One of the most difficult questions faced by organizations is how to actually deploy the system. Should it a direct cut over deployment be attempted? It is the cheapest and most direct? Should the two systems be run in parallel? And for how long? Is there a way to do a phased implementation?
Discussion of the issues and how does a company make a decision of which type of approach to take. Things that might be considered are:
- Urgency of the new system in production
- Experience and past performance of the development team
- Complexity of the new system
- Criticality of the new system (what is the cost of errors or failure?)
Every system deployment method has its pros and cons. The direct cut over deployment method involves immediately deploying the new system once it operational and cutting off the old system. One of the benefits of this method is that it is the least expensive. The deployment is done within a short period of time. The disadvantage is that you risk losing information and this method does not give the company an opportunity to easily go back to the old system. This works best if there is no way that the new system and the old one can run in parallel. It is also best used if the failure of the new system will not have a catastrophic impact on the running of the business.
Parallel deployment on the other hand, is whereby the two systems (old and new) run together for some time. This deployment results in higher costs as both systems must be maintained at the same time. This might also require the users to use both systems often causing frustration and lower efficiency. The good thing about parallel deployment is that the it is less risky because you must be satisfied with the new system before you cut off the old one. The old system acts as a backup. This method is often used for critical systems.
Phased implementation involves deployment of the system in stages or components. The risk of errors or failures is limited to the implemented module of the system only. It works best if the whole system has not been fully developed and the modules that are ready are deployed for the customers to start using. It can be used when developing complex systems. The project usually takes a long time to be completed and might lead to increased costs.
Good explanation, Karabo
I agree with you that each method has its pros and cons, so choosing the approach should take many elements into consideration, such as business objective, system requirement and risk acceptance level of the company and etc.
Well explained, Karabo! Even though parallel deployment sounds appealing (as it is a risk-less approach) it can be hectic in terms of efficiency. Once the errors are identified, when the outputs are compared side by side, the organizations have to pay price and also the efficiency is reduced.
You made some great points in weighing the pros and cons of each system. As mentioned while parallel has the crucial benefits in regards to risk aversion, it can be difficult to get user buyin in comparison to those systems they are already familiar with.
You made some great points in weighing the pros and cons of each installation. As mentioned while parallel has the crucial benefits in regards to risk aversion, it can be difficult to get user buyin in comparison to those systems they are already familiar with.
Hi Karabo,
Thank you for your clear explanation on these three types of deployment. As you said, each deployment method has own advantages and disadvantages. An organization should choose the appropriate type of deployment method based on its own needs.
Thanks for your insight! I think its great that you mention the pros and cons of the different systems deployment methods and how an organization should choose when implement based on their needs.
Nice job, Karabo. You made a good comparison and explanation among these kinds of conventions. Thank you.
System deployment is a complex endeavor which is a critical aspect of the software development lifecycle (SDLC), an endeavor that is all but ignored by writers in favor of sexier topics such as distributed object development, components, or the latest version of an SDK. If the company can’t get software into the hands of their users, then what is its value? Absolutely nothing. Identify and understand the deployment audience are important. There are at least three distinct groups that the company needs to consider: the end users, the operations staff responsible for running the software once it is in production, and the support staff who is responsible for aiding the users with the software once it is in production. The company needs to identify the level of control that each group has over the actual deployment. Running the system in parallel offers the advantage that the company can easily back out to the original system if the new one runs into problems. However, parallel operations require significant effort on the part of everyone involved: the users need to do double entry, operation staffs need to run both systems, support staffs need to support both systems, and development staffs may need to create integration code that temporarily works behind the scenes to synchronize data.
Great explanation, running the systems in parallel offers a dual advantage. It reduces cost and allows the firms to test the new system while operating on the old system. This gives them time to perfect on the new system without disrupting production or the operation of the business.
Thank you for your sharing. One thing you mention about is the stakeholders: the end users, the operations staff, and the support staff. The experience and even the benefits the will get must be considered by the developers.
I agree with you. The company needs to determine the level of control that each team has in actual deployment. Running the system in parallel offers the advantage that if the new system encounters problems, the company can easily return to the original system.
