Software Comparison
Team BBQ Chicken
Parth Sheth, Albert Adeseye, Brandon Roberson, and Sarah Skedsvold
IT Project Management Spring 2014 4/22/14
Software Comparison ii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
Business Case ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
Goal Identification ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Value ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Identification of Constraints and Risks ................................................................................................................. 5
Feasibility and Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 5
Project Charter .......................................................................................................................................................... 7-12
Identify the Project ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Stakeholders Involved ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Scope of Project Contributing to MOV ................................................................................................................ 7
Scope of Project .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Deliverable Definition Table ............................................................................................................................... 10
Schedule and Budget ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Resources Required ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Assumptions and Risks ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Administration Plan for the Project ..................................................................................................................... 12
Stakeholder Analysis .................................................................................................................................................... 14
Scope Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 15
Scheduling and Gantt Chart .................................................................................................................................... 16-18
Work Breakdown Structure ................................................................................................................................. 16
Gantt Chart .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Work Product .......................................................................................................................................................... 19-22
I. Initial Thoughts ................................................................................................................................................ 19
II. Testing ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
III. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Reflections .............................................................................................................................................................. 25-27
Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................................. 26
Moving Forward .................................................................................................................................................. 27
1
Executive Summary Our team, BBQ Chicken, aided Dr. Aronson in the process of finding a plausible
replacement to the current MIST 2090 software, MyITLab 2010. The Management Information
Systems department at the University of Georgia is our client. They have been using the current
software for the past few years. Since said software is now being replaced with a newer version,
the department is in need of assistance researching software alternatives in the current market. In
order to find a replacement, our team met with various representatives from three different
companies: McGraw Hill, Cengage, and Pearson.
Currently, the course operates using MyITLab 2010, a Pearson product. The 2010 version
is prone to glitches and difficulties. The technical flaws require a plethora of time and effort for
troubleshooting, consuming the time of the teaching assistants (TA’s) and Dr. Aronson. File
sharing is another issue that allowed students to bypass their education in Excel. If these students
get caught, they face the academic dishonesty penalty, causing large amounts of paperwork and
consuming Dr. Aronson’s time. Therefore, our team’s first requirement for each alternative
software is a file sharing detection capability. This ties into our Measurable Organizational Value
(MOV), promoting better learning and helping students develop knowledge of Excel. This will
lead to a better assessment of student learning, as well as increased reliability in student results.
For this project, we had to analyze three different software companies: SAM from
Cengage, simnet from McGraw Hill, and MyITLab 2013 from Pearson. Our analyses of the
software consisted of us testing the assignments, projects, and exams in each software and
making a pros and cons list of the software. This helps us compare and contrast which software
would best fit into the curriculum and match the goal of our client. All three of these software
options offer semi-user-friendly interfaces. Our challenge remained to pick the most effective of
those.
After our testing had finished, we came to a mutual conclusion that MyITLab 2013 was
the best software for the following year. We came to this result after testing all three software
2
options. SAM seems too cluttered and difficult to follow. Simnet had too many boxes, making it
unorganized and disarranged. Additionally, simnet offers so much assistance for students, that it
oversimplifies the assignments and prohibits student learning. MyITLab 2013, on the other hand,
would be simple for the professor and teaching assistants to follow since it is similar to the
baseline product. Also, the assignments require students to learn and work on their own, without
excessive guidance. Another bonus of choosing MyITLab 2013 is that there is a partnership
between Pearson and Desire2Learn. This partnership benefits the professors and teaching
assistants because the grades from the software will automatically be inserted into eLearning
Commons, saving them time and Aronson. Most importantly, perhaps, is the feature allowing
students to earn actual credentials in Excel that are applicable to resumes, etc. For these reasons,
our team recommended MyITLab to Dr. Aronson for the MIST 2090 course.
3
Business Case Introduction Executive Statement
Our team has undertaken the arduous task of testing different systems (with the assistance
of Dr. Aronson) to replace the current MyITLab 2010 system, for future MIST 2090 courses.
Our team of four has been selected to manage a project (under the supervision of Dr. Srinivasan)
with our selected representative by preparing a business case and charter.
What needs to be done?
