Presentation of 3 slides

JOURNAL OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES IN ACCOUNTING American Accounting Association Vol. 13, No. 2 DOI: 10.2308/jeta-51472 Fall 2016 pp. 231–245

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development

Lifecycle—Planning and Analysis Phases

Kimberly S. Church University of Missouri–Kansas City

Pamela J. Schmidt Washburn University

Georgia Smedley University of Missouri–Kansas City

ABSTRACT: The Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC) model, developed in the 1980s, remains the foundational model for strategic decision making regarding the development or acquisition of new information systems (IS). The

SDLC model proposes five system development phases—planning, analysis, design, implementation, and

maintenance—using a waterfall theory. These early phases of the SDLC require strategic decisions to be made

regarding information systems. Strategic decision making is a model of multi-attribute utility theory, which helps promote

decisions that maximize utility among multiple alternatives. This case provides students with experience in making

reasoned strategic IT decisions by executing the planning and analysis phases in a new system acquisition life cycle.

This educational case is structured to be the first of several cases covering the SDLC involving the same small fictitious

public corporation, Casey’s Collections. Upon completion of the case, students should have a deeper understanding and

appreciation for the process of IS strategic decision making. In addition, students should better understand how to

identify an information system’s needs and prepare system proposals based on the generation and analysis of

alternative solutions. This case is suitable for students in an introductory or graduate accounting systems course; it is

also appropriate for use in a IS course on systems analysis and design.

INTRODUCTION

C asey’s Collections is a high-end retailer of direct-from-the-designer men’s and women’s fine fashions. Casey’s

Collections has a rare business advantage in that it currently has no direct competition from other retailers. Casey’s

Collections is the only retailer able to stock first-edition designer clothing from multiple top domestic and international

designers. Goods that are not sold in the current fashion season are decommissioned to maintain latest fashion trends (this stock

is modified by cutting out designer labels, shipping outside Casey’s markets and sold at a discount to lower-end retailers using a

FIFO basis for inventory tracking).

In 1995, Casey Lauren opened the first store in Denver, CO. When Casey first began operations, they used QuickBookst

to record sales, track inventory, place orders with their vendors, and pay bills. As they became busier, they hired Chris James to

take over the accounting functions and Pat Puck to manage the Denver store.

Casey’s reputation in the fashion consumer marketplace spread and began to draw customers from across the U.S. Soon,

regular customers begged the company to branch out to other major cities. In 2003, after raising funds through a limited IPO,

Casey added stores in Seattle, Dallas, Las Vegas, and San Francisco, and in 2010, Chicago, Kansas City, Atlanta, Miami,

and New York. For each new store, Casey hired a manager and set up a separate instance of QuickBookst with a consistent

Chart of Accounts to track and report the store’s financial transactions. Each store manager was given autonomous authority

over his/her store along with the authority to directly contact any designer to buy items that would best sell in the store’s

Editor’s note: Accepted by Miklos A. Vasarhelyi.

Submitted: May 2015 Accepted: April 2016

Published Online: April 2016

231

region. Further, each manager was responsible for revenues, controlling expenses, hiring (typically five employees per

store), and accounting functions—entering sales, receipts, payables, and employee hours. As with the Denver store, Casey

provided a point-of-sale scanning system, cash register, Dell Latitude E8400 laptop, and QuickBookst. Chris James took on

the financial reporting responsibilities for the entire operation, including making all payments to vendors and employees for

each of the branch stores. Because of these added responsibilities, Chris was appointed as CFO.

By 2012, Chris was experiencing a great deal of trouble getting QuickBookst backup files from each of the remote

locations, merging the information, and creating timely financial information. Vendors were complaining that they were

receiving late payments. The last straw was when Casey’s Collections was assessed a fine by the IRS for filing 2014 taxes well

past the April 15 deadline. In an attempt to expedite this process and to generate monthly reports, Casey hired Taylor Tanner as

CIO and urged Taylor to find inventive ways to get the company’s financial reporting under control. Taylor’s first initiative was

to try to get all stores networked in order to better share information. To accomplish this goal, Taylor recommended the creation

of a strategic management team to assist with the initial problem identification and solution selection process. The strategic

management team includes:

Casey Lauren 1

(Owner and CEO):

Age: 35

Education: B.S.A., M.B.A.

