chapter 3, we indicated the nature of the three factor categories and the influence they have on each phase of the development life cycle. In the case of the socioorganizational factors, the collective dominance of the factors in determining what the system is to do—that is, in defining the requirements for the software—makes them (i.e., the factors) critical in shaping the outcome of the requirements stage of the life cycle.The critical impact of the socioorganizational factors also mildly extends to the design stage of the life cycle, because the products of the requirements stage are the drivers of the alternative "solution" approaches the designers may employ in determining how to satisfy the functional specifications embodied in the requirements documents. In addition, one-half of the factors in this category—unrealistic project goals and objectives, and changing requirements—are also present in the table 3.2. The design alternatives, which are the outcome of the design stage of the life cycle, are thus inextricably linked to the requirements documents, making the impact of the socioorganizational factors mildly critical to the design process as well. For example, in the CODIS project, the lack of consensus on project goals and objectives, coupled with the lack of senior management involvement, was particularly harmful in determining what the requirements for the system must be and how they would be realized in the design stage of the development life cycle. In the Confirm project, the design stage experienced difficulties partly as a result of the failure to address issues associated with the project's goals and objectives, partly because of the changing requirements of the project (which resulted in changes in the functional specifications), and, of course, partly because of the alleged hands-off approach reportedly exercised in the development by the senior management of the other three partners of the consortium. In the Delta project, design changes resulting from changes in the requirements brought on by shifting goals and objectives took their toll on the project's outcome. And in the BHS project, the frequent design changes brought on by changing requirements added to the cost overruns and completion-schedule delays.In the implementation phase of the life cycle, the influence of the socioorganizational factors appears to be mildly critical to the outcome of the process, because they are not directly driving the outcome of the implementation stage. Even though the same two socioorganizational factors present in the design stage are also present in the implementation stage, their impact is dictated by the outcomes of the design stage. The impact of the socioorganizational factors, chapter 3 argued, is at most mildly critical to the implementation stage. In fact, this impact can be less severe if the outcome of the design stage does not generate ripple effects that negatively influence the implementation outcome. Thus although the impact of the socioorganizational factors on the implementation is generally mildly critical, it still does not directly affect the process outcome during the implementation phase. Therefore the implementation is somewhat insulated by whatever necessary corrections are made at the design stage, as a consequence of the critical impact of the socioorganizational factors in the requirements stage of the development.
لطفا منتظر باشید ...