In its current state, the MIST 2090 course operates using MyITLab 2010, an old version
that is prone to several issues. On several occasions these technical flaws have required a high
devotion of time and energy from teaching assistants and the staff from the Terry Office of
Information Technology. Generally, file sharing has been a prevalent issue; if caught, the student
faces a penalty of academic dishonesty. To mitigate this, we have added a new requirement in
our selected software to warn students in advance about the file they are submitting and the
ramifications of academic dishonesty.
Who is the team and what do they do?
Our core team consists of Albert Adeseye, Sarah Skedsvold, Brandon Roberson, and
Parth Sheth who have analyzed and tested these systems with the goal of finding which is more
beneficial to the needs of the course.
4
Goal Identification Request for Proposal
This Request for Proposal will grant our project management group the ability to evaluate
different software from the following companies: SAM from Cengage, simnet from McGraw
Hill, and MyITLab 2013 from Pearson. Our analyses of the software will include our team
contacting those with authorization to assist in the explanation of features, functions, and
processes to make needed recommendations.
Goal Identification
In relation to our measurable organizational value, our project goals require “promotion
of better learning and development of student knowledge of Excel.” We measure this as success
if “⅔ of students would rate it at 80% effectiveness” when asked how well it facilitates learning.
Value
The total value to the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia includes
both a more effective learning experience and as a time saving tool. An example of this is a new
feature that this system offers which allows full integration into the current eLearning Commons
online system. This functionality allows the grades from MyITLab to be directly be input into the
eLearning Commons due to a prior partnership between Pearson and Desire2Learn. Additionally,
our team has found that there will be no additional increased cost to the budget for the
Management Information Systems department because the cost of the project is within the
budget.
We as the project team plan to provide value in this software selection in the following areas:
• Promotion of increased learning with a better assessment of student learning
5
• Increased reliability and accuracy of software
• Success if ⅔ of students would rate it at 80% when asked how well it facilitates learning
Identification of Constraints and Risks These are the factors that contribute to the limitations in the project.
1. Time – Although the project was assigned in the beginning of the semester, the time it
will take to select and implement our selected software system would unfortunately
extend beyond the duration of this course. Since, there is a gap between the end of the
course and the implementation of the software, we are unable to adequately determine if
our recommendation is effective for the students.
2. Software Alternatives – Our team was challenged to work under the notion that the
current system would no longer be used for future semesters. Now, since this software
would not be used at all we did not have a default system to fall back on, any selection of
a system would be based solely on performance and improvement. Finally, we faced
constraints with the options of software alternatives. With this, we did not have the ability
to researching new software options on our own and we could only make a decision from
those presented to us.
3. Number of Testers in the Team – When our team tested the software alternatives we were
presented, we realized that our testing methods were not as broad as a full comprehensive
test should be. When testing a system, a team of several individuals generally dedicate
there time toward specific goals and features that are present or lacking. Unfortunately,
our team is rather small and testing to this extent would have been very time consuming.
Feasibility and Alternatives Our team’s evaluation of alternatives led us to select the presented software alternatives.
6
If any of the presented software was not selected then we would not be able to move on, due to
the phasing out of the current software system.
Simnet – is an online, no installation virtual Microsoft Office environment. Simnet is browser
independent and offers SIMbook, which offers the ability to allow students to go mobile for
student learning. Also, students can measure results by generating custom training lessons after
an exam to determine which content areas they still need to study. With these training lessons
students can utilize self-study tools to learn skills throughout their entire time at their institution.
SAM – is an interactive online learning environment that assists students in mastering Microsoft
Office skills and computer concepts. With SAM students are forces into self-paced learning of
Microsoft Office applications. Additionally, instructors’ workloads are reduced with auto-graded
assignments and exams, and course setup and management tools.
MyITLab – similarly to the aforementioned applications, this permits students to train in a
simulated environment in a similar manner; however, this system allows students to work on the
exact same projects, activities, skills, and methods located in the textbook.
7
Project Charter Identify the Project
The goal of this project is to assist the MIS department in selecting and implementing a
new software for the 2090 course. In order to accomplish this goal, it is necessary to further
compare software alternatives based on the metrics that Dr. Janine Aronson has determined.