Background: Casey was the first college graduate in the family, was very hard-working and determined to succeed. Because

Casey had often been told he/she could not accomplish much, Casey hates to be told something cannot be done. Casey

also hated to be corrected or shown to be wrong. While nice enough, Casey is also a bit miserly and direct.

Chris James (CFO):

Age: 26

Education: B.S.A.

Background: Chris could be described as a ‘‘typical accountant.’’ Chris is conscientious, accurate, always on time, and meticulous with details. While not particularly outspoken, Chris will make a stand for doing the right thing.

Taylor Tanner (CIO):

Age: 22

Education: B.B.A., with an M.I.S. emphasis

Background: Taylor loves everything there is about technology and computers but is not very good dealing with people—

computers always do as they are told but people act so illogically. Taylor owns the very best in personal computers,

attends every trade show possible, and subscribes to several trade journals. Taylor does all this in an attempt to stay

up-to-date with the newest (and most expensive) emerging technology.

Pat Puck (Denver Store Manager)

Age: 28

Education: B.F.A., Fashion and Design

Background: Pat always dresses in the newest design and is very careful to make a bold and stylish impression. Pat feels very

lucky to be in the Denver store because Chris is there to clean up any mistakes Pat might make entering transactions. Pat

really does not like computers and is always frightened when anyone suggests new software or changes to the current system.

To help prepare for their first meeting, Casey provided several strategic pieces of information for examination by the team.

Casey’s rapid expansion in the fashion industry had resulted in several core issues that could be identified through this early

scrutiny. The company’s mission and vision statements (see Figure 1), company organization structure (see Figure 2), current chart

of accounts (see Figure 3), most recent financial statements (see Figure 4), and industry information (see Figure 5) are below.

CASE

Phase 1 Planning2

In May, 2015, Casey called a meeting with Chris, Taylor, and Pat to address the current state of the company. A transcript

of the initial planning meeting follows:

1 Androgynous names have been chosen to allow students of either gender to play a given role. We use the gender-neutral term he/she as needed.

2 Student-generated research and instructor guidance will be used as the basis for the planning phase of the case.

232 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

The Planning Meeting

Casey: I have been looking over the last few years of financial statements. We are really getting in trouble. Revenues are down

and getting worse. Our contribution margin keeps getting smaller. It’s time we got to the root of this. Does anyone have a

suggestion?

Pat: Well, I don’t know much about bottom lines, but I just tried to place an order with the great new designer, André. They

said we no longer had credit with them. How am I supposed to fill this store if no one will sell to me?

Chris: Oh, not again! Honestly, there is no good excuse for us missing out on purchase discounts with the designers. Now, more

and more designers are blocking us out because we are making late payments. Casey, you have to do something about

making the other stores send their transaction files more quickly so we can process our accounts payables on schedule.

Casey: Taylor, I thought you had a better handle on networking our stores. What’s the hold-up?

Taylor: Ah . . . well, the equipment here is pretty bad . . . Casey: Not again, Taylor. Every time I turn around you want me to buy some new computer or piece of software that you just

read about. I cannot afford to satisfy all your dream equipment. Just look at how badly we are doing right now.

Taylor: I know I like new stuff, but this is more than that. Our mission is to provide our customers with the best clothes. We

can’t do that if we can’t purchase inventory. Can we?

Casey: I’m listening.

Taylor: Well, I have been trying to network all the stores, but our version of QuickBookst doesn’t work very well with multiple

users. Besides, we just don’t have the hardware we need. I really think our system is keeping us from succeeding.

Pat: Now Taylor, please don’t tell me you want a new system. I can barely make the one I have work half the time. Besides, I

just don’t have time to learn something new. I have a store to run.

Taylor: You know when I was in school we learned about the System Development Life Cycle—it is called the SDLC. This is a

pretty good model to use when introducing the idea of a new system. The model actually can help us to find answers to our

problems. We are losing customers because our current system will not allow us to keep up with inventory. This seems to

be a pretty big problem.

Casey: OK, Taylor, tell us something about this model.

Taylor: Well, usually a company starts by getting employee input on their current computer system. Some companies send

around a survey of their current system on a regular basis. The systems survey helps a company understand if a business

problem is the result of the current system. In our case, we already can see that it is. The next step would be to find one or

more alternative solutions to the problem, analyze these alternatives, and select the best one.

