Midsouth Chamber Of Commerce Case Summary
1. Describe the mistakes that the chamber has made since the implementation of the Unitrak software – since the Midsouth Chamber of Commerce (A) case study.
A. Prior to the implementation of Unitrak, Lassiter thought Unitrak had the software capabilities of help MSCC’s information system problems. Lassiter allowed the lack of “time” to be the guiding factor concerning the decision making of adapting the system. He, alone, was not qualified to make the best determination to adopt the Unitrak system.
i. Wilson, Kovecki, and outside consultants should have reviewed and compared the software capabilities of the Unitrak system to MSCC’s needs. The involvement of key IT personnel should have been involved in the needs for the information system. There was not enough buy in and acceptance from MSCC personnel. Key employees were not part of the decision-making. Lassiter should have waited for a complete evaluation of the software before suggesting to management that it was the best software package.
B. Wilson only observed the demonstration for 45 minutes of the 3-hour presentation by Unitrak. He was not vested in the decision-making. Kovecki was not …show more content…
After consulting with an attorney specializing in computer software contracts, MSCC found that situation was far worse than MSCC first imagined. The contract did not contain any of the assurances that Lassiter and Gramen were given verbally. It also gave DMA the right to increase the price of services and products at its discretion, while limiting DMA’s financial and performance liabilities. The contract also stated that half of the cost of the new system was to be paid as a down payment and the rest of the cost to be paid upon acceptance of the satisfaction of the installation of each individual module. Even though the acceptance certificates were not signed, MSCC had paid for the system in full, in effect, accepting satisfaction of the system and leaving MSCC with no
A. Prior to the implementation of Unitrak, Lassiter thought Unitrak had the software capabilities of help MSCC’s information system problems. Lassiter allowed the lack of “time” to be the guiding factor concerning the decision making of adapting the system. He, alone, was not qualified to make the best determination to adopt the Unitrak system.
i. Wilson, Kovecki, and outside consultants should have reviewed and compared the software capabilities of the Unitrak system to MSCC’s needs. The involvement of key IT personnel should have been involved in the needs for the information system. There was not enough buy in and acceptance from MSCC personnel. Key employees were not part of the decision-making. Lassiter should have waited for a complete evaluation of the software before suggesting to management that it was the best software package.
B. Wilson only observed the demonstration for 45 minutes of the 3-hour presentation by Unitrak. He was not vested in the decision-making. Kovecki was not …show more content…
After consulting with an attorney specializing in computer software contracts, MSCC found that situation was far worse than MSCC first imagined. The contract did not contain any of the assurances that Lassiter and Gramen were given verbally. It also gave DMA the right to increase the price of services and products at its discretion, while limiting DMA’s financial and performance liabilities. The contract also stated that half of the cost of the new system was to be paid as a down payment and the rest of the cost to be paid upon acceptance of the satisfaction of the installation of each individual module. Even though the acceptance certificates were not signed, MSCC had paid for the system in full, in effect, accepting satisfaction of the system and leaving MSCC with no