Stakeholders Involved The stakeholders in this project would include:
• Dr. Marie Boudreau - MIS department head
• Dr. Janine Aronson - 2090 Professor
• 2090 TA’s
• 2090 Students
• Erin Chomat - SAM representative
• Erin Swartz - Simnet representative
• KP - MyITLab representative
Scope of Project Contributing to MOV
The overall Measure of Value (MOV) of this project in regards to the MIS department is
to reliably and accurately promote better learning and help develop student knowledge of Excel.
This will lead to better assessment of student learning as well as increased reliability in student
results. The implementation of new software will be a success if 66.7 percent of students rate the
software a four (out of five) in terms of learning facilitation On the other hand, the
implementation would be considered a failure if the course evaluation overall score dropped,
irregularities in the software increased, or 35 percent of students rate the software 50 percent or
below.
8
While ‘better learning’ is a subjective statement, the understanding of this phrase is
inherently essential in its contribution to the scope of this project. The software being compared
are all valid alternatives to one another, but it is necessary to choose which option will most
enhance the overall learning experience for the student. The best way for a software to promote
better learning is to cater to the needs of the students, enabling them to be organized in their own
work. For this reason, it will be crucial for us to compare interfaces, basic usability, and the
syntax of the assignments within each software.
In order to gauge the benefits students are reaping from the course, the ability of a
professor to assess their learning is critical. Each software has different tools that are accessible
to a professor and to students. Appraising each beneficial tool in each software will also be a
pivotal part of this comparison.
Lastly, it is imperative to measure which company provides the most reliable software,
both in its use and in its results. Glitches that arise while students work on the assignments are
not only frustrate the students themselves, but also the teachers who must work around them.
Additionally, academic dishonesty can cause some difficulty when assessing student results. In a
technology based class, students commonly share assignments. However, each software has a
different system for preventing and detecting academic dishonesty.
A focus on these aspects narrows down our scope for the project. Our team will focus on
determining which software promotes better learning for the student, better assessment of their
learning, and the most overall reliability.
Scope of Project
The broad-spectrum scope of this project is to test out software options that are aimed at
developing students’ skills in Microsoft Excel. The team plans to work with the specification
given to us by Dr. Janine Aronson, testing these products in a more in-depth fashion. We will
meet with representatives from each company, listen to their marketing pitch, and make initial
reports on the pros and cons of each. Next, our team will personally test out various aspects of
9
each software, ensuring that each one functions properly. Then, we will analyze the benefits and
shortcomings of each software, both in theory and in functionality.
After analyzing the alternatives, we will make a recommendation to Dr. Janine Aronson
and the MIS department. We will send a copy of all comparative documents to the company
representatives for further use in their research. If Dr. Aronson chooses to follow our
recommendation, she will then go about the process of customizing the software and training
TAs before implementing it next fall.
10
Deliverable Definition Table
Deliverable Structure Standards Approval Needed By Resources Required
MOV Statement Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Management
Team Metrics from Dr.
Aronson
Business Case Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Sponsor (Dr.
Aronson) Project Management
Team
Project Charter Document As defined in the
Project Methodology.
Project Sponsor (Dr. Aronson), Project
Management Team
Agreement Between Team and Sponsor
Project Plan Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Management Team
Project Management Team, Input from Dr.
Aronson
Stakeholder Analysis Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Management Team
Input from Dr. Aronson, Input from Company
Representatives
Scope Analysis Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Sponsor (Dr.
Aronson), Project Management Team
Agreement Between Team and Sponsor
Gantt Chart Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Sponsor (Dr.
Aronson), Project Management Team
Agreement Between Team and Sponsor
Work Product Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Sponsor (Dr.
Aronson), Project Management Team
Agreement Between Team and Sponsor
Initial Report on simnet Document As defined by the
Project Sponsor.
Project Management Team, Company Representative
Project Management Team
Initial Report on SAM Document As defined by the
Project Sponsor.
Project Management Team, Company Representative
Project Management Team
Initial Report on MyITLab
Document As defined by the Project Sponsor.
Project Management Team, Company Representative
Project Management Team
Comparative Report Document As defined by the
Project Sponsor.
Project Management Team, Company Representatives
Project Management Team
Project Evaluation Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Sponsor (Dr.