Pat: Taylor, this sounds like a high-tech way of getting your way. You just go off and pick some new toys you want to play

with. As a result, I’ll have to learn a whole new system and I will never get any work done.

Chris: Pat has a point, but Taylor does, too. We also learned a bit about the SDLC in our AIS courses. I bet that if each of us

provides good input into the process, we could come up with a system that will solve our problem, be relatively easy to

adjust to, and will have benefits that outweigh the cost.

Casey: Yes, I remember this model now. If I recall correctly the model calls for some compromises—I may have to support a

new system, but Taylor, you may have to back down on your wish list. Is this correct?

Taylor: Well, I wasn’t counting on the two of you knowing about the process. But, yes, that is the general idea.

Casey: OK, do you think that we can still use any of the hardware or software we already own? I hate to think of all the money

this will cost, especially since I have already spent so much.

FIGURE 1 Casey’s Collections

Mission and Vision Statements

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 233

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

Taylor: I am pretty sure that the cash registers and point-of-sale equipment will interface well with almost any system, but I

think we will need to find software that will work for all the stores. We may also need to invest in a server and a more

dependable network.

Casey: Taylor, I want you to investigate several vendors. We need to know what our software options are and we need prices.

You will also need to find what hardware we might need to make the system work. Once you have estimates for several

FIGURE 2 Casey’s Collections

Organizational Chart

FIGURE 3 Casey’s Boutique

Chart of Accounts

234 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

different systems, we can see which is the most feasible. Chris, you would be very helpful determining something about

feasibility. And Taylor, please keep sane limits in mind, I am not about to buy a satellite system just because you want to

ditch our small-bandwidth modem!

Pat: Rats, I guess this means my needs have no bearing in this process.

Casey: Pat, your needs are what drives this process. Don’t you want to have great relationships with all the designers so you can

fill the shop?

Taylor: Besides, Pat, maybe we can find software that looks and feels quite a bit like the software we have now. That way you

won’t have to learn so much.

Pat: Well, if you think all this is true, then I am willing to try. Do you think I ought to warn the other managers?

Chris: Not only should you ‘‘warn’’ them, but it might also be a good idea to tell them what we are up to and how this might

really help them do their jobs better. And we better make certain that we keep them informed as we progress. There is

nothing worse than being asked to make changes out of the blue.

Casey: This has been a very eye-opening meeting. Taylor, get after your research. Chris, perhaps you could perform a new

SWOT analysis for us and once Taylor has a couple proposed alternatives, the three of you could prepare feasibility

studies to help us select the best alternative. I seem to remember TELOS.

Chris: Yes, the five feasibility studies—Technical, Economic, Legal, Operational, and Schedule. I can certainly help with these,

and Pat will be able to give input into the Operational feasibility study.

Pat: I love giving input, but why are we calling the police?

Casey: What?

Pat: You said SWOT. Is that like a police SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) team?

FIGURE 4 Casey’s Collections

Financial Statements January 2012–January 2014

Panel A: Comparative Income Statement

(continued on next page)

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 235

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

Chris: No, I guess we need to be careful with acronyms. SWOT, spelled S-W-O-T, is an analysis of our current Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats.

Pat: Oh, I see. Too bad, cops are often cute.

Phase 2 Analysis

In May 2015 Casey Lauren, the owner and CEO, called a meeting with Chris James (CFO), Taylor Tanner (CIO), and Pat

Puck (a store manager) to discuss several problems that were preventing Casey’s Collections from reaching its strategic goals.

At that meeting, they decided to follow the SDLC in an attempt to define the problems being faced and to begin planning for a

new information system. These four individuals comprise the SDLC team and have prepared alternative Case Proposals. Casey

has taken these proposals to an external team she has engaged to form a Steering Committee 3

responsible for providing

FIGURE 4 (continued)

Panel B: Comparative Balance Sheet

(continued on next page)

3 We assume the instructor will act the part of the Steering Committee throughout the case, beginning with selecting the best Project Proposal among those delivered by the teams.

236 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

technical expertise and advice to the SDLC team. The Steering Committee prepared an Action Plan based on the most

meritorious proposal. 4

A transcript of the initial analysis meeting follows:

The Analysis Meeting

Casey: Thank you all for making time for this meeting. I have received the Action Plan from the team of technical experts

Taylor introduced to me. Have you all had a chance to read this report?

[Everyone nods and Pat looks a bit dazed.]

