software comparison - weeblysarahskedsvold.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/8/7/25879614/pm... ·...

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


Aronson), Project Management Team


Gantt Chart Document As defined in the




Work Product Document As defined in the




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.



Initial Report on MyITLab

Document As defined by the Project Sponsor.



Comparative Report Document As defined by the

Project Sponsor.

Project Management Team, Company Representatives


Project Evaluation Document As defined in the




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)



KP 1 2 Competing for the sale.

Pearson Representative

(MyITLab)



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.

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.

software comparison - weeblysarahskedsvold.weebly.com/uploads/2/5/8/7/25879614/pm... ·...

Documents