Case Study 3

The president has authorised the design of a new on-line teller system for a medium-sized
bank, signifying the start of deployment. The project manager produced a master plan that
detailed who would be responsible for each job and when they would be completed. Three
weeks before the deployment, new deposit slips and withdrawers were ordered and supplied.
In the meanwhile, lobby and drive-in teller copies of the user manual were printed. The tellers
begin learning how to input various transactions soon after the terminals are placed. They got
the opportunity to ask questions and inquire about the new system after the training sessions
were over. The telephone company and the computer service professional connected the
terminal to the master system after it was finished.
The analyst asked the chief teller the following Monday (a week before the real conversion) if
the tellers could come in on Saturday to catch up on work and run test data to reinforce recent
training. The chief teller agreed to work extra, but only 12 of the 17 tellers showed up on
Saturday. During that period, the complete system was tested and found to be in working
order.
The bank reopened the next Monday, and the online system was up and running as usual. The
president greeted customers at the front entrance. In the lobby, coffee and cake were offered.
The analyst issued a report to the board directors at the end of the day, alerting them that the
system was now operational and that all user criteria had been satisfied.
The analyst was summoned to the board meeting three weeks later. The chairman chastised
the analyst for exceeding the board-approved allocated amount. Furthermore, the analyst's
authority to construct the system was exceeded when he allowed the terminal vendor
permission to bring in two CRT screens to speed up information retrieval. The bank's auditor
also assessed that it would take 3.8 years to break even on the entire cost of the installation,
rather than the earlier estimate of 2.1 years. The analyst exited the boardroom feeling very
defeated since he didn't know what to say.

Question and Answer

1. What are the major problems in the case? Who is to blame? Why?
A. The fundamental problem in this case was a lack of communication; the analyst did not
sufficiently confer with his superiors before installing and adding components outside
his control, resulting in budget overrun. If the analyst had properly spoken with his
superiors and asked permission to proceed or not, the situation would not have
worsened. As a result, the analyst is to blame for the issue.
2. Was the board chairman justified in his criticism of the analyst? Explain.

A. In each organisation, there is no single person; rather, there are many stakeholders,
and a single bad decision can harm many clients as well as the company's
employees. The corporation will now have to re-evaluate its position and reexamine
everything since the breakeven level was exceeded by 3.8 years, which is a large
period of time, and the board chairman's action was perfectly reasonable and
warranted.

3. Discuss whether the analyst succeeded in implementation of the system.

A. Yes. The analyst successfully integrated the new system. For the last three weeks,
the new system has been functioning successfully, and both employees and
customers have become acclimated to it. However, in terms of expenses, it has
exceeded the budget without the approval of the chairman and board of directors.
As a result, the bank's viewpoint may be different.