2.Mysuggestions MysuggestionforKallasisthatsheshouldfollowBrowningsfirstpieceofadvice. AsBrowningpointedoutinthebeginningofhisbriefing,CMICIscurrentproblemisthatFort Waynehasalotofmanualpointswheredataaretransferredbetweenapatchworkofold, semiautomatic,outdatedprocesses,whichgreatlyraisestheprobabilityofencounteringerrors. Therefore,aunifiedenvironmentwouldeffectivelymitigatethepresentdisorderedcondition. Moreover,futureupgradesandintroductionofadvancedsoftwarepackagescouldgreatlyincrease theeffectivenessoftheinformationsystem. Thesecondoptiondoesnotchangethesituationfundamentallyandmightevenleadtoworse chaos. Thethirdoptionistoorisky,butifsuccessfullyimplemented,itmightachieveunexpectedresults.

BConclusions
CMCI still remained alerted to the problem brewed in the information system and conducted investigationintoitsrootsforcureonceandforall.CMCIneededtomakeclearofasinglehardwareand software direction before any measurement would be taken. Any upgrade should be focused on integratingworkflowprocess.IwouldgowithOption1tobuildacentralizedcomputingtointegrateall theprocessesonthemainframestoprovidestabilityandconsistency,whichmaximizesuseofthelower cost,energyefficientmainframeandisfamiliarizedbyCMCIsengineers.

CMyopinion
Afterreadingthiscase,thefirstthingthatcomesintomymindisthattheIMT Companydefinitelyneedsanintegratedinformationsysteminwhichdatacan betransferredefficientlyandcorrectlyamongdifferentbusinessdivisionand feedbackcanalsobedeliveredquicklytomakeadjustmentsintime.Ithinkthe companyshouldconductaconsistentsysteminsteadofallowingtheuseof Sun,IBMsystemandotherdataprocessingsystematthesametime.Based onthisidea,Idontliketheoptiontwowhichinmyopinionisneither costeffectivenorsolvetheproblemfundamentally. Astooptiononeandoptionthree,theybothcoordinatewithmyidea.Boththe twoideaswillupsetsomeemployeeswhoarealreadyinthehabitofcurrent system.Changeisalwayspainful.IfIhadtochooseonebetweenthetwo,I wouldratherchoosetheLinuxidea.Thoughitismorerisky,Ithinkitwould bringlongtermadvantagetothecompanyifitsucceeded.Also,theLinux systemisopensourcedandeasytomakechangetomeetwiththecompanys actualneeds.And,asBrowningsaid,theLinuxsolutioncouldalsoprovide morethanadequateflexibility.IbelievethosegoodfeaturesofLinuxsystem willprovidethebestdatacompatibilityandreallyintegratethewhole informationsystem. However,IadmitthattheLinuxoptionisveryrisky.Sobeforemakingthefinal decision,Isuggestkallastoreviewtheexternalenvironmentthatcompany faced.Ithinktheyshouldtaketheindustryintoconsideration.Iftheirbusiness wentwellandstillleadedintheindustry,Ithinktheymaytakesmallsteps,just likeoptionfour,toavoidbigrisk.Intheotherhand,iftheywerealreadyinan urgentsituation,inotherwords,beatenbytheircompetitorsifnothingchanged, theyshouldtakebiggerstepliketheLinuxoptionsuggests.Intodaysintense businessenvironment,onecompanymayloseeverythingiftheywereafraidto takeriskstowincompetitiveadvantage. Lastly,IwilltalkaboutmyrecommendationsforIMTscase.Iwouldpreferthelastoptionwaitand watch. Although option one is feasible and cost saving, a lot of people would be upset with this significant change, especially the engineers have become accustomed to using the Sun and IBM

workstations whenever they want to. It may take a long time to run the new system smoothly. The potentialrisksareunknownandunpredictable.Asforoptiontwoandoptionthree,theyarekindofrisky andalittlebitexpensive.AconservativecompanylikeIMTmaynotliketotaketheriskandgiveitatry; particularlythesetwoapproacheshavenotbeenwidelyusedintheindustrysofar.Thus,optionfour seems like the most appropriate one. It is easy to lose some important points or take too much unknown risks when rushing to make a commitment. Waiting to see what happens and adjusting the plansmaybethebestidea.Itissafeandflexible.