As there is a difference between planning and reality, I believe the question of direct cut over deployment attempt is great. Whether it should be done or not is a challenge. There are many risks associated with direct cut over system deployment.
Notwithstanding, a direct cut over deployment can be attempted in segment (phases implementation). Shorting down the entire system (old) is just not advisable. Plans could not become reality. The urgency of a new system in production is important, but you cannot overlook the outcome for the urgency. Anything that is not done right the first time is not done at all.
Experience and past performance are important for system development and deployment. They can help safe time and other resources. They cannot be ignored.
A system can be as simple as it can be, but all users will not progress at the same pace neither will they start at the level. The system will appear complex no matter what.
With the risk associated with a system deployment, it made seem cheap, but when deployed, the cost could increase. If the new system does not work, the cost (cost of error or failure) could double. So, the direct cut over deployment been the cheapest is iffy.
As important as a direct cut over deployment is, as cheap as it could be, it is prudent to implement the deployment in phases. Phase implement can avoid a complete breakdown of system or institution.
You make a great point on the importance of deployment in phases. With a direct installation, users are truly at the mercy of the new system. Any errors resulting from the new system will have a direct impact
on the users and in some cases how the organization performs its business, depending on the
critically of the system to the organization.
Hello Pascal, nice explanation, I really agree with you on “There are many risks associated with direct cut over system deployment.”
Phases are definitely critical for success. A organization needs to ease the process into a new system, and not go head on and risk a loss in efficiency.
Organizations are fully aware that good information systems will help them collect customer feedback and develop products, which exceed customer expectation. Organizations require different types of information systems to mitigate distinctive process and requirements. Information systems help in the executive decision, business planning, and to achieve its various strategy as well as short-term and long-term goals. However, one of the most difficult questions faced by organizations is how to deploy the system. Success in system deployment is highly dependent on the prevalent organization structure, management style, overall organization environment, and the compatibility of a new and existing system(s) in an organization. With correct development, deployment, and usage of systems, organizations can minimize cost, improve productivity, achieve growth in top line as well as the bottom line and gain a competitive advantage in the market. Deployment can be direct, parallel and phased implementation.
Direct deployment can be described as a method that installs a new system, quickly makes it operational, and immediately turns off any overlapping systems. This method lowers cost and is quite simple, but the risk may be higher.
Parallel deployment method operates the old and new systems for an extended period of time. The risk is lower and the cost is higher.
Phased deployment method installs a new system and makes it operational in a series of steps or phases. This method is less risky and with increased complexity.
Nice explanation, Ugo! Organizations understand the need of improving their information system through the customer satisfaction. They always look for ways to retain the existing customers and attract new ones to make their business profitable. One way for organizations to be profitable is by being strategic about system deployment. There a re several to choose from with unique features. The organizations should select the installation that best fit their needs.
Thank you for your sharing, I like what you talk about the short-term and long-term goals. There are lot of things we need to consider about before we decide which approach we should use, we should consider about the time, costs, and difficult level.
I couldn’t agree more with what you said. Nice explanation, Ugo! Organizations always look for ways to keep current customers and bring in new ones to make more profit. One way of doing that is system deployment which there a many types of. The decision should be made based on their needs and requirements.
.Thank you for your sharing,
Direct approach refers to changing over from the old system to a new one by turning off the old system when the new system is turned on. Direct installation may be simple and cheap, but it has the highest risk.
Parallel approach refers to running the old information system and the new one at the same time until management decides the old system can be turned off. Users can go back to using the old system if the new one has problems. But this method is safest but it is expensive to handle two systems, can affect overall performance, and requires controls to avoid duplication of effort.
Phased approach refers to changing from the old information system to the new one incrementally, starting with one or a few functional components and then gradually extending the installation to cover the whole new system. This approach usually used for big and complex system and has the advantage of minimizing the risks.
Hi Jing, the three deployment approaches have their own features. In terms of mitigating the risks, the phased installation may appeal to organization, however, having to deal with several functional components of the old system until the new one is formed can increase complexity.
