Managing Information Technology

members of DMA’s management to visit the MSCC’s offices
and conduct an IS needs analysis. Those individuals visited
for two days. They spent the morning of the first day provid-
ing a complete overview of DMA and demonstrating, on a
laptop, the capabilities of the software systems they offered.
The remaining day and a half was spent interviewing the
MSCC’s staff on their job duties, on how they used the cur-
rent system, and on any unmet needs they could identify.
Additionally, Lassiter provided DMA with a very
complete look at his division’s IS needs and his personal
vision of the information system that the MSCC needed.
Additionally, in an effort to explain the MSCC’s capabili-
ties and to impress upon DMA the diversity and complex-
ity of its operations, Lassiter gave DMA lots of materials.
These included examples of every report and every type of
document that the existing system could produce as well as
explanations of the purpose and meaning (to the MSCC) of
the information in each of these reports. Furthermore, he
gave DMA an operations manual, detailing each task of
each employee in the marketing division, and a lengthy
report on the information that was currently in the database
that could not be retrieved and printed in a useable report
format. In all, this was a two-foot-deep stack of reports and
data. Lassiter was also unwilling to allow DMA to leave
until he was given a detailed thesis on DMA’s capabilities
and its software systems.
After two weeks, and in time for the June 2009
Executive Committee meeting, Rankin reported that DMA
had reviewed the information gathered on its fact-finding
visit and had successfully analyzed the IS needs of the
MSCC. In doing so, DMA determined that its Association
Plus software was the ideal match for the MSCC’s needs
and the HP platform. Lassiter remained undeterred, how-
ever, as he urged the approval of travel funds to allow
someone to visit at least one DMA customer to see the
software in action. The Executive Committee, in deference
to Lassiter—and to the fact that his division was by far the
most extensive user of the current information system—
agreed to delay the final decision and to approve funds to
send him and Gramen to visit the Lake Erie Chamber of
Commerce—one of DMA’s most recent clients.

More Visits/Interviews

While DMA had willingly given out the Lake Erie
Chamber of Commerce’s (LECC) name, this proved to be
a bad choice for DMA. One hour into their visit, Gramen
and Lassiter met with the LECC’s President, George
Franks. Mr. Franks explained,

We were thoroughly impressed with DMA when we

went through our due diligence process. They showed

us reports and screen shots that gave all of us hope

that this was our panacea. But guys, we have had seri-

ous and persistent data conversion problems from the

moment of implementation. And, I still don’t know

whether we will ever see any value from this system.

With this information in hand, Lassiter (and a reluc-

tant Gramen) reported these findings back to the

Executive Committee. Even though Gramen continued to

argue that time was of the essence, the Executive

Committee needed additional assurances. As such, they

sent Lassiter and Gramen to DMA headquarters with two

goals: (1) to determine what DMA’s capabilities were and

(2) to see an operational version of DMA’s software.

Immediately upon arriving at DMA headquarters,

Lassiter and Gramen were given a tour and were intro-

duced to some of DMA’s senior staff. Soon thereafter they

were led into a conference room where they were treated to

a lengthy demonstration of what appeared to be a fully

operational version of DMA’s software. However, DMA

had actually used the MSCC’s data and reports to prepare

sample reports and screenshots to create the appearance of

a fully operational software system. As one former DMA

employee would later tell Sage Niele,

They used the sample reports and other informa-

tion they received from Lassiter to create repre-

sentative screens and reports. DMA so badly

wanted to get into the trade association market

with a big customer like the MSCC that they

believed if they could just land this contract they

could develop the software and stay one step

ahead of the MSCC. The long and short of it is

that they sold “vaporware.”

During the demonstrations, Lassiter and Gramen

repeatedly asked for and received assurances that DMA

could, with “relatively minor and easily achievable modifi-

cations,” develop the software and convert the UNITRAK

database to produce the demonstrated reports and lists for

the MSCC. To every question and contingency raised,

DMA responded that the development would be no prob-

lem, and that, additionally, the MSCC would receive the

source code if it purchased the software.

Satisfied with what they had seen, Lassiter and

Gramen flew home. At the August 2009 Executive

Committee meeting, they reported that this system (the HP

hardware and the DMA software) was acceptable for pur-

chase. Hearing this, the Executive Committee instructed

Gramen to request design specifications and specific cost

estimates on this software system. Under the new configu-

ration, a relational database management system called

Case Study I-7 • Midsouth Chamber of Commerce (B): Cleaning Up an Information Systems Debacle 181