The turnaround of the London Ambulance Service Computer-Aided Despatch system (LASCAD)

Abstract

The implementation of the Computer-Aided Despatch system at the London Ambulance Service has been one of the most notorious cases of failure within the information systems (IS) literature. What is less well known is that there followed, some time later, a much more successful implementation, described as a turnaround. This paper, based on a case study approach, describes the context and detail of that implementation. A framework from the literature, used in an analysis of the initial failure, is used to analyse and compare the similarities and differences in the development of the two systems. The framework provides four interacting elements and relationships for analysis. These elements are Supporters, Project Organisation, Information System, and the Environment in which they operate. The turnaround system was found to address directly almost all the issues identified as problematic in the failure. These included the approach taken by management to understand the needs of users, including issues unrelated to the system itself, their involvement in the development process, an improvement in the availability of resources (brought about in some part because of the previous failure), the ability to follow a relaxed timeline driven by users' acceptance levels, the preparation of infrastructure projects to develop confidence, participation and prototyping, thorough testing, phased and simple implementation, and trust building. Certain environmental factors could not be so directly addressed but nevertheless were overcome by attention to detail and internal needs. Conclusions indicate that the factors addressed are not new and are to be found in the success literature. What is unusual is that they were implemented in this case in such unlikely circumstances.

Measuring the success of business-intelligence systems in South Africa: An empirical investigation applying the DeLone and McLean Model

“…System quality was not found to be related to system use. This finding is unexpected and inconsistent with previous studies where system quality is reported to have a significantly positive influence on system use (DeLone & McLean 2003;Fitzgerald & Russo 2005). The different types of applications investigated and the different contexts can explain differences amongst the findings of this study and the research in previous studies.…”

“…This finding suggests that the quality of service does not influence the use of the system. This is inconsistent with previous studies where service quality is reported to have a significant influence on system use (Caldeira & Ward 2002;Fitzgerald & Russo 2005).…”

Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions

“…Nonetheless, many case studies of IS failure are described and discussed in the literature, and different causes and consequences of IS failure have been proposed (e.g. Avison and Wilson 2002, Barker and Frolick 2003, Beynon-Davies 19951997;Bussen and Myers 1997;Fitzgerald and Russo 2005;McGrath 2002;Nelson 2007;Pan et al 2008;.…”

Strategic Alignment of Business Processes

“…Requirements engineering is concerned with the production of specifications, including those for implementation, deployment and maintenance of the system [170]. If the system is not implemented correctly then it can have disastrous effects, as shown in [61] which described the impact of the most notorious information system failure in recent times (the London Ambulance Fiasco). To create reliable systems, a formal methodology or language should be used for the creation of the system requirements.…”