Casey: So we should simply accept this plan and commit to the purchase and upgrade?

Taylor: Actually, we are just getting started in the SDLC process.

Pat: Just getting started? We put tons of hours into our case proposal, what more could we possibly have to do? We prepared

that SWOT analysis, we picked what seems to be the best system, and we developed a timeline. What more could there

possibly be to do?

Taylor: Well, the SDLC requires we perform some reiterative steps to make certain the system we picked really fits our needs. Imagine

how much money we would waste if we made this big investment and found out the new system did not fix our problems.

Pat: Taylor, I know you did not get your way when we were planning. You wanted to go to a much more expensive system and

Casey had to ask you to reevaluate your thoughts. I bet you are coming to this meeting with the idea of getting us to

change our minds. You are acting like a big baby and I don’t want to work at this anymore. I barely had time to get my

own work done last time, and I didn’t have time to shop at all.

Chris: Pat, I know you haven’t enjoyed this process and that you were not convinced we needed a new system in the first place,

but I think Taylor is right. We do have more work to accomplish.

Casey: OK, Taylor. You are our SDLC expert. Please explain what you mean about the SDLC being reiterative.

FIGURE 4 (continued)

Panel C: Comparative Statement of Cash Flows

4 The instructor-provided Action Plan will be used as the basis for the analysis phase of the case.

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 237

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

Taylor: Sure. The SDLC actually has five phases: Planning (which we have just accomplished), Analysis, Design,

Implementation, and Maintenance. In the planning phase we carefully identified our problem—we determined that our

current information system was keeping us from fulfilling our mission and vision—and we made an attempt to determine

what we would do to fix our problem. That led us to the Action Plan using the optimal solution from the set of alternatives

we evaluated. But when we did this, we did not look carefully at a number of really important facts. Once we have done

this, we can truly know what our system needs to be. Chris: Oh, now I remember. The first two steps of the SDLC tell us what we need, the design phases informs us as to how we

are going to accomplish the acquisition, implementation, and maintenance of that system.

Casey: So what are these vital facts we might have missed last time?

Taylor: Well, we could start by considering some things about our current system that we really want fixed. Then we could

make certain that the system we first considered will take care of these concerns.

Chris: You mean like our Chart of Accounts?

Casey: What’s wrong with the Chart of Accounts?

Chris: Ours seems to have no logical foundation. The Chart of Accounts for most companies group accounts into neat blocks.

Assets, liabilities, equity, revenues, and expenses have some block number in common, assets are all 1XXXXX, liabilities

FIGURE 5 Casey’s Collections

Industry (56 Apparel and Accessory Stores) Information

238 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

2XXXXX, and so on. Within these big blocks, subdivisions exist. Current assets are 11XXXX and PPE are 12XXXX.

Last year we added a number of new designers but there were no unused numbers for vendors in our system. Existing

vendors had numbers 100–299, but 300 was used for customers. I had to number our new vendors 600–650.

Pat: So this is sort of a grievance session?

Taylor: Well . . . sort of. Pat: Good. I have to make a special trip to the store on weekends to pick up my paycheck. We sales associates get paid every

two weeks on Friday afternoons, but I don’t work on Friday or Saturday. I wish I could have my pay automatically

deposited in my checking account. And our W-2s were late this year. Casey, did you really get an IRS fine?

Casey: Yes, we were fined. We failed to file our payroll tax information prior to the deadline. Is this the kind of facts we need to

discover, Taylor? I really hate to sit around and air our dirty laundry unless doing so has some productive value.

Taylor: As a matter of fact, this is exactly what we need to do as a way of making certain we get an information system that

really meets our needs.

Pat: Oh good! I thought this would be another boring meeting. You know, I used to work for one of our competitors and

frankly, I have been wondering how we are staying in business.

Casey: Oh?

Pat: Yes. We don’t accurately track our inventory, we miss payment to vendors, we are filing our taxes late, and the manager in

Dallas told me her reported earnings were incorrect.

Chris: Our current system is set up as a batch-processing system. I know that at least twice in the last month we missed sales

because we had not run a batch of purchases. A customer called to see if we had an item and the item was part of a batch

waiting to be processed. Our inventory showed the item was out-of-stock.

Taylor: This is a really productive conversation. Does anyone else have something we need to consider in a new system?

