Новости
09.05.2023
с Днём Победы!
07.03.2023
Поздравляем с Международным женским днем!
23.02.2023
Поздравляем с Днем защитника Отечества!
Оплата онлайн
При оплате онлайн будет
удержана комиссия 3,5-5,5%








Способ оплаты:

С банковской карты (3,5%)
Сбербанк онлайн (3,5%)
Со счета в Яндекс.Деньгах (5,5%)
Наличными через терминал (3,5%)

THE METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE THE PERFORMANCE OF SOFTWARE SYSTEMS IN A LIFE CYCLE

Авторы:
Город:
Бийск
ВУЗ:
Дата:
18 февраля 2018г.

The focus in assessing the effectiveness of the information system (is) is paid to the fact that it "must be assessed according to the criteria of importance to the user" [1]. The research literature on the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization emphasizes the importance of gaze of the user or customer of "key expert" in the assessment of efficiency [5]. User satisfaction the IP as the connection between objectives in respect of the information provided by the system, and purposes related to the improvement of organizational processes brings together many of the criteria of the user and provides the most useful assessment of system effectiveness. Substantial evidence supported the validity of user ratings of the effectiveness of the system [1, 3]. Heads of IP indicate that the function is likely most valued by users. However, the perception of users is only one point of view on several dimensions of system performance. The purpose of this article is to examine the nature of the differences in the estimates of the system efficiency between decision makers in different functional groups involved in the implementation of the IP - users, internal audit and management. First described functional groups. Then describe and compare points of view of the appraiser. Suggestions for inclusion of multiple points of view of the evaluators in the evaluation approaches are available for practitioners and researchers of IP.

Those associated with the development and exploitation of IP can be assigned to four functional groups. The development system associated with the first three groups were summarized in [3].

Users, primary and secondary, are those for which the system is developed and maintained. Primary users - those who make decisions based on the results of IP and intermediaries, for example, employees that filter or interpretiruya conclusion. Secondary users consist of employees that provide and maintain data for the system, for example, data transmission, data entry operators, supervisors, but not directly benefiting, in the performance of their tasks.

Staff development consists of system analysts, Pro-Grammaton and users entrusted with the development and modification of systems. Staff it consists of operators, librarians, technical support staff engaged in database management and the personnel responsible for support of current activities of the system.

Internal auditing exists as a separate entity, to assist management in assessing the effectiveness of the system and management. In each functional group organizational office workers of those involved in the development of the system, can vary considerably.

Often there are cross-functional actions. For example, the user-nical personnel can be included in a functional group of the management and development of IP, in addition to the "users" of the system. The degree of involvement of users varies depending on the stage of the life cycle of the system development and organizational procedures for the participation of users.

User point of view.

With regard to system goals that are important to users, in [5] indicate that users are most concerned about the accuracy, reliability, timeliness of response to request, assistance and adequacy of which performs certain requirements. The information content is the dominant characteristic in comparison with accuracy, often the frequency information of interest for users from the point of view of the effectiveness of the system [5].

The system is often considered efficient or successful developers during the development, installation and operation [1]. This view on the effectiveness of the system reflected in the definition: "the project Managers of IP, usually consider the realization of activities related to the original transition project on computer operation" [4].

Narrowly defined criteria of cost-effectiveness. It is possible to suggest that the developers did not take into account the impact of the system on users. However, comparing the relative personal value of factors related to work, three groups of personnel on software development (programmers, analytical key, supervisors) and found that "user satisfaction" was rated as second in importance for all three groups.

From the point of view of system goals and established significant differences between the IP developers and the users [1,4]. Users evaluated the accuracy of the information above, what the developers, while the developers were evaluated by the system modifiability, compatibility and sanity higher than users. Assessing the achievement of the objectives in [2] was-be that users and developers will differ in their perceptions. The objectives of the system are performed from the developer's point of view when the system is time-rabatyvaetsya and running, and the target system from the user's point of view, the term applied when the system uses decision makers, and is compatible with existing organizational practices and user needs. Differences between users and developers in the assessment of the real efficiency of the system was demonstrated in [4]. The differences in the evaluation of the success of the project IP, i.e. the achievement of the goals, it was stressed that the users perceived the project as a failure. However, in [5] indicate that project managers in the development of IP have the same ideas about the effectiveness of the system users. The project leaders seem to have implicitly understood the importance of user satisfaction with the success of IP.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the system was difficult due to its multidimensionality, its quantitative and qualitative aspects and points of view with several appraisers. To assess the efficiency of the system can be made several proposals for IP practitioners and researchers of IP. For practitioners of IP it is important to include the multiple points of view of several objectives and indicators of the efficiency of the system. With regard to the assessment of benefits for the user experience, I suggest that the net benefits for the independent user, weighted in accordance with importance of each user or group of users is a good measure of benefits. Approaches many criteria to select projects for IP in a similar way can be used to assess effectively the accuracy of the system. It is recommended to use approaches to joint assessment to incorporate multiple points of view in a few goals and performance indicators. I describe the approach to the assessment, marked BASYC (est advantages for system changes) that can be used for decision-making at each stage of the development lifecycle of the system. This approach can be used to estimate potential and actual-cal benefits from the IP, in terms of probable contribution to a number of detailed and measurable goals identified by the participants of the representative members of functional groups. Joint approaches facilitate the transfer of evaluation information concerning the effectiveness of the system. Because many systems ha racterized management problems, lack of feedback from the development of Boccioni and disagreements among users and developers on the effectiveness of systems approaches to evaluation can be used to transfer evaluation information, improvement of the methods of IP management and awareness of the value of the information system. To measure the success of the system, it is important to consider multiple criteria (objectives) success, different viewpoints for each criterion and the different importance of each criterion. The work [1] is an excellent example of this approach in his study on the development of IP. In addition, it is recommended to use a standardized, Pro-verany tool for assessing the success of the system to the results of the studies were comparable. Since user satisfaction integrates many criteria and provides the most useful assessment of the effectiveness of the system check tools for user satisfaction can be assigned to decision makers in several functional groups, inclusion of multiple points of view of the appraiser.

 

References

 

1.        Belykh A.A. Fundamentals of methodology for forecasting and evaluating the effectiveness of information systems / AA. Belykh // Polytematic network electronic scientific journal of the KSAU (KubSAU Scientific Journal). - Krasnodar: KubGAU, 2011. - №07 (71). pp. 564-587.

2.        Bubareva, OA Reliability of integrated information systems. Information and education: the boundaries of communications INFO'16: a collection of scientific papers number 8 (16). - Gorno-Altaisk: RIO GAGU, 2016. - pp. 79-81.

3.        Bubareva, OA Evaluation of the quality of information systems with distributed architecture / Bubareva OA // Alt. state. tech. University, BTI. - Biysk: Publishing house Alt. state. tech. Univ., 2017. - pp.32-34.

4.        Anderson, J.C. and Hoffmann, T.R. "APerspective on the Implementation ofManagement Science," Academy ofManagement Journal, Volume 1 2,Number 4, April 1978, pp. 18-29.

5.        Evans, T.M. Measures of Computer and Information System Productivity: Key InformantInterviews, Technical Report APR20546-TR6, Westinghouse R & D Center,Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, October 1976.