Implementation of Technology Solution

The Proposal:  Communicating to Different Audiences
Thank you for taking the time to read my communication. I am a member of the information technology (IT) department seeking your audience for my proposal to develop a new data dashboard that would assist in the analysis of market and sales data. A data dashboard is an information management tool that provides an interactive centralized means of tracking, collecting, and analyzing key data points and metrics to monitor performance. The proposed dashboard would be customized to collect sales revenue information from different points of sales and display the same in the form of gauges, bar charts, line charts, and tables. From the analyzed data, the marketing team could determine, at a glance, the top products in sales revenue - and the markets on the basis of geography, demographics, or customer behavior - that provide the best opportunities for each product line. This way, the team could conduct informed target marketing towards different markets. The use of the data dashboard would help reduce marketing costs as a percentage of sales as well as the purchases-to-sales ratio, eventually increasing profit margins.
Implementation
The proposed dashboard is user-friendly and relatively easy-to-use. With proper training, members of the marketing and IT departments would be in a position to comfortably apply the dashboard for data analysis within four weeks. It is projected that the personal-use desktop version of the dashboard would initially cost $30,000 to get started, which includes $5,000 installation cost per user for a 10-user requirement and professional services fee of $25,000. Thereafter, we would incur monthly maintenance charges of $5,000 cumulatively for a period of one year. However, the dashboard is expected to realize marketing cost savings of $10,000 yearly as a result of informed targeted marketing.
Conclusion and Recommendations
We recommend that the company considers implementing the proposed dashboard in the coming financial year. The implementation will streamline data analysis, thereby facilitating market segmentation, reducing marketing costs, and increasing profit margins.
B. Fact Sheet Artifact
Ref: Implementation of a Sales and Market Data Dashboard
A growing product line is something that marvels us all and something that we all dream to see because it indicates growth; who wouldn’t want to be associated with a growing organization?
‘What is a Data Dashboard?’ Retrieved from https://www.tapclicks.com/resources/blog/data-dashboard/
On a different note, however, a growing product line, if not properly-managed, could increase costs without necessarily increasing revenues. It is for this reason that we propose the adoption of a new dashboard to assist in the analysis and reporting of sales and market data.
A dashboard is a tool that organizes sales data collected from various point-of-sales in the market and summarizes the same in the form of easy-to-read charts and tables.
From these charts and tables, the marketing team can easily identify the best-performing products by sales revenue and the most promising markets. By adopting the proposed dashboard, the marketing team can easily determine where to focus their marketing efforts, minimizing marketing costs and increasing sales-to-purchases ratio.
Implementation Phases
We all have some role to play in implementation. The implementation of the proposed project will incorporate seven phases. The first phase is the preliminary analysis, where a review is conducted with the relevant teams to identify the problem facing the organization, identifying the possible alternative solutions, and choosing the most feasible solution (Wasson, 2005). This phase also involves conducting a feasibility analysis to determine whether the selected alternative is legally and economically feasible. The second phase is system analysis, where system analysts work with various stakeholders to determine what will be required to develop the new system. Key players are interviewed and procedures documented to understand what exactly the system is supposed to address.
The third phase is the system design, where the system requirements developed in the previous phase are used to create the user interface, database, as well as data outputs and inputs (Wasson, 2005). Fourth is the programing phase, which mainly involves coding carried out by a programmer or team of programmers to develop an initial working program. The software program is then tested in a series of tests. The first step tests the code for bugs or errors. The second step is the system test, which involves checking whether the various components work together effectively. The final test is the user-acceptance test, where staff in the departments that will be directly utilizing the dashboard are allowed to use it to identify whether it meets their standards (Wasson, 2005). Once the system passes the self-acceptance test, it moves to the implementation phase in the organization. This phase covers the training of staff and converting from the previous system (Wasson, 2005). The final phase is maintenance, which involves fixing the bugs and shortcomings reported by users and carrying out backups and system updates (Wasson, 2005)
Own-generated flow chart (from Wasson, 2005)
C. Writing Process Analysis for Each Artifact
Artifact 1
Artifact 1 was meant to communicate the proposed system and its importance to the company’s chief finance officer, a member of the executive board. The three writing processes were implemented as follows:
i) Planning – it is the prewriting stage that involves brainstorming, trying out, and rejecting several topics until one lands on the right topic (Robins, 1995). In the planning phase of artifact 1, I brainstormed over multiple topics to identify the one that would be most convincing to the audience. I made an outline of potential topics, identifying pros and cons of potential topics until I ended up with the topics that would best convince the audience.
ii) Drafting – the process of getting the developed idea into paper and organizing the information in the most logical way for the audience (Robins, 1995). The aim of communication in artifact 1 is to convince the audience as there is little familiarity between the writer and reader. I had to reorganize my sentences severally, constantly editing for word choice and examples until I ended up with the most appropriate choice of words.
iii) Revising – the process of going over the drafted piece from the perspective of the audience to identify whether it conveys the intended message and is as convincing as intended (Robins, 1995). In the revising phase in artifact 1, I had someone else go over the piece as the intended audience to determine the extent to which it conveys the intended message and how convincing it is.
