Accounting,Algebra,Applied Sciences,Architecture and Design,Art & Design,Biology,Business & Finance,Calculus,Chemistry,Communications,Computer Science,Economics,Engineering,English,Environmental science,Essay writing Hide all
Teaching Since:
Jul 2017
Last Sign in:
304 Weeks Ago, 1 Day Ago
Questions Answered:
15833
Tutorials Posted:
15827
Education
MBA,PHD, Juris Doctor
Strayer,Devery,Harvard University Mar-1995 - Mar-2002
Experience
Manager Planning
WalMart Mar-2001 - Feb-2009
Category > SciencePosted 08 Nov 2017My Price10.00
Review the attached case study "HudsonBanc Billing System Upgrade" at the end of chapter 14 (after reading chapter 14!).
Hudsonbanc Billing System Upgrade:Two regional banks with similar geographic territories merged to form HudsonBanc. Both bankshad credit card opera±ons and operated billing systems that had been internally developed andupgraded over three decades. The systems performed similar func±ons, and both operatedprimarily in batch mode on mainframe computers. Merging the two billing systems wasiden±Fed as a high-priority cost-saving measure. HudsonBanc ini±ated a project to inves±gatehow to merge the two billing systems. upgrading either system was quickly ruled out becausethe exis±ng technology was considered old and the costs of upgrading the systemHudsonbanc Billing System Upgrade Two regional banks with similar geographic territoriesmerged to form HudsonBanc. Both banks had credit card opera±ons and operated billingsystems that had been internally developed and upgraded over three decades. The systemsperformed similar func±ons, and both operated primarily in batch mode on mainframecomputers. Merging the two billing systems was iden±Fed as a high-priority cost-savingmeasure. HudsonBanc ini±ated a project to inves±gate how to merge the two billing systems.upgrading either system was quickly ruled out because the exis±ng technology was consideredold and the costs of upgrading the system were es±mated to be too high. HudsonBanc decidedthat a new component-based, Web-oriented system should be built or purchased. Managementpreferred the purchase op±on because it was assumed that a purchased system could bebrought online more quickly and cheaply. An R²P (request for proposal) was prepared, manyresponses were received, and a³er months of business modeling and requirements ac±vi±es, avendor was chosenHardware for the new system was installed in early January. So³ware was installed thefollowing week, and a random sample of 10 percent of the customer ac- counts was copied tothe new system. The new system was operated in parallel with the old systems for two months.To save costs involved with complete duplica±on, the new system computed but didn’t actuallyprint billing statements. Payments were entered into both systems and used to update parallelcustomer account databases. Duplicate account records were checked manually to ensure thatthey were the same.A³er the second test billing cycle, the new system was declared ready for opera±on. Allcustomer accounts were migrated to the new system in mid-April. The old systems were turnedo´ on May 1, and the new system took over opera±on. Problems occurred almost immediately.The system was unable to handle the greatly increased volume of transac±ons. Data entry andcustomer Web access slowed to a crawl, and payments were soon backed up by several weeks.The system wasn’t handling certain types of transac±ons correctly (e.g., charge correc±ons andcredits for overpayment). Manual inspec±on of the recently migrated account records showederrors in approximately 50,000 accounts.It took almost six weeks to adjust the incorrect ac- counts and update func±ons to handle alltransac±on types correctly. On June 20, the company aµempted to print billing statements forthe 50,000 corrected customer ac- counts. The system refused to print any informa±on fortransac±ons more than 30 days old. A panicked consulta±on with the vendor concluded thatFxing the 30-day restric±on would require more than a month of work and tes±ng. It was also