Aronson), Project Management Team
Agreement Between Team and Sponsor
Lessons Learned Document As defined in the
Project Methodology. Project Management
Team Project Management
Team
11
Schedule and Budget
There were several phases to this project and the schedule can be found within the Gantt
chart. Our budget is roughly based off of our “work product”. Our work product includes our
analyses of the three different software companies and our verdict. Our team concluded that
MyITLab 2013 would be best software for MIST 2090. The faculty of the MIS department
would not have to pay for the software, but Terry will be paying Pearson to host the excel
portion of the class on their site. The cost of this will be estimated based on what the average is
in the market. After this cost though, there would be no other cost associated with Pearson
because they offer free consultations if ever an issue comes up. The only other cost will be the
salary of $7.25 which is what the University pays student assistants for their help.
Resources Required
People:
Dr. Aronson was responsible for contacting representatives from each software company
to come to UGA and meet with us. The representatives were then responsible for presenting each
software option to us and giving us login information in order to access the content and perform
testing. Next year, the MIS department will need to train the teaching assistants how to use the
new software.
Technology:
Technology is the project’s most important resource, due to the fact that new technology
is the product that is being delivered to the MIS department. Our team will be presented with
login information that will allow us to test each product. Once a software option has been
decided on and purchased, its company will provide the MIS department with access codes for
students to use in the upcoming semester.
Facilities:
12
The University of Georgia is the main location where this software will be implemented.
However, students will be able to use it anywhere as long as they have access to an internet
connection. We were able to use Brooks Hall as a meeting place with all of the company
representatives.
Assumptions and Risks
Assumptions:
Before testing the various software options, our group didn’t think that we would be
drawn to use MyITLab 2013 because MyITLab 2010 was full of errors and difficulties.
However, the other software options simply did not impress us as much or add any valuable
features beyond those of MyITLab.
Risks:
The main risk with this project is that we may not have selected the best software option
for the MIS department. However, this risk is reduced due to the fact that the MIS department
has used MyITLab before without serious problems, and it will be impossible to know whether
or not we made the right decision until the next semester begins.
Administration Plan for the Project
Communications Plan
In deciding which new software product should be implemented in the MIST 2090
classes, we are going to be considering three different options from three different companies.
Dr. Aronson, a MIS professor at UGA, will send each company our project proposal and arrange
13
meeting times on campus where our team can discuss and try out each different software product
with each company’s representatives.
During the project, we will email each company and let them know what comments and
concerns we have about their software product. After all testing is complete, we will contact Dr.
Aronson and let her know which software product we have decided that the MIS department
should implement. Dr. Aronson will then contact the appropriate software company and inform
them that UGA will be purchasing their product. The MIS department will then be responsible
for all necessary training required among the UGA faculty.
Change Management and Implementation Plan
Since our group concluded that the MIS department should continue using MyITLab
2013, there is very little change that UGA will have to adapt to. The teaching assistants who will
be involved in the classes will have to be taught how to use the software by professors and the
professors will have to be shown by Pearson representatives which features have been added or
changed in the newest version of the software.
14
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Interest Influence Potential Conflicts Role Objective Strategy
Dr. Marie Boudreau 0 8 Concerned with
budget. MIS Department
Head
To find an effective tool for the right price.
To discuss budgetary requirements with Dr. Janine Aronson.
Dr. Janine Aronson 1 8 Concerned with
quality. MIS 2090 Professor
To enhance student learning.
To meet with various representatives in order to evaluate software alternatives.
2090 TA’s 1 3 Concerned with simplicity.
2090 Assistant Teachers
To simplify the student learning process.
To comment on various features of the current software, pointing out flaws and areas that need improvement.
2090 Students 0 1 Concerned with cost and simplicity.
Students To increase comprehension of the material.
To lobby for the most simple and cost effective alternative.
Erin Chomat 1 2 Competing for the sale.
Cengage Representative
(SAM)
To sell her product.
To demonstrate a superior product through unique features.
Erin Swartz 1 2 Competing for the sale.
McGraw Hill Representative
(simnet)
To sell her product.
To demonstrate a superior product through unique features.
KP 1 2 Competing for the sale.
Pearson Representative
(MyITLab)
To sell her product.
To demonstrate a superior product through unique features.
