Professional Salon Concepts
Steve Cowan is the owner of a distribution company of salon hair products. The company, Professional Salon Concepts, (PSC) was growing and decided to upgrade their AIS to support the demands of the company. Steve hired Mike, his brother-in-law to assist him and the two of them began to research the different products available believing they could better determine the needs of the company than a consultant could. After a short time they bought first one and then changing their minds and bought a second system. After a short training period the new system was installed with some very problematic first few days. Eventually the system was up and running but never fully doing what they had originally wanted from the new system. Romney & Steinbart (2009).
Professional Salon Concepts AIS Implementation Case Study 19-1
Implementing new AIS is something that businesses everywhere have to consider at some point and time. The case of PSC and how they went about choosing and implementing their AIS is what we will be looking at. There are six main points of consideration I will be covering in this study. The first is a look at how good of a job PSC did in selecting, installing and implementing their new system. We will look at what they did wrong and what they could have done differently. We will try to determine how PSC could have avoided the missing features, the conversion and reporting problems they had.
Next we will review Steve’s analysis of his numbers and determine if his conclusions were correct. Looking at his new shipping system we want to see if there is a way that PSC’s customers can defraud the company. Finally, we will take a look at the level of service PSC received from the company where they purchased their new AIS and how it could have been improved. Steve’s Assessment
Selecting the New AIS
PSC spent months researching software and attending demonstrations. While doing research on their own is not a bad thing they however dismissed the possible use of consultants. Again not always a bad thing but when they did their research, it is not clear if they had a confirmed set of requirements of their needs in the new AIS. As a result PSC never compared companies through a request for proposals, (RFP); if they had they could have sent their requirements to the vendors. The vendors would then have sent back their proposals to PSC. After eliminating vendors that do not meet the minimum requirements, PSC could then do a comparison of the remaining vendors before making a final decision. Romney & Steinbart (2009). The key is the set requirements and minimum standards they were willing to settle for.
In the end they had decided on one system, paid for it and had started installing it when they changed their minds and went with a different company. The company, DSM was chosen almost on a whim. DSM could not demonstrate all of the features PSC had wanted and took a reassurance that they would get those features without documentation. PSC also did not do an extensive background check into DSM before they purchased the new AIS. Installation
Installation and implementing of the new AIS was anything but smooth. In retrospect even Steve knew they did not take the time needed to properly test or to train employees on how to use the new system. Three months was not sufficient time to try and work out the possible problems they would have with the new AIS. While Steve felt that training was very important he greatly underestimated the amount of time that was needed for proper training of employees on the new systems.
The operators should have been involved from the beginning to determine what was needed and how it was being implemented into the new AIS. Each of these operators should also have been included in the design of the interface they would be using. If their input was not a possible part of the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document