Thank you for your sharing. You give a very clear and detailed explanation of those three kinds of the approaches. The problem why the parallel approach cost highly than direct approach because it run both old and new system in the same time.
Hi Jing,
Nice explanation. Each deployment method has different advantages and disadvantages, we should choose them based on the system type and our own needs. For an organization, it is important to choose appropriate deployment method since it relates to financial costs, time spending and other resources.
I agree with you, because parallel approach is the best way to use in small business. because compare with phased approach, it can reduce risks and save money . Therefore, it is reasonable for small business.
Good analysis, you catch the key points of three types of the development.
Good point .The parallel method refers to running the old information system and the new system before the management decides that the old system can be shut down. If the new system has a problem, the user can return to use the old system.
System deployment refers to installation that involves process of moving from the current information system to the new one. The deployment can be a tough task for organizations as it is about giving up the current system and relying on the new system to operate business process and functions. There are many approaches organizations can take to make this process a less hectic transition. The different approaches are- Direct Installation, Parallel Installation, Single-location Installation, Phased Installation and Planning installation.
There are several things organization need to consider when choosing any of these process. While direct process can be easy and cheap, it comes with a lot of risks. On the other hand, parallel installation is less risky compared to the direct one, and also the old system can be run alongside the new system. This gives the organization flexibility to compare the outputs. However, if the errors are discovered when comparing the outputs, the organizations have to pay price for it. Finally, when it comes to phased installation (also known as staged installation), organizations have to pay attention in different functional components of old system until the new system is finally installed.
I appreciate your comment and your explanation of the considerations. For all of these approaches it is also important to consider the data conversion process as this is a big risk for organizations and can be expensive.
Hi Binju,
I agree with you. An organization needs to consider comprehensively when choosing deployment methods. Due to different deployment methods have different traits, an organization needs to figure out what they are doing, what its needs, and what risks it can accept in order to choose the most appropriate one.
I agree with you, because it is important for organizations to select the best approach to replace the systems. Business always need new technologies to make them get used to the new market. Therefore, it is important to have the better approach to deploy systems.
agree with you Binju. sometimes more cost can reduce the potential risks however it does not mean the more expensive the better. companies have to choose the deployment method to depend on the business needs, requirements, and resources.
I agree with your comment Binju and thanks for the explanation. It is crucial for organizations to choose the approach to replace their systems. However more expensive does not always mean the better. The choice has to be carefully made according to the business needs.
Hi, Binju, good explanations on three kinds of systems and the pros and cons for each.
The installation approach an organization decides to use will ultimately depend on the scope and complexity of the change associated with the new system and the organization’s risk aversion. They must weigh the pros and cons of each approach.
While direct installation is simple, it has many risks. An organization would not use this approach for a critical system. If something goes wrong with the system it could potentially affect everyone. Parallel installation allows some room for error, as the organization can go back to using the old system if the new one has problems. However, having two systems up and running on the same environment can affect overall performance and be very costly. This approach should typically not be used for large systems (number of users or extent of features) as the effort to run both system simultaneously would not be feasible. Single-location installation is a kind of middle of-the-road approach between direct and parallel. It involves changing from the current system to the new system in only one place or in a series of separate sites over time. Therefore minimizing potential damage and cost by limiting the effects to a single site. The experience and size of the IS staff should be considered for this approach as it places a large burden on them to support two versions of the system. Phased installation can be pretty complicated as it requires coordination between modules of the old system and modules of the new one and data conversion. It requires gradual conversion and would typically not be used where there is urgency of the new system in production.
When deciding how to actually deploy the system, it is important to focus on limiting the organization’s exposure to risk, whether in terms of cost or disruption of the business.
This is a really good point, Iyana. For some complicated systems with some critical functions inside, an enterprise is not able to implement parallel installation. Since both time and cost will be extremely high even though for a mid-size corporation, and all of their other business will be affected greatly as well. However, if an enterprise implements direct installation, they would probably burden various risks in different aspects of the company’s daily business activities.