15
Scope Analysis
The scope of our project involves determining whether simnet, SAM, or MyITLab
software would be best to use in the MIST 2090 class at The University of Georgia. In order to
make an educated decision, our team met with representatives from each software company and
learned how each software option functions in detail. During these meetings we also confirmed
whether or not the software had ways to prevent student cheating, as well as a way for the
professor to monitor their students’ progress. Our team then created accounts on each different
software program and tested them out first-hand. While testing, we looked for which option
offered the most user-friendly interface, had the least glitches, and was able to effectively teach
the material to the user. After testing, we decided that the MIS department should continue using
MyITLab due to the fact that the other software options simply were not as intuitive to use and
didn’t present the material as effectively.
16
Scheduling and Gantt Chart
Work Breakdown Structure -1.0 Planning -1.1 Set Goals +1.1.1 Discuss Metrics for MOV +1.1.2 Deliverable: MOV Statement -1.2 Meet with Companies +1.2.1 Deliverable: Initial Report on simnet +1.2.2 Deliverable: Initial Report on SAM +1.2.3 Deliverable: Initial Report on MyITLab -1.3 Discuss Initial Impressions +1.3.1 Milestone: Initial research is complete. -2.0 Testing -2.1 Alpha Testing +2.1.1 Alpha Test simnet +2.1.2 Alpha Test SAM +2.1.3 Alpha Test MyITLab -2.2 Beta Testing +2.2.1 Beta Test simnet +2.2.2 Beta Test SAM +2.2.3 Beta Test MyITLab -2.3 Milestone: Testing completed. -3.0 Comparing -3.1 Discuss Alternatives -3.2 Make Recommendations +3.2.1 Deliverable: Comparative Report -3.3 Decide on a Product +3.3.1 Milestone: Next semester’s product is chosen. -4.0 Implementing -4.1 Purchase Product -4.2 Training with Representative +4.2.1 Professor Training Session +4.2.2 TA Training Session +4.2.3 Milestone: Software is ready for use in class. -4.3 Begin Use in Class -5.0 Evaluating +5.1 Discuss Results +5.2 Deliverable: Project Evaluation & Lessons Learned +5.3 Milestone: Project is complete.
17
i Name/Title Start Date
End Date
Percent Complete Resources Predecessors
1 MIST 2090 2/5/14 9/17/14
1.1 Set Goals 2/5/14 2/10/14 100
1.1.1 Discuss Metrics 2/5/14 2/5/14 100 Dr. Aronson; Project Management Team
1.1.2 Develop MOV Statement 2/7/14 2/10/14 100 Project Management Team 1.1.1
1.2 Meet with Companies 2/12/14 2/26/14 100
1.2.1 Simnet 2/12/14 2/12/14 100 Erin Swartz (simnet); Project Management Team
1.2.2 SAM 2/19/14 2/19/14 100 Erin Chromat (SAM); Project Management Team
1.2.3 MyITLab 2/26/14 2/26/14 100 KP (MyITLab); Project Management Team
1.3 Testing 2/28/14 4/18/14 100
1.3.1
Discuss Initial Impressions 2/28/14 2/28/14 100 Project Management Team
1.2.1; 1.2.2; 1.2.3
1.3.2 Beta Testing 3/1/14 4/13/14 100 Project Management Team 1.1.2; 1.3.1
1.3.3 Discuss Alternatives 4/15/14 4/15/14 100 Project Management Team 1.3.2
1.3.4 Make Reccommendations 4/17/14 4/18/14 100 Dr. Aronson; Project Management Team 1.3.3
1.4 Implementing 5/16/14 9/17/14 0
1.4.1 Purchase Product 5/16/14 5/16/14 0 Dr. Aronson
1.4.2 Product Customization 6/2/14 8/1/14 0 Dr. Aronson
1.4.3 TA Product Training 8/4/14 8/25/14 0 2090 TAs; Dr. Aronson
1.4.4 In-Class Implementation 9/17/14 9/17/14 0 2090 Students; Dr. Aronson
1.5 Evaluation 4/21/14 4/22/14 100
1.5.1 Project Evaluation 4/21/14 4/21/14 100 Project Management Team 1.3.4
1.5.2 Lessons Learned 4/22/14 4/22/14 100 Project Management Team 1.3.4
18
Gantt Chart
*Orange diamonds in chart represent Milestones
***NOTE: This is a sample of our Gantt Chart. However, our project schedule goes beyond the
timeline of the project for this class. In order to view the whole schedule, please view our full
Gantt Chart by following this link:
https://teamgantt.com/gantt/export/ics/ics.php?ids=198823&percent=1&group=1&auth= 174400-82d0a8dee4da1df690f8352370756029&rand=859967
19
Work Product I. Initial Thoughts
• simnet - “keep IT simple” (integrated and adaptive)
After viewing the presentation, the client noted many benefits of simnet. Simnet does not
require downloads or browser checks. The university (UGA) has its own personal URL with its
own customizable features. These features provide benefits such as ease of use for instructors by
requiring fewer steps and compatibility checks, a simple web interface, and direct Mac
compatibility (as opposed to access via the virtual windows simulator). Simnet informed the
client that it had a relatively simple interface, was portable via mobile devices, and included
lifelong access (many only provide access for a given semester).
