Introduction
Making IT decisions for a public organization is a complex process that requires careful risk management and consideration of the interests of all stakeholders. In the case of the City of Pittsburgh, the IT Director was responsible for migrating to cloud servers, which had to be justified based on the city’s needs and requirements. The IT Director met this critical challenge and advocated for it by using a transparent method based on the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP).
The Steps to Select Cloud Service Providers
Faced with the need to change the system of work with e-mail, Pittsburgh came to the only profitable solution: the use of cloud storage. The first step required of the IT Director was to incorporate technology into the city’s strategic position, which subsequently provided strong support for the solution (Mu & Stern, 2015). A technology review was then conducted to identify the city’s goals and needs, as well as to assess the characteristics of providers that could offer services.
After this stage, the process of selecting a decision-making method began, and the city settled on the AHP (Mu & Stern, 2015). After the preparation stage was completed, the timeline was developed, the provider was evaluated and selected, and the solution was implemented (Mu & Stern, 2015). Each step of the process required caution and risk assessment to justify the importance of the initiative.
The city was compelled to adopt a more responsible approach to supplier selection. Particular attention had to be paid to protecting data confidentiality (Mu & Stern, 2015). Additionally, it was crucial to understand the history of litigation to effectively protect the city’s residents and employees on the legal front. The decision-making process for a public organization required the participation of all stakeholders. In the case of a private organization, this process could happen with only top management involvement.
The Highest Weighted Criteria in the AHP Hierarchy
AHP’s hierarchy in decision-making allowed Pittsburgh to garner support, justify the decision legally, and engage stakeholders. The highest criteria were vendor qualifications, transparency, and technical requirements (Mu & Stern, 2015). Understanding the operating experience and the steps required to make the system work correctly were the most critical aspects. These criteria carried the most weight, as the IT Director needed to develop a coherent system that would address the city’s problems. As can be seen from the lobbying questions, the Google system chosen proved to be a costly decision (Mu & Stern, 2015). This suggests that the financial aspect of the implementation issue was not decisive.
The AHP hierarchy is an effective decision-making tool because it enables one to address the specific needs of different organizations. In developing the AHP hierarchy for Saunders College of Business, the financial side of the decision would have had more weight. Additionally, Saunders College of Business would appreciate the opportunities that cloud services can provide for students and staff. Thus, the decision would be more based on an assessment of the financial possibilities of implementation and the benefits that can be obtained from this process.
Conclusion
The City of Pittsburgh case demonstrates the importance of a transparent decision-making process and the difference in accountability between private and public organizations. Weighing the risks, taking into account the technical, public, and legal aspects of cloud technology, enabled the IT Director to lobby for the proposed solution successfully. Weighing the criteria in the AHP hierarchy proved to be a suitable tool for the public organization to promote IT into the city government.
Reference
Mu, E., & Stern, H. A. (2015). The City of Pittsburgh goes to the cloud: A case study of cloud solution strategic selection and deployment. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 4(2), 70-85.