You make a really good point, Iyana. Parallel instalation is not always the way to go for some organizations depending on their systems. it could be complex costly and there would be many risks involved.
I really like how you went into depth on each system and how implementing a deployment method may have certain risks and returns. Using risk as a priority factor is a smart move when deciding what choices a company should make.
System deployment is not a simple work, it is one of the most important part in software development lifecycle (SDLC). When the developers consider about the system deployment, they should consider about the cost, time, and the potential issues that may meet in the future.
The Direct approach means turn off the old system when the new system turn on. It is the most simple, easy, and directly way, even though the direct approach costs less.
The Parallel approach means run the both old system and new system at the same time until management decides the old system can be turned off. If the issues show in the new system, the users can still use the old one. It is more secure than the direct approach, because the users have another choice. However, the cost of this approach is higher than direct approach, and it will affect performance to handle that two system.
The Phased approach means Starting changing one or a few functional component and gradually extending the installation to cover the whole new system. This approach can minimize the risk.
I agree with you. There are three approaches for deploying systems. Business needs to balance the risks and costs to select the approach which is suitable for them. Phased approach is the most expensive one, and direct cut is the cheapest one, but it is risky.
I think looking at cost and time are good factors when assessing which type of deployment a company should pursue. However, it is also important to consider which option will be most beneficial holistically to a company’s health.
I agree with you. When developers consider system deployment, they should consider the costs, time, and potential problems that they may encounter in the future. The direct method means that the old system is shut down when the new system starts
Direct-cut deployment method is to cut off the old system directly while deploy new system immediately. It is the cheapest method but with relatively higher risk since it is not easy to go back to the old system if any failure or mistakes happened during the process.
Parallel deployment method is to run the old system and new system simultaneously. It is more expensive since the company needs to operate two systems together. However, the risk of this method is lower, because the new system needs to be ready first before cutting off the old system.
Third, phased implementation method is to transmit data from old system to the new system gradually. It is good to limit failures and mistakes within a specific stage so that it is less risky. However, it is a more complicated method requires more attention from the company.
Choosing an appropriate deployment method is important for a company since each method has its own advantages and disadvantages. There might be more financial costs, time consuming, and resources wasting if the deployment method is inappropriate.
Good explanation, transferring the data from the old system to the new system could be a tough task for the most enterprises. During the transfer period, most of the services would be unavailable. Second, a company would not be able to know whether those data can work smoothly in its new system. Therefore, a company has to make the decision based on what type of business it is operating initially and pick an most appropriate method which takes care of both economics and efficiency.,
I think you do a good job explaining the cost/benefits of each type of deployment.
Nice explanation of each deployment methods of system, Organization should consider the values that each methods brings to us based on the variety of factors.
Hi Yingyan, nice explanations I do agree with you that the choice should be made accordingly.
good point. The parallel deployment method is to run the old system and the new system at the same time. Its price is higher because the company needs to operate two systems at the same time. However, this method is less risky because the new system needs to be prepared before it can be cut off.
It is important for an organization to deploy the system after the organization acquire or develop a new system. To make sure the new system can fit the production environment, there are three methods for organizations to replace the system.
The first one is direct cut approach. That means people will shut down the old system after they immigrate all data to the new system. It is the cheapest way to deploy the system., because the organization does not need to pay for operation of both system. However, it it the most risky way, because when people shut down the old system, it will cost long time to restart it if there are problems on new system. It will impact the working efficiency.
The second approach is parallel approach. That means the organization will operate both new and old systems at the same time in a period. This approach will make sure the new system is able to work well before shutting down the old system. It cost money to do that, but it will reduce the impact of bad performance of new system. It is reasonable for small business to use for balancing the risks and costs.
The last approach is phased approach. That means people deploy the system step by step to make sure the performance of new system. It will take more time on the whole process. Even though it has lowest risk, it cost too much in the process, because organizations need to pay for operation of both systems for long time. This approach is suitable for complex project in big companies.
