Lecture 01 - Introduction – Why do

Systems Fail?
 Centralcriticism of information systems has
been (and still is) that:
many systems do not do what their users require
and thus fall into disuse.

 Inorder for a system to be considered

successful it needs to meet quality and
productivity targets
 The system meets the requirements
specification (i.e. it serves the purpose for
which it was originally intended)
 these targets relate to(4 areas of
understanding)
 an understanding of the business area
 the user requirements
 the organisational constraints
 other environmental factors
 The system is delivered on time and within
budget.
 These targets relate to:
 successful management of the project, from
inception to implementation
 As
we have already said, for a system to be
deemed successful it must meet its quality
and productivity targets

A system may considered unsuccessful on a

number of different levels:
 The system is never delivered to the user
 there are a number of reasons for abandoning a
project.
 Often, this is a better course of action than
implementing a system that will never be
properly used.
 Thesystem fails one or both of its targets
and is rejected by the users.
 Here, the system is delivered to the users despite
the fact that it may late, over-budget or both.
 System is rejected before it becomes operational
 Thesystem fails one or both of its targets
and is accepted by the users
 probably the worst outcome for an unsuccessful
project
 system is operational despite all of its problems.
 May be resented by users.
 May hinder organisation rather than help it.
 The wrong problem has been identified

 Neglect of wider organisational issues

 Incorrect analysis

 System developed for the wrong reasons

 Users change their minds
 External events may occur that change the
requirements
 Implementation may not be feasible

Another general cause for an unsuccessful

system may be poor project control.
 Unsuccessful systems are not new.
 The complexity of a system does not
necessarily relate to its chances of success or
failure.

 Throughoutthe history of Information

Systems development spectacular failures
have been apparent
 Early problems of quality and productivity
discussed in the Garmisch conference (1968)
 In 1989, reported in the Washington Post:
 Federal agencies incurred costs of $9 billion in
1982 for IS development
 They incurred costs of $17 billion in 1989 for IS
development
 Comment relating to these figures was:

Invariably these systems do not work as

planned, have costs overrunning in the
millions (and even hundreds of millions) of
dollars, and are not developed on time.
Congressional interest has increased!”
 DTI report (1983) showed that:
in the UK of 15 organisations, only a half found
job reductions after computer systems were
introduced. In some cases, many jobs were
created.

 DTI report (1985) found that:

time-scale overruns occurred in 66% of
projects. 55% were over budget.
 KPMG (1990) quoted:
Runaway systems concerned over 30% of all
major projects.
Major effects of these systems were:
 Loss of time
 reduction in staff morale
 loss of money
 customer satisfaction
 a negative market image
 Many high-profile failures published in the
1990s.
 Many of these systems in the public sector
 Social security payments system (Pathway)
 blighted from the outset
 cost £180 million (written off in the end)
 Should have been delivered in 1997
 Finally scrapped

See additional material for more details on this story

 More system failures thru the 1990s
 London Ambulance system
 Classic example of poor analysis and design
 Complete misunderstanding of the environment and
Human Activity Systems
 Housing benefit systems
 Millions wasted before realisation that integration of
different procedures between different councils
required understanding of the business processes
 Year2000 onward has seen just as many
system failures ……
 Child Support Agency system
 Went live in March 2003
 Was two years late and didn’t work properly
 Thousands of parents still waiting for files to be moved
to new system
 After awarding the system to EDS the CSA dept gave
them over 2,500 changes to the system design
 Libra magistrates court system
 Cost £390million
 Supposed to deliver a unified case management
system to Magistrates courts in England & Wales
 Started in 1992. In September 2004 decided that it is
unfit for purpose
 NHS NPfIT
 £12.4 billion programme
 Plagued with problems from outset
 Systems don’t do what the users want them to
do (little consultation)
 Emphasis has been on infrastructure and not on
users needs
 Too many contractors (making money for
themselves)
 Accenture has just pulled out
 Not all system problems are government
based..
 MFI
 2004/05 MFI’s new system failed
 UK retail division will show a ‘substantial loss’ following
the discovery of significant issues with the system which
are affecting its ability to dispatch orders.
 MFI said they needed to spend another £30 million on it
 Co-Op
 Lost an £11 million pound legal battle with ICL (Fujitsu)
following failure of a major programme to install a
common IT infrastructure.
 We have highly educated development
staff…..
 We have IT literate users
 We have many different methodologies to
support the life cycle across a wide range of
different applications
 Any development framework, can only be
used as a guide.
 Each organisation is unique with its own
needs and problems.
 Each set of end-users is unique with its own
aspirations and concerns.
 A methodology will only ever be as good as
the people who use it…...
A methodology can give help control the
development environment but it cannot
overcome the human and organisational
factors that might be preventing the project
from succeeding.
 Role of end-user is significant in
successful development of an information
system.
 Modern methodologies stress
technological development, but ignore
human factors.
 Role of analyst is not only to elicit
information system requirements but also
to analyse the human environment to be
supported by the system
 Situationalfactors
 Organisational objectives
 Development methods currently used
 Organisational issues
 Application type
 Information systems developments go wrong (and
have done since they started being developed)
 We can measure how good the information
systems development is by looking at:
 Quality targets
 Productivity targets
 We can, if we attentive learn from our mistakes
 Any approach we take to information systems
development should take account of:
 Human factors
 Organisational factors