D
PartIII:Conclusions Inmyopinion,CMCIshouldadoptoption4.Option 1hasalowcostatpresentbutCMCIwillhaveto investmoreresourcesinitsinformationsystemsasmainframetechnologybecomesoutdated,probably anentirereplacementofthemainframesystems.Option2ismoreexpensiveandhasverylittleroom forfutureimprovement.Option3istooriskyatthepresentbecauseifLinuxisnotthemainstreamin thefuture,CMCIwillsufferalargeloss.Inaddition,thecurrentinformationsystemsusedbyCMCIhas notencounteredanymajorproblems,andwithincrementalsolutions,itcancontinuetofunctionfora periodoftime. If option 4 is chosen, CMCI should appoint two committees, one responsible for dealing with urgent problemsofthecurrentinformationsystems,anotherinchargeofpartlyexperimentingLinuxsystemin the company. Thus, CMCI can maintain a proper function of its current information systems, train its technology personnel to be familiar with Linux system and assess whether Linux system is an appropriatesolutioninthelongterm.

E
6.Mysuggestions Itwasverychallengingtosolvetheproblemofthewholepicture.The performanceoftheinformationsystemcouldsignificantlyaffectthebusiness,soeven asmallchangeinthesystemshouldbecarefullyevaluatedbeforeitwasmade,let alonethesystematicchange. ForoptionA,theytriedtointegratethewholesystembystayingwiththe mainframeforallimportantapplications,sotheywouldportalltherelated applicationsonthemainframe.Underthisoption,thesolutionwasrelativelyeasy,the mostimportantthingtheyhadtodowastotransfersomeapplicationstotheexisting mainframewithoutmuchinvestmentonsomethingelselikeworkstations,sothey couldquicklyintegratethewholesystemwithoutsignificanttangiblecost.However, theproblemswasthattheengineershavebecomeaccustomedtousingtheSunand IBMworkstations,sothatitmightbedifficulttoenforcetheoptionAatthevery beginning,andtherecouldbesomeintangiblecost. Ontheotherhand,wehavetonoticethat,aftercomparingthecostandbenefit, optionAwasquiteagoodchoiceespeciallywhenurgentspecificsystemchanges wereneeded. ForoptionB,theywouldgiveuptheformalmainframe,andalltheapplications weretransferredtoworkstations,whichmeantthatthereshouldbesignificant investmentonnewworkstations,anditwouldtakelotsoftimetodoso.Whatsmore, itwasinUNIXenvironment,weknowthatonlysomeengineersintheMISgroup werefamiliarwithUNIX,sothereshouldbesomeextracost.Themostimportantwas thatitwaskindofdisintegratedcomputingenvironmentwhichmightleadto reassertingcentralcontrolinafewyears.Thebenefitwasthatthemainframescould bedownsized,andallthePCscouldbelinkedthroughhighspeednetwork.Compared benefittothecost,optionBwasnotagoodone. ForoptionC,therewouldgototheLinuxenvironment,whichcouldcluster standardPCsorserverstogethertoaccomplishthesamepowerasmultipleUNIX workstations.TheLinuxsolutioncouldalsoprovidemorethanadequateflexibility andcouldbeusedforanythinginthebusinessprocess.However,itwasanexpensive

solution,andwasriskybecauseitwasasharpchange,noonecouldimmediately judgethatitwassuitableornot.Weknowthatthiskindofsystemwasbasedonthe cloudcomputationconcept,whichwasthedirectionforfuturedevelopment,soitis kindoftrend.Iftheyhadenoughtimeforanalysisandobservation,anddidnthaveto makeadecisionyet,optionCcouldbeagoodone. Inconclusion,optionDwasthebest,ifthecircumstancesforcedthemtomake somechange,theycouldquicklyusedthelargecentralmainframemode,orelse,kept waitinguntilangoodopportunityforLinuxenvironment. Fromthecasestudy,wealsolearnedsomelessonsonmanaginginformation technology.CMCIisfortunateitrecognizedtheseproblemsbeforetheygrewtothepointwherethey negativelyaffectedproduction.Theseplantsneedtosettleonasinglehardwareandsoftwaredirection before they are in a crisis. They require scalability to adjust to changes in the workflow process and machine development, while at the same time offering some consistency and stability to the overall processflow.Thus,aftertheabovediscussion,wereachtheconclusionthatoptionofmovingtowardsa centralizedcomputingenvironmentisthemostpropersolutiontofixCMCIsproblems.

