It certainly seemed to cut resources once the physical implementation was
completed.
170
DepartmentalSystem
InformationTechnologyDivision Figure12:RichPictureoftheWiderBannerSystem
□ DDD DDDD
BannerTechnology171
This issue really revolves around wider and more generic issue of the role of, what I would call, workplace operating systems and information systems. As mentioned earlier, an information system must fit the current workplace operating systems or the organisation must change so that workplace operating systems match the new technology. But this is not a simple, clearly defined situation. It is more of a messy, dynamic and intensely complex situation that requires a great deal of thought and investigation.
The case study used in this research shows what I believe to be a poor use of technology and indicates a lack of intensive investigation into the issue we are discussing. This point begins to touch on the importance of boundary definition in an implementation such as this.
10.4 Learning from the Banner Implementation
10.4.1 Decision support systems