Pat: I like this!! If the company is going to require all stores to be on the same computer system, is there a way to protect my

store’s inventory information? I would hate it if one of the other stores could look at my inventory and transfer that

inventory to another store. And remember what happened to Target on Black Friday? Their system was hacked and their

credit-card customers had fraudulent charges on their bills. We have to be careful.

Casey: I have been able to make some good decisions because I have received individual reports from each store. But I could

make better decisions if I could also have some combined reports. In addition, I would really like to obtain some

performance metrics not included in QuickBookst.

Taylor: You know I’ve been reading about cloud computing. Most authorities suggest going to the cloud will help reduce a

number of hardware and software costs. As we reevaluate, I think we should consider this option.

Casey: Taylor, is that you? Just when I assumed you were trying to spend even more, you surprise us. Thank you!

Pat: You know what would really help me? If I could keep records about each of my customers. You know, things like what

seasons each tends to shop, color preferences, sizes, when the customer reacts to new releases, and all kinds of information

like this. If I had this information, I bet I could really increase my sales and my commissions.

Taylor: This is a great start, and I’ll bet each of you will think of a few other things you really need. Keep a list.

Casey: Taylor, is it possible that there are facts we need to discover that we will not think of in a session like this?

Taylor: This is the first time I have applied the SDLC in a real situation. I thought you might ask this question, so I reviewed

some books on this model and will list some sources we might consult to uncover additional facts:

� Customer comment cards � Survey other store employees � Consideration of internal control activities � Error rates of our system � Bottlenecks like Chris described in losing sales � Review of key company background documents:

* Job descriptions * Our mission and vision statements * Organization charts * Chart of Accounts * Financial statements * Performance metrics like ratios

Casey: This has certainly been eye-opening. Chris, do you and Pat agree with Taylor that we need to investigate further?

[Both nod.]

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 239

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

Taylor: Once we have really looked into these issues, we can see how well the system we identified in the Action Plan will

perform. But I think it would be a great idea to reconsider some of the systems that we originally rejected, maybe even a

couple of systems we did not consider, and perform some additional analyses. If we do a good job of identifying as many

factors as possible and then performing additional analyses, we will stand a much better chance of bringing forward a

system that really fits our needs.

Casey: Agreed. Why don’t we split up some of the fact/data sources Taylor presented and see if we are still on the right track

with the current Action Plan? Thank you all for your hard work and desire to help make us great! I am going to set up a

social network site. 5

We can use this site to keep up with our discussion threads and to post our work-in-progress. If we are

going to analyze again, we probably need to perform an additional TELOS and additional schedules to complete the

Systems Selection Report Taylor created.

Taylor: Casey, I do love creating reports. Since we have engaged tech experts as our Steering Committee for this project, would

you let us talk to them for additional clarification?

Casey: Yes, but remember, I pay them by the hour. You must form your questions specifically and be mindful to take as little of

their time as possible.

REQUIREMENTS

Possible student deliverables include the following items for each phase of the case. The instructor will determine and

assign the following requirements based on instructor-selected outcomes for the course. Document descriptions, instructions,

and templates for each deliverable requirement can be found in the Teaching Notes and will be provided by the instructor based

on the selected requirements assigned for the student project.

Phase 1 Planning 1. Prepare a Cover Page (include course name, authors’ names, and case date).

2. Prepare an initial SWOT analysis of Casey’s Collections using information from the dialogue scripts and company

background documents.

3. Prepare an initial Systems Planning report using information from the dialogue scripts and company background

documents.

4. Prepare separate TELOS feasibility studies for at least two team-identified alternative solutions for the problem(s)

described in the Systems Planning report.

5. Prepare a Gantt Chart to show a schedule for the team-determined best alternative solution. The chart must include each

task, start date, end date, and visualization of task duration.

6. Prepare a Project Proposal for the team-determined best alternative solution.

7. Prepare a short executive summary (no longer than two pages) to: (1) explain the importance of SDLC as the decision-

making tool of choice, (2) summarize the takeaways of the prepared documentation deliverables, and (3) discuss why

the selected proposal was chosen over the other alternatives.

Instruction: Bind all required documents for submission of Phase 1 Planning.

Phase 2 Analysis

1. Prepare a Cover Page (include case name, case date, course name, and authors’ names).

2. Review the Vignettes for employee and customer feedback. Prepare a Revised System Planning Report for the current

environment of Casey’s Collections after uncovering additional facts. Your team will need to review the script and

other key company background documents for new and revised concerns to complete this task. An IT consulting expert

will be available through a private discussion board to address specific observation/interview/participation questions.