• SAM by Cengage
When introduced to SAM, the client noted several distinguishing positive features. These
features included a high-level calendar view, file encryption, and the ability to selectively upload
assignments. Additionally, the e-book allows the student to make a study guide complete with
remedial training and a review of helpful videos. However, there were some features that
concerned the client as well. It seemed that there was an inability to sort assignments by chapter,
there was no feature for the professor to allow late assignments, and the students would have to
purchase the access code separately from the textbook.
• MyITLab 2013
With MyITLab 2013, the team expected a higher stability standard from the previous version
of MyITLab (currently in place at UGA). In the previous version, there was a lack of stability
that created several unexpected complications based on software discrepancies. On multiple
occasions the aforementioned issues resulted in extensive communication with 24 hour customer
service. In addition to the standard bug fixes MyITLab offered an array of new and exciting
features as follows: integration with Desire2Learn, accessibility features, and full tablet
functionality. Instructors now have the ability to view any students’ “click path” in order to help
track common student mistakes. The most exciting thing about MyITLab 2013 is that it gives
20
students the ability to earn badges and excel certifications that can be beneficial to any resume
and LinkedIn profile. However, the client was still concerned about software functionality given
the previous problems she faced with MyITLab 2010.
II. Testing *NOTE: Overall, the quality of the content within each software is suitable for the MIST 2090
course. The main issues for each software option lie within user-friendliness.
• simnet
Pros:
Once the assignment is initiated the interface is very intuitive providing smooth scrolling
through the textbook-style layout and readable information needed to complete the project. Our
team noticed helpful hints when you make an error (in comparison to SAMpath). The software
functioned properly on Mac OS and presented with no errors, contrary to the current software.
Cons:
The home screen seemed confusing and overloaded with many multicolored boxes. The
loading times were rather slow after each question. Students can easily earn a good grade by
rushing through the assignment because the “show me” and “guide me” features over simplify
the process. This only presents a problem when it then provides the necessary formula to solve
the problem in the “try me” section. By the end, the user has just memorized steps that are likely
to be forgotten come test time.
• SAM by Cengage
Pros:
The activity list is very clear in displaying necessary information such as due dates and
assignment type.
21
Cons:
The home page layout feels congested due to the plethora of buttons and tabs on the
home screen that are accompanied by a cramped activity calendar. The font style is inconsistent
throughout the text. The program states that tests cannot be restarted, however our team was able
to restart the test. The test is opened in an external window, requiring pop-up blocker to be
disabled. There is a noticeable delay when moving the excel cursor around, and the normal
Windows cursor consistently flashes behind the excel cursor. There is little to no feedback after
pre-test or training, and the text size in the instructions is very small.
• MyITLab 2014
Pros:
This software encouraged less reliance on aid from the application. The application gives the
student the option to do one section of the assignment at a time or to complete it all at once. It
then provides detailed feedback after the assignment is graded. The skill-based training allows
the user to click in different places without counting the question as incorrect. Finally, the end of
chapter quiz seems like a useful tool to assist students in truly understanding the material. One of
the most important pros that MyITLab 2014 provides the students is the opportunity to earn
badges and excel certifications that will help build student resumes.
Cons:
The application doesn’t work with Safari or Internet Explorer. The feedback on the
assignments is not immediate. Additionally, some instructions that include specific keystrokes
will be inaccurate due to the discrepancy in keys between Mac OS and Windows computers.