FLessons
Accordingtotheparagraph,Ithinkthedecisionmakershouldhavesomereflectionsontheinformation systemarchitecture.Firstly,twoplantsofCMIChavepatchedupandcaughtupwiththeirinformation technology. Hardware and software developed for one specific purpose often ends up serving several otherdifferentuses.Thenitbecameapparentthattheinformationtechnology,specificallytheprocess controlsoftwareandmainframes,hasbeenstretchedtoothin,andneedsupdatingandrevisingbefore theshortcomingsofthesesystemsreachacrisislevelaffectingproduction.Secondly,CMCIisfortunate itrecognizedtheseproblemsbeforetheygrewtothepointwheretheynegativelyaffectedproduction. Theseplantsneedtosettleonasinglehardwareandsoftwaredirectionbeforetheyareinacrisis.They requirescalabilitytoadjusttochangesintheworkflowprocessandmachinedevelopment,whileatthe sametimeofferingsomeconsistencyandstabilitytotheoverallprocessflow.

G Recommendations In conclusion, Option 1 was recommended as it allowed CMCI to solve the

communication problem between departments and it bore relatively low risk and low cost. Furthermore, PUFR should carry on ensuring that DBOMP could handle the new design system. Also, test department should meet with marketing department to better understand customers test requirement specifications before showing client the tests. Lastly, IT support is recommended to be locatedinengineeringsupportsystemgroup.

HConclusion
Despite of many problems Browning found during the investigation, the main problem of information systemforCMIC,inmymind,wastheincompatibilityandtheoutdatedconditionsofdifferentsystems usedindifferentdivisionsorproductlines.ItisfortunatethatCMCIrecognizedtheseproblemsbefore they grew to the point where they negatively affected production. These plants need to settle on a singlehardwareandsoftwaredirectionbeforetheyareinacrisis.

I Afterseriousconsiderations,myrecommendationisshiftingfrommainlyrelianceonthemainframes
towardsaworkstationcenteredenvironment,foritwasagoodtimetomakechangewhentheleaseon the IBM S/390 2nd Generation mainframe nearly expired and it would be good for CMCI in the best positiontofulfillthenewrequirementsfromIMTheadquarterstouseUNIX.Movingtoaconsolidated hardware and software strategy will be expensive in the shortterm, especially in terms of purchasing newhardware,anddevelopingnewsoftware.However,itissurethatthefinalresultandtotalcostof

ownershipwillbesignificantlyreduced.Moreover,developingtheworkprocessflowmeansinformation technology will be utilized more effectively. Having less differentiation and incompatibility will make supportmoreefficient,andlesscostly.

JWHATTODO
In my opinion, the IS problem in CMCI was so complicated and it required more deep and carful investigations and considerations. Great leap to a complete new computing environment was inappropriatebecausethenetworkintheISwastoohugeandcomplex.ThesuddenchangeinISwas tooaggressivethatitwouldposenegativeinfluencesontheoperationoftheplant.Reorganizationof thewholesystemrequiredtheexpeditedatatransactionandinformationconversionfromtheoriginal onetothenewone.Itwasnohardtoimaginethatvariousproblemswouldbeencounteredduringthis process.Oneofthemostimportantoneswasthatsomedatamaymissorgetdestructive.Despitethat, ittooklongtimeforstafftogettrainedtousethenewsystem,whichwasalsoveryexpensive.Inreality, itwastooearlytofigureoutwhichcomputingenvironmentwouldbecomeamainstreaminthefuture ormatureenoughtoholdsuchatoughsystem. Solving the most urgent problem firstly, then considering how to improve it gradually seemed conservativebutcouldguaranteelessimpacttothenormal operation.Anditwasalsomucheasierforthestaffstoacceptthechange.Thatdidntmeandonothing to improve the IS. It was still of necessity for the managers to collect corresponding information to updatethesystemtomakeitrunbetter. SogivenwhatIhavementionedbefore,Iamfortheforthoption.Justwaitandsee.Takeactionsbefore greatconsiderationsandanalysis.Takeactionswhentheactionsweregreatlyneeded.

