Business Studies Essays on Information Technologies
RQ-2. The role of accountants in the SDLC and why they might be called on for input into the development of a non-accounting information system?
Accountants play a significant role since they are involved in a number of transactions that involve both the financial and human resources and it is because of these crucial roles and duties that they are involved in SLDC (Wall et al. 37). All systems that process financial transactions affect the accounting function. They are in the first place concerned about the quality of the accounting information systems because this system produce the information that is used to report to both internal and external entities. Being users, accountants provide some of the problems and needs to be solved by the system. As development team players they can be consulted to determine if the system continues to an internal control risk. Finally the accountants can be auditors in the process of assessing the successes and failures of a system, here they use it in their operations and determine whether it does solve the problems they envisaged (Wall et al. 44). They can be called during the development of non-accounting information if the application uses accounting data in performing its designated functions. Their involvement extends beyond the development of strictly accounting information systems
RQ-4 Since information systems often involve advanced technologies that are beyond the knowledge level of typical users, should users play an active role in the SDLC. If so, how should they be involved?
The finale proprietors of a system must be dynamically involved since the projected system is anticipated to benefit them. Therefore regardless of the technology used a user can provide a detailed description at various levels for instance in the project proposal where they give their insights with regards to existing problems and the foreseeable solutions from the system. Though this should be maintained as the user’s view and not that of the system developers. It is essential they be part of the system as they need to be satisfied by it. The process of creating user specifications involves combined efforts emanating from the users and the system professionals (Wall et al. 42).
R2- How rushing the system’s requirements stage may delay or even result in the failure of a systems development process. And conversely, how spending too long in this stage may result in “analysis paralysis.”
This phase involves determining the requirements of a system. This can be through meetings between users and even managers. Here it is determined in details how the system will be used, the data to be input and the expected outcomes. The requirements they are analyzed to determine their validity in the system. This also serves as a guide in the implementation of the project. Therefore if inadequate time is spent on this phase, little about the requirements will be unearthed. If one doesn’t know the exact need of the project and if the system is hurriedly developed, it means the output will not satisfy the users. Conversely, if too much time is spent in this stage it implies gleaning unnecessary detail that will make the system too complex in design and use, therefore analysis paralysis.
R5- The purpose of systems project proposals and how they are evaluated and prioritized.
A system proposal offers the basis from which the management makes the final decision. It outlines the results of the study conducted pointing towards the recommendations that are aimed at improving the existing system or getting a new one (Wall et al. 49). This will enable the management to determine the feasibility of the system. It also outlines the linkage between the aims of the proposal and the firm goals. If the proposal indicates more gains and improvement in efficiency, then its implementation is prioritized. The process of prioritization is objective.
Walls, Joseph G., George R. Widmeyer, and Omar A. El Sawy. “Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS.” Information systems research 3.1 (1992): 36-59.