3. Complete the Weighted Requirements Factor Matrix to organize team discoveries. Your team will need to obtain an

instructor-prepared Action Plan to complete this task.

4. Prepare separate TELOS feasibility studies for both alternative solutions analyzed in the Weighted Requirements Factor

Matrix.

5. Complete a Cost Benefit Analysis for both alternative solutions.

5 The instructor may want to actually provide a social network style communication mechanism for use in the case, specifically when serving in the role as Steering Committee advisor or tech expert. The authors recommend utilizing course management software rather than an outside social network site in order to retain a closed environment for case solutions.

240 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

6. Use information from the TELOS studies and Cost Benefit Analysis to prepare a Systems Selection Report to evaluate

the alternative solutions and make a selection recommendation.

7. Prepare a short executive summary (no longer than three pages) to: (1) explain the first two phases of the SDLC and

consequences of failure to effectively execute, (2) summarize the team analyses of the SDLC documentation, and (3)

discuss why the selected alternative was chosen.

Instruction: Bind all required deliverables for submission of Phase 2 Analysis.

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 241

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

CASE LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE

Overview of Case

This case employs a model called Strategic Decision Making. The model is based on the eclectically derived Multi-

Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) of Keeney and Raiffa (1976 ). MAUT, simply stated, followed the evolution of decision-

making theories from Subjective Expected Utility Theory (Savage 1954) and Satisficing Theory (Simon 1957) to Prospect

Theory (Kahneman and Tversky 1979). Previous theories of decision making aggregated a number of attribute utilities whereas

MAUT allows the decision maker to consider a number of separate attributes:

1. Identification of significant design attributes and generation of alternative designs.

2. Verification of relevant attribute conditions or bounds.

3. Use of probability to determine the decision-maker’s preference.

4. Evaluation of Single Attribute Utility function and trade-off preferences.

5. Combination of Single Attribute Utilities into the Multi-Attribute Utility Function.

6. Selection of the alternative with the highest Multi-Attribute Utility value through the ranking of all alternatives. (Suslick

and Furtado 2001)

The Strategic-Decision Making Model, developed as the methodology for testing of MAUT, includes five basic steps:

1. Define the problem about which a decision needs to be made.

2. Analyze the situation and develop viable alternative solutions to the problem.

3. Evaluate each of these alternatives.

4. Select the alternative that represents the best solution.

5. Implement that solution. (Williams 2002)

While the Strategic-Decision Making Model holds a place of honor in most textbooks on management and managerial

accounting, this model also serves as the basis for the SDLC. As such, a case employing the SDLC serves as an opportunity to fully

communicate and demonstrate Strategic Decision Making through development of student analytical and critical-thinking skills.

Many AIS textbooks present an introduction to the SDLC at a high level. Such an introduction is helpful to students since

accountants are extremely valuable members of the SDLC team, both as users of the system, system auditors, and as trained

analysts of financial cases. Conversations with academic colleagues, systems professionals, and auditors convinced us that the

SDLC truly was the foundation of models employed in ‘‘the real world.’’ Therefore, we want our students to graduate with adequate preparation to be valued members of a strategic decision-making team involved in bringing forth a new information

system. Our experience, however, is that students take little away from textbook introductions to SDLC activities. Textbooks

do not reveal the many facets of an SDLC project, students are unable to identify with such abstract concepts without real-

world business experiences, and textbooks are lacking in examples of SDLC deliverables.

We have created a company, Casey’s Collections, for which we can create realistic system development activities and produce

exemplar deliverables to enrich students’ understanding of the model, its phases, and its vital role in the progression toward

information systems implementation. Casey’s Collections is a multipart case that is developed to bring a hands-on example of

strategic decision making into the classroom discussion using the ubiquitous SDLC model for information systems implementation

projects. Casey’s Collections is an active-learning introduction to strategic decision making through the SDLC using practical

experience with planning and analysis documents and business writing. The emphasis of Phase 1 Planning is placed on problem

identification, business case development, and project planning. The emphasis of Phase 2 Analysis is placed on needs gathering,

identification of alternatives, and strategic business analysis. To complete coverage of the full SDLC lifecycle, the remaining phases

of Phase 3 Design, Phase 4 Implementation, and Phase 5 Maintenance will be addressed in separate educational cases.