KRecommendations
Ithink thelastoneproposedbyCharlesBrowningwouldbethebestchoice forIMTCustomMachine Companythatisthewaitandseeoption.FollowingsarethereasonthatIthinktheyshouldchoose thisoption. Accordingtothefirstpartinthiscase,IMTCustomMachineCompanyisstillworkingwellandproblems canbesolvedthroughrecommendationsgivenbystaffs.Sothesituationisnotsourgentastotakethe big risk to change the whole system to a Linux one, and it is affordable for IMT Custom Machine Companytowaitforacertainperiodoftimetoseethetrendclearlyandmakewellinformeddecisions then.Butthewaitingtimecannotbetoolong,otherwisetheymaylosetheleadingroleinthisindustry. Besides, it is wise to make experiment first before making big changes in an organization. Through it maytakesometime,itisscientificwaytoseewhetheritissuitablefortheorganization,andwhatkind of situations the company should be aware of and take measures so that negative effects can be avoided. Inaddition,itwillbringchangestoalotofaspectsinIMTCustomMachineCompanyiftheychangethe information system to a Linux based one. So the company can take advantage of this waiting time to makenecessarypreparations,andevenprovidesometrainingaboutLinuxtoitsemployeestoensure thattherewillbeasmoothtransferwhentheinformationsystemisreallychanged. FinallyIwanttoemphasizethatthechangeisdefinitelyneededtobemade,waitingdoesntmeanthat changesarenotinneed.ItwillbeveryhelpfulthatIMTCustomMachineCompanydoesntrushintothe changewithoutmakingnecessarypreparations.

LRecommendationsforselectinginformationplatform
Eventhoughthereisstillanoptionwhichiswaitingtosee,Idontthinkitsagoodidea.Linuxwouldbe thefuturetendency,butwearenotsurehowlongdoesittakeforpeopletogetfamiliarwiththenew computer environment. Also, changing information technology platform until immediate demands emergewouldbehasty.Thecurrentinformationsystemdamagestheworkefficiencyofthecompany anditsnecessarytomakepreparationearliertochangethecurrentsituation.

Ingeneral,thestrategiesofselectinginformationtechnologyplatformaredividedintotwoparts.One directionistransferringtoadisintegratecomputerenvironmentwitheachpartfunctionseparatelyand isconnectedbyLANs.Theotheroneiskeepingintegratecomputerenvironmentusingamainframefor allimportantapplications.Eventhoughthefirstdirectionismoreflexible,itrequiresalargeamountof investmentanddisintegrateplatformisnotconvenientformanagerstosuperviseandevaluateworkin various departments. Also, staffs in MIS are lack of UNIX knowledge which makes the project less feasible. Therefore, I give my vote to the second direction which is keeping integrate computer environment. This direction also contains two possible choices, one of which is using the current IBM mainframeandtheotherisadoptinganewLinuxenvironment.Moretimeandinvestmentareneeded for a new Linux system to carry out. Transferring a large amount of data might introduce more new errors.Thus,inmyopinion,remainingthecurrentIBMmainframewhichisenergyefficientandmaking additionalimprovementwouldbeabetterchoice. PortingallthemajorAS/400applicationstothemainframemightbringinsomeerrors,butcomparedto changingthecomputerenvironmenttoatotallynewone,theprobabilitiesoferrorsmightbesmaller. Whendataistransferred,MISshouldtakeresponsibilitytoavoidintroducingerrors. HRdepartmentisnotconnectedwiththemainframecurrentlyduetosecurityconcern,butlinkingwith themainframeisusefulforHRtodoperformanceappraisalandhavebettercommunicationwithother departments. So, to improve the new platform, MIS should establish security setting in connection betweenthemainframeandHRdepartmentwhichallowsHRdepartmenttovisitthemainframewhile themainframewasallowedtovisitHRdepartmentwithsomeconditions. IBMs CAD on the mainframe is frequently used by drafting and engineering staffs. Since there are several separate production lines, there still are three separate design programs. Having CAD and the designprogramsonthesameplatformwouldmakethedevelopmentoftheautomaticdrawingprogram more convenient. ES group should be responsible for the integration of different draft and design systems. Users who are accustomed to using the Sun and IBM workstation might find the IBM mainframe computerenvironmentinconvenienttouse.Buttherealwaysaresomepeoplewhohavetolearnnew knowledge when change occurs. They need training and some time to get familiar with the new platform.Itsastepbystepprocedure.

