1. Give two examples of systems that are natural candidates for direct change over as the installation strategy. (5)

System that regenerates itself periodically. For example, accounting system, taxation system, etc.

2. Do you agree with the following statement? Justify your answer.(5)

"Compared to structured methodologies, the object oriented approach does not offer a useful method for partitioning systems functionalities."

Yes. While structured methodologies offer data flow diagrams as a systematic way of partitioning a system, the object oriented approach offers weak tools to do the same. For example, Coad and Yourdon’s subject areas are arbitrary and ineffective for this task.

3. How is adaptive maintenance different from perfective maintenance of software? (5)

Adaptive Maintenance: Changes to evolve its functionality to changing business needs or to migrate to a different operating environment.

Perfective Maintenance: Enhancements to improve processing performance, interface usability, desired but not necessary functions.

4. What are some of the common reasons for technically sound systems to be rejected by users? (5)

A rug manufacturer and importer wanted to have his own computer and run applications away from the parent company's mainframe. A computer consultant (with no knowledge of the rug business) did a feasibility study. He recommended a system with which he had design experience.

The firm leased the system and signed a contract with the consultant to do the installation and training. The consultants brought in two programmers and a data base specialist to convert the files and train personnel. For weeks, everyone was busy with what was bound to be a successful system.

As a first step, the company decided to compare the reports generated by the new system with those available from the main computer. The procedure was to run invoices first, followed by accounts receivable and payable. The first inventory reports seemed way out of line with reality. Both the format of the reports and the data were off. The few invoices sent out brought hostile complaints from customers who were overcharged for their orders. Further attempts to correct the errors only generated more inaccuracies. The company decided to go back to the old system and cancel the whole project.

The matter ended up in court with the consultant demanding the balance due him on the project. The company filed a counter suit claiming irreparable damage to the firm. An investigation discovered that despite management's lack of experience with computers, they decided to convert three major applications at the same time. The employees, not having been forewarned of the conversion, panicked. Prior to the computer, they had undocumented methods of invoicing, keeping track of inventory, and billing -- procedures that the consultant never knew of or inquired about. To make matters worse, he did not even know that the parent company's warehouse system had a terminal that used the mainframe to update inventory.

System testing was also a disaster. Only real data were used. The resulting output was so unwieldy that no one could audit or verify its accuracy until it was too late. With no interface between the system being tested and the mainframe, there was no way the files could be copied. The consultant decided to go ahead with the incoming data only and to worry later about copying the files on the mainframe.

Documentation and audit procedures were virtually nonexistent. No one seemed to know who changed what. There was no way of telling whether errors were caused by the software or by incorrectly entered data.

The contract was well written. It simply committed the consultant to install a computer system and the company to pay the consultant $75 per hour plus out-of-pocket expenses. The consultant never really knew what the company wanted, and the company had no work with the consultant. The employees stayed out of the ways, since they had not been consulted and were not knowledgeable about computers. The programmers, in their opinions, were simply obnoxious. Another consultant who came in to evaluate the mess thought the whole installation was primitive and lacked state-of-the-art software.

1. What went wrong in this case? Be specific. (5)

1. The consultant's lack of knowledge of the rug business.
2. Employee's lack of understanding of the technology and what changes are being incorporated. The consultant's failure to ask the right question to make sure he was installing a system with user requirements in mind.
3. Failure to adequately do system test.
4. Lack of system audit-ability.
5. Poor documentation.

1. Elaborate on the importance of a computer contract. What elements would you have emphasized in the contract? Why? (5)

The contract should spell out the responsibilities of the consultant and the user staff. It should have a liability clause, specifying the cost of failure to perform. Delivery dates should also be agreed upon.

2. Does a contract save an installation from failure? In what way? (5)

No, but it makes the consultant cognizant of the need to perform or face serious damage to his reputation and possible financial losses.

3. What testing procedure should have been followed? Explain. (5)