22
III. Conclusion
In conclusion, we feel that MyITLab 2013 best fits the client’s needs. Despite conflicts
with Safari and Internet Explorer, it seems easiest to implement and most effective in time and
training. Because the interface is similar to that of the current software, it will take very little
training for TA’s and instructors. Additionally, MyITLab 2013 gives the students the most direct
access to tools for furthering their own professional development.
23
24
25
Reflections One of our group members, Sarah, works as a teaching assistant for the Management
Information Systems (MIS) department. She explained to us that MIST 2090 needed a new
software for assignments due to issues with the existing software. Our group, BBQ Chicken, was
interested since we took the class at one point during our college career and wanted to help
enhance the experience for upcoming students. Therefore, Sarah introduced our team to Dr.
Aronson, who teaches MIST 2090 and is in charge of implementing a new software. MIST 2090
is the first Management Information Systems class that is required for all Terry students.
Currently, the course uses MyITLab from Pearson, but is due for an update.
The first part of the project process was meeting with the three different software
representatives. It was very exciting meeting and interacting with the company representatives
and learning about the various software options that they had to offer. The first company
representatives we met with were Erin Chomat and Deb Von Rosenberg from Cengage who put
their software SAM on the table. Within a month, we met with two other company
representatives; Erin Swartz & Ryan Treat from McGraw Hill who provided us with simnet and
also a representative from Pearson for the 2013 MyITLab. After meeting with these
representatives, the next thing to do was to start the testing of the software to figure out which
one would best help educate Excel to incoming students. We divided the work amongst the
group due to the fact that completing all of the assignments would be tedious and time
consuming.
After the analysis of SAM, simnet, and MyITLab, our group ultimately decided that
MyITLab would be the best software to use. All of the provided software options are somewhat
user-friendly and do a good job in teaching Excel, but MyITLab offers features that the other two
do not. One such feature is that the grades from MyITLab will directly be inputted into
eLearning Commons due to the partnership between Pearson and Desire2Learn, which is a relief
not only for Dr. Aronson, but also for the teaching assistants. This saves time that can be spent
on other work. Regardless of which software that Dr. Aronson decides to implement, there will
be no additional cost to the department because it is within the budget.
26
It is exhilarating knowing that our input will be taken seriously and will help in the
decision-making process. Next semester (Fall 2014), our group can witness our decision being
implemented as students take the course and use the new software. The training process for
teaching assistants will commence during the beginning of the fall semester. It should not take
long for them to be trained.
Our group meshed really well together. No one member of the group did more work than
the other and finished without complaint. Meetings were never dull because we always had a
plan of action ready and knew what to talk about which helped speed the process. The planning
of this project commenced the moment we met with Dr. Aronson and soon after we divided the
work amongst us and finished the project within the deadline. Our group has learned invaluable
skills that we will keep with us as we continue our college career and embark on future
endeavors.
Lessons Learned 1. Get a head start. Our project requires us to test and analyze each software to the core, so we
can make the decision process for Dr. Aronson easier. Each testing required us to invest several
hours of our time which would have been a burden if we waited until the end to get the work
done. Therefore, this is the biggest lesson we learned throughout this project.
2. Divide the work. This is a very important lesson that we learned during this project. As stated
above, there was an enormous amount of testing required to choose the perfect software
replacement for MIST 2090. Since there were three software to choose from, it would have
required a couple of days to do the testing, but we divided the assignments amongst the group
which was beneficial because we finished the testing within a day.
3. Communication. Overall our group communicated effectively during the duration of the
project. Our main method of communication was GroupMe, which we used to organize group
meetings, ask questions, and clarify information. We also were able to discuss details about the
project before and after our Project Management class. We believe that each of us will try and
27
emulate this effective level of communication on future group assignments due to the positive
results that we experienced.
Moving Forward
Informing Dr. Aronson about our decision to implement the latest version of MyITLab
marked the end of our involvement with this project. Dr. Aronson will now contact Pearson and
let them know that UGA’s MIS department will be using their software in the upcoming Fall
semester for MIST 2090. Representatives will then train Dr. Aronson on how to use MyITLab,
who will then train the teaching assistants. From then on, the MIS department will periodically
monitor the students’ and professors’ level of satisfaction with MyITLab and use this data to
make future software decisions.