MThechooseofoptions
As discussed above, there are several factors that should be considered in choosing the system. I will recommendthethirdsystem,consideringtheimportanceofallthefactors. Firstly, the mainframe option cannot provide enough flexibility for further improvements; the workstation option would not ensure the integrality of the new system. Thus, the third option with clusterhardwareunderLINUXwillfulfilltheneedofFortWaynebestwithenoughflexibilityaswellas integrality. Secondly, from the perspective of cost, the mainframe option costly least; the workstation cost most, thethirdoptionischaracterizedwithamediumcost.Becausetheplanthasalmostreacheditscapacity since2002,thecostwillnotbethemostseriousproblemifthethirdoptioncostalotmorethanbudget. Thirdly, upgrading IT system will also get HR issues involved. The MIS and ES team will have to work togetherafterintegration.MISengineersexcelinCOBOLandRPG,butnoneofthemknowmuchabout LINUX. As contrast, some of the ES engineers have knowledge in UNIX. The third option and second optionwillcausemoredifficultyinthecompetencyofengineersasthetwooptionsrequireknowledge inUNIXandLINUX.However,thisproblemcanbesolvedbyhiringnewemployeesandgivingtrainings. Besides,personnelproblemisnotsoimportantasflexibilityandintegrationprobleminITupgrades. Myownrecommendationsanddecision IfIwereKallas,Iwillchooseoptionthree.LinuxbasedsolutionscouldclusterstandardPCsorservers together to accomplish the same power as multiple UNIX workstations, a mainframe, or a supercomputer.Itisnow getting tobeamainstreamofferingbymanyof themajorvendors.Second, theLinuxsolutioncouldalsoprovidemorethanadequateflexibility.Linuxsolutionscouldbeusedfor

N1.

anythingfromtrackingqualitycontroltomanagingmachinesandmonitoringproduction.Furthermore, toaccompanytheresultingprocessingpower,someprovidersofLinuxsolutionshaveguaranteed99.7 percentorhigheruptimetotheirLinuxclients.Inaddition,theplatformsdurabilityhadbeenproven. TherearesomanyadvantagesofLinuxsolutionsthatIwillchooseoption3.

OIrecommendCMCItakeoption3tochangeintoaLinuxenvironment.
The first option should rule out is wait and see. Because it is the first year the industry become optimistic and the profit increases, it is the right time to change the platform. If the market keeps booming in the future, the outdated platform would become a barrier for development, while if the marketbecomesbad,therewouldnotbeenoughbugettocarryout. Secondly,sinceCMCIisconservative,Ithinkalthoughcentralizedenvironmentischeaper,itwillnotbe accepted by most of the stuff, since it changes their working style too much and it may make the executionhardtocarryout.Soweruleouttheoption1. Theoption2and3areverysimilar,exceptLinuxorUnixtheplatformisbased.Thetwooptionsfunction well:theyarebasicallyworkstationcomputing,allcomputerslinkedbyLANtosharethedata,andlocal database is allowed. They just fit CMCIs needs and the stuffs habit since the mainframe is also connected,actuallywedonothavetoworrythedisintegrateproblem.Althoughthetwooptionsare moreexpensivethanoption1,theywouldworththemoney,sincethematchthetrendsoftechnology development. Finally, CMCI have to choose from option 2 and option 3. I would choose option 3. The advantage of option2isthatitismoreclosetothecurrentsystem,andlookslikenottooaggressive.However,asfar asIconcerned,theoption3isnotsoriskyasitlookslike.Foronething,thereisatrendthatLinuxhas become the mainstream, not only there are lot of outsourcing offer companies, many big companies haveaccepttheplatformandproveitworkswell.Foranother,itismoreflexible,sinceCMCIcouldhave morewaystocarryitout,outsourcingorinhouse,tomakethebudgetsmaller.Whatsmore,sinceit functionslikeoption2,therewouldnotbetoomuchpressurefromthemanagementandstuff.