Artifact 2
Artifact 2 was less formal and was geared at communicating information on the product, its value, and the phases of implementation to a cross-functional team comprising of representatives from the marketing and IT departments.
i) Planning – the planning phase was less intense in artifact 2. The writer and their audience were at more or less the same level and the communication, therefore, was of a horizontal nature. The aim was not to convince the audience to the product, but to educate them on their role in its implementation. The planning mainly involved drawing outline maps and searching for images depicting how the information would be portrayed to be most understandable by the audience.
ii) Drafting – the drafting stage involved merely transferring the information in the outline map onto paper and developing flow charts showing the various phases of implementation
iii) Revising – in the revising stage of the second artifact, I proofread the drafted piece, correcting errors, adding on new relevant information, and making adjustments to the graphics to make them more attractive for the audience
D. Audience Analysis for Each Artifact
Audience 1
The first audience was the company’s chief finance officer, a member of the executive board. Owing to the differences in hierarchical position between the writer and their audience, there is little familiarity between the parties.
i) Subject knowledge – given their position, it is likely that the audience has a significant level of understanding about the subject in question, including the phases of implementation. They are likely to have even tried out a similar system before. As such, communication on the nature of the product is brief and more of the information on the artifact focuses on convincing the audience that the product would be beneficial to the organization.
ii) Position in the organization – the audience occupies a senior position in the organization. In this regard, the artifact uses formal language and factual data to back the information provided
iii) Personal Attitudes – the audience’s attitude towards the proposed change. As the CFO, they are answerable for any losses or unnecessary costs incurred. As such, they are more receptive of initiatives geared at increasing profit margins. The writer, therefore, focuses more on explaining how the proposed system will contribute to the company’s profitability.
iv) Reading Style - given the position they hold, the CFO will be answerable for the success or failure of the proposed system. As such, they are likely to adopt an in-depth reading style to accurately capture all the relevant information in order to make an informed decision (Cleveland, 2001). In this regard, the writer uses numerical data comparing costs and expected benefits to prove their case
v) Type of Reader – the audience is a primary reader who receives the communication to inform decision-making. In recognition of this, the writer is keen to provide all relevant information on the product’s expected benefits and accurate numerical data to guide the reader into an effective cost-benefit analysis
Audience 2
The second audience was a team of employees drawn from the marketing and IT departments. The writer and their audience are at more or less at the same level in the organization’s hierarchical structure.
i) Subject knowledge – the audience has little knowledge on the proposed system. For this reason, the writer uses short paragraphs and graphics to make the information easily understandable to the audience. They also take time to explain how the same will be implemented as it is unlikely that the audience has interacted with such processes before
ii) Position in the organization – the writer and the audience are at the same level in the organizational hierarchical structure. As such, the reader mainly uses informal communication to pass the message across
iii) Personal attitudes – the audience is not directly answerable for the proposed system. As such, their link to the system is weaker than that of the CFO and they perhaps only listen because they are familiar with the writer. Graphics are used in this regard to keep the audience engaged and influence their attitudes towards the proposed system
iv) Reading Style – the audience is mainly made up of skimmers who may only be interested in knowing how the system affects their individual work and their role in its implementation (Cleveland, 2001). This would explain why the writer focuses their communication on explaining the rationale of the proposed system to the specific department and gives a summary of the implementation phases, but ignores the details on how the change affects overall organizational profitability.
v) Type of reader – the audience mainly comprises of secondary readers who are not directly engaged in decision-making. The writer does not, therefore, take time to build a case for the same using numerical data or industry facts as they did with audience 1.
E. Sources
Cleveland, M. (2001). Steps to Successful Reading. Portland, Maine: Walch Publishing.
Robins, A. (19995). The Analytical Writer: A College Rhetoric (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Rowman & Littlefield.
Wassson, C. S. (2005). System Analysis, Design and Development: Concepts, Principles and Practices. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.