The intent of this case is to help students better understand the SDLC by acting as members of an SDLC team and

investigating a business situation to discover for themselves how SDLC projects evolve. This case also develops critical

thinking, teamwork, and business communication skills. Probably most memorable, this case provides students with role-

played examples of interplay of project members and the issues that drive feature needs and IS selection, as well as providing

concrete phase deliverables (that are named in most texts but are not fully illustrated).

Objectives

The overall case objective is to familiarize students with the planning (Phase 1 Planning) and analysis (Phase 2 Analysis)

phases of the SDLC and to enable them to experience the accountant’s active role in this process. Successful organizations are

able to plan, analyze, design, implement, and maintain information systems that meet the needs of their stakeholders.

242 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

Professional accountants often perform five roles with respect to the information systems: (1) evaluator, (2) designer, (3) user,

(4) resource budget manager, and (5) auditor. In order to provide value in these five roles, accountants need to understand

strategic goals and objectives, business processes, capabilities, and limitations inherent in current technology. It is vital they

understand how to identify viable alternatives to solve the business problems identified during progression through all stages of

the SDLC. This Phase 1 Planning and Phase 2 Analysis case emphasizes (1) interactive collaborative and creative hands-on

experience with SDLC documentation, (2) pragmatic problem and solution identification through research and teamwork, (3)

conceptual analyses through logical analysis and integrated management reports, and (4) how the exemplar deliverables relate

to overall business objectives. The student learning outcomes are presented in Appendix A. 6

A cross-reference from the

learning outcomes to requirements and templates is also included.

Implementation

This case is highly modular such that parts may be selectively used on a continuum from a simple introduction to strategic

decision making to an extensive, hands-on creation and deployment of an entire information system. The choice of how much

exposure students obtain rests entirely with the instructor. This case can be performed as an individual or a team assignment.

These characteristics enhance its usefulness in a variety of course designs and constraints. While this case works well as a

supplement to a textbook introduction to the SDLC, it has been expanded to be a self-contained, stand-alone set of SDLC Phase

1 Planning and Phase 2 Analysis teaching materials. Supplemental materials included in the Teaching Notes provide

background on concepts, terms, and support all activities of this case such that it may be employed without prerequisite

information or a textbook.

Applicable Courses

The case has been structured to use at various levels of rigor, from an undergraduate systems course through a graduate-

level course devoted to SDLC. An introductory AIS course is typically positioned between the first intermediate accounting

course and the first auditing course. Therefore, this case assumes students will have been exposed to strategic decision making

and management reporting in both introductory management and managerial accounting courses. Further, students should have

gained exposure to financial statements and their analysis in both principles of financial accounting and the first intermediate

course. Undergraduate students, therefore, should have enough requisite knowledge to read and understand the solutions to the

requirements of Phase 1 Planning and Phase 2 Analysis of the SDLC as part of an expanded class discussion or activity.

Graduate students may, instead of just reading the case and solutions, be required to prepare their own solutions. Here it is

assumed that in addition to management, managerial accounting, and financial accounting courses, students would also have

taken courses in financial statement analysis and other SDLC topics.

Alternatives

The case uses a modular approach that allows parts of the case to be selectively used for various approaches to student

learning. Student exposure to the learning outcomes rests solely on instructor discretion. In an introductory course, an instructor

may choose to utilize the provided solutions as supplements to the assigned textbook or use a minimal number of templates as

in-class activities to supplement classroom discussion. In an advanced course, an instructor may choose to deploy the entire

case with limited guidance and the expectation of full deliverable completion. Detailed guidance for alternative approaches,

timing for implementation, and sample assessment questions have been provided in the Teaching Notes, Appendix H.

Guidance

The case presented here has been used multiple times at multiple institutions in both graduate and undergraduate AIS

courses. We have collected and incorporated anecdotal feedback from instructors to strengthen, clarify, and streamline this

case. This case engages students by demanding active engagement (role playing, collaboration, and then making and defending

a recommendation as a deliverable)—learning strategies that are intended to provide deeper student understanding and longer

retention than a traditional lecture/explanation approach (McManus 2005).