PIthingThissystemismoreusefulforlongrun.Becauseyoucandevelopyouronsoftwareanddesign
youroncompanyneeds.ItismoreflexiblethanotherIBMandSUNsystemsolution.Othersolutioncan have a development limit. But Linux system is up to your limit. And many Fortune 500 company use linux system .Furthermore , to accompany the resulting processing power, some providers of linux solutionshaveguaranteed99.7percentorhigheruptimetotheirlinuxclients. The disadvantages are that :firstly it is more risky because all current system need to change . It can takelongtime.TheydonotgiveinformationaboutcostofthissystembecauseofthatreasonsIdonot comparecostothersystem. ConclusionandRecommendations Inthiscase,Browninggavetheflowingoptions, 1. Movetoacentralizedcomputingenvironment. 2. Purchase out mainframe completely over time and at the same time use linux on the workstation.Thisarchitecturewouldallowmigrationtoafullclient/severenvironment. 3. Pursueacourseofabandoningthemainconvertingthecompletecomputingplatformtoalinux environment. 4. Justwaitingandwatchingcarefullyatthepresenttime. AsfarasIamconcerned,manyfactorsshouldbetakenintoaccount.Eachoptionhavebothstrength andshortcomings.Withacomprehensiveconsideration,Isupportthethirdone. Firstly,itsolvedthecompatibilityproblembyintegratingthesystemintoonelinuxenvironmet.Thedata flowcanalsobettertransfered. Secondly,itiseasytocarryout.Linuxisawidelyacceptedandusedsystem,sotheonlythingtodoisto hire some engineers who are expertized at this system. Besides, the programming language can be understoodbyotherusers.

Thirdly, it provide more flexibility for customizing functions for various needs. This option provides enoughflexibilityaswellasintegrality. However,therealsoexistweaknessesofthisoption.First,thechangeisquitehugeonIMTsITsystem,it take a large amount of time and human resource. Second, nobody is sure all data would be perfectly transferredtothenewsystem. Advicefromme Browningsuggestedseveralsolutionsforthecurrentsituation.IfIwereKallas,Iwouldliketodonothing fundamentalatthepresenttimebutjusttofixsomespecificproblemsexistinginthework. Firstly,beforemakingdecision,therewerestillmanyconsiderationstotakeintoaccountwhichneeded moreinvestigationsandmorestafftopayattentiontoit.Secondly,themanagersstilldontknowthe strategic direction for the IS system. If they do some fundamental changes, they may out of the expectedwayinthefuture. Of course, if we just stay and wait, there may be some problems we cannot fix under the present system.However,consideringthecostsandbenefitsunderdifferentdecisions,Ithinkwaitingisthebest choice.

SPartIIIConclusions
Although Browning had captured the basic strategy alternatives, there were many considerations to takeintoaccountbeforeadecisioncouldbemadeonwhichoptiontofollow. Ithinkoptionfouristhebestchoiceinthecurrentsituation.Althoughitisthemostpassiveone,itisthe safest one. For such a large organization, any small change in the IS architecture could cause a lot of problems,sowaitingandwatchingcarefullycanhelpthecompanygetaclearerunderstandingoftheir realneed.Inaddition,theexperimentwithLinuxcanhelpthemtomakeafinaldecision.

T5AdecisionanddirectionforIMTIS
Although Browning had captured the basic strategy alternatives, there were many considerations to take into account before a decision could be made. If I were Kallas, I will choose option three. The reasons are as below: First, Linuxbased solutions could cluster standard PCs or servers together to accomplishthesamepowerasmultipleUnixworkstations,amainframe,orasupercomputer.Itisnow gettingtobeamainstreamofferingbymanyofthemajorvendors,andseverallargecompanieshave adoptedthisenvironmentinthepastfewyears.Second,thissolutioncouldbeveryflexible,whichcould beusedforanythingfromtrackingqualitycontroltomanagingmachinesandmonitoringproduction.In addition,theplatformsdurabilityhadbeenproven.Givenaboveadvantages,peoplemaythinkthisis toolargealeapfromIMTscurrentconservativeenvironment.Althoughitmaycostalottoadoptthis newplatform,andhavetoadjusttheorganizationintheshortrun,inthelongrun,itwillbringmuch more profit due to the efficiency improvement. If we hang on to the conservative environment, it perhapssavessomecostandenergytoday,butinthefutureIMTmayendupinadoptingthenewLinux environment.Therefore,changetheoutdatedsystemsoon,andenjoytheprofititbringsearlier.

UDecisionandDirection
Although Browning had captured the basic strategy alternatives, there were many considerations to take into account before a decision could be made on which option to follow. Years of neglect, restructuring,andagrowingorganizationhadfinallycaughtupwithCMCIsinformationsystems.