Class testing of the case identified a number of implementation issues and recommendations. First, it is recommended that

background information and the case script be distributed to students in advance of class discussion. Students should expect to

spend roughly one-half hour reviewing the material before the case begins. Additionally, the instructor should review all

contents of the Teaching Notes to prepare a brief discuss on what will be required of the students on the first day of the case and

6 Instructors may select subsets of the learning outcomes to suit course goals.

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 243

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

the provided time commitments—as provided in the Teaching Notes, Appendix H—for each assigned component. Finally, the

instructor should warn students about the areas that will challenge them, for example, the need for self-guided analysis and

team negotiations.

Second, to improve the quality of student preparation for the first class discussion, instructors should consider requiring

individual or team submission of a preliminary breakdown of the case.

Third, we offer the following suggestions for case discussion:

1. Discuss the importance of strategic decision making and how the SDLC plays a role in this process. Emphasize the

importance of how each step within the phases of the SDLC builds upon the others. Most importantly, that a project

plan can cease at any point in the process.

2. Engage students to read the script aloud with pre-selected ‘‘actors’’ from the class. Encourage them to take on the parts with enthusiasm.

Feedback

Phase 1 Planning and Phase 2 Analysis have been used both separately and sequentially in systems courses at both the

graduate and undergraduate levels. We have solicited anecdotal feedback from students and instructors after each instance and

have incorporated the feedback to improve the case presented here.

Instructor Experience

Before creating this case, the authors dreaded discussion of the SDLC. Textbook coverage of this topic is theoretical, dry,

and devoid of deliverable examples to enhance discussion of application. However, the SDLC is a ubiquitously applied model

of system development and is a testable topic in the CPA exam, making it a necessary component of any AIS course. We

believed the presentation of this model was important despite the difficulty met in discussion. Since creating this case, we now

look forward to presenting the SDLC, whether using it as a case project or examples for in-class discussion.

When using the materials as a case, rather than class discussion examples, we found students naturally became engaged in

creative and critical thinking. In a curriculum in which accounting students are used to checking figures and determining the

right answers, the lack of a specified solution made some students uncomfortable. This type of critical-thinking material

challenges and develops students’ abilities to identify important facts in the case and synthesize them into a report of the

findings and recommendations. This case provides students an opportunity to experience strategic decision making in a

professional work environment in various business roles, which means performing problem identification, abstraction of

problems, planning, well-informed assessments, and providing reasoned explanations are expected.

Student Experience

Some students, however, did not enjoy learning about the model quite as much as we enjoyed presenting it. Comments

from students range from an enthusiastic endorsement to remarks about the difficulty of engaging in a rather self-directed

project. The students self-reported an increase in SDLC understanding. Students with prior work or internship experience

seemed more comfortable with the ambiguity of the recommended solution than inexperienced students. Interestingly, one of

the most revealing comments came from a student who really did not enjoy the accountant’s role in the SDLC. But he later

found that completing the case ultimately gave him an advantage in securing a job in which he is now a member of an SDLC

team.

TEACHING NOTES

Teaching Notes are available only to non-student-member subscribers to the Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting through the American Accounting Association’s electronic publications system at http://aaapubs.org/. Non-student- member subscribers should use their usernames and passwords for entry into the system where the Teaching Notes can be

reviewed and printed. Please do not make the Teaching Notes available to students or post them on websites.

If you are a non-student member of AAA with a subscription to the Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting and have any trouble accessing this material, then please contact the AAA headquarters office at [email protected] or (941) 921-7747.

REFERENCES

Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–292. Keeney, R., and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York, NY: Wiley.

244 Church, Schmidt, and Smedley

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

McManus, D. A. 2005. Leaving the Lectern: Cooperative Learning and the Critical First Days of Students Working in Groups. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Savage, L. 1954. The Foundations of Statistics. New York, NY: Wiley. Simon, H. A. 1957. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Suslick, L. B., and F. Furtado. 2001. Quantifying the value of technological, environmental and financial gain in decision models for

offshore oil exploration. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 32 (2–4): 115–125. Williams, S. 2002. Making Better Business Decisions: Understanding and Improving Critical Thinking in Problem-Solving Skills.

London, U.K.: Sage Publications Inc.

APPENDIX A

Student Learning Outcomes

Casey’s Collections: A Strategic Decision-Making Case Using the Systems Development Lifecycle 245

Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting Volume 13, Number 2, 2016

Copyright of Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting is the property of American Accounting Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.