Thank you for your sharing, Xinteng. when weighing the pros and cons between the different deployment approaches, consider what your business needs most and which option will give the most benefit back to the company with the smallest impact on your operations during the transition.
Great explanation Xinteng, I guess it all comes down to what kind of risk the organization is prepared to deal with and what the criticality of the systems. Parallel looks most viable of all the 3. Even though it is quite expensive to have two systems running at the same time, it presents a lower risk. It allows the organization to go back to the old system if something were to go wrong .
An enterprise has to think about a variety of factors when they decide to deploy a system. For example, if a company has enough resources available, they should probably run two systems simultaneously. Under this situation, they can probably have enough time to test whether a new system can fully replace the old one. However, if the resources are limited or it is an urgency of new system deployment, they should run the new system immediately. After that, trying to shut down the old system gradually. However, if something goes wrong in the new system, their system may experience a certain period of downtime because the old system has been shut down before.
Well said Yijiang. the company should balance the needs and resources when they choosing the deployment method.
Nice point. Organization should consider do things within their capabilities. Deploy a system is not a moment, it has long way to go.
In my opinion, companies need to consider multiple factors when they decide the deployment plan for systems. Some aspects need to be considered include cost, urgency, complexity and experience. Company should evaluate the priority of the requirement to pick the most efficient deployment method. Direct cut over method involves the old system being completely dropped and the new system being completely implemented at the same time so the old system will be no longer available. Therefore, companies must ensure that the new system is totally functional and operational. This conversion method is used when it is not feasible to continue operating two systems together. Any data to be used in the new system must be converted and imported from the old system. Users must be fully trained in the operation of the new software system before the conversion takes place. Parallel deployment is the method that allows two systems operate at the same time so any major problems with the new system to be encountered without the loss of data. Parallel conversion also means that users have time to familiarize themselves with the new system. Phased deployment converting the old system to the new system involves a gradual introduction of the new system and whilst the old system is progressively discarded. This can be achieved by introducing new parts of the new product one at a time while the older parts being replaced are removed.
I totally agree with you. Cost, urgency, complexity and experience are really importance factors when considering deployment of a system.
Parallel seems to be a good method, as it allows to send out the system in phases and you can ease the transition process.
As mentioned in the question, I feel that urgency, experience, complexity, and criticality of the system are all important factors to consider when deciding on how a system should be implemented into an organization. Depending on how the current state of the company is with their system, they have to decide whether or not parallel implementation or completely killing their current system and using their new one is the best option. Each enterprise has a different perspective and needs so they have to decide on what kind of implementation would be best for them.
There definitely needs to be careful planning with deployment, and it should be communicated through all departments. In the end, every organization will have a different opinion on how to do it.
Whether or not a direct cut should be done or not is a challenge. Direct cut also comes with its risks. Most businesses need different types of information systems to handle their processes and achieve their long and short-term goals. However system deployment is not always an easy task for organizations. In order to have a successful system deployment the organization needs to have a good organizational structure, a good management style.
System deployment involves installing a new system over the current one. It can be difficult because the organization has to give up on the the current system and to rely on a completely new system to operate business process and functions. There are three types of deployment that the organization can use to make this process less difficult, direct, parallel and phased deployment
Direct deployment is a method that quickly installs a new system, it is simple lowers cost but may come at higher risk.
Parallel deployment operates the old and new systems for a certain period of time. Higher cost, lower risk
Phased deployment installs a new system and makes it operational phases. More complex but less risky
I think your ideas involving deployment are accurate, noting that they are difficult and choosing which one to use depends heavily on the state of the business. I also like how you addressed the riskiness of each.
I think one of the biggest issues to deal with is getting employees to accept the new system. If you have a organizational culture that is not used to change, they are likely to resist. For instance if you incorporate a parallel deployment and you have this difficult type of environment then it is likely employees will only use the system when absolutely necessary. They will avoid it in other instances. Company culture should be considered as a big factor in the success of your implementation strategy.
Thank you for sharing a perspective of taking into account the organization’s culture in system implementation. As you rightfully said it might be really difficult to get people to change if they get to use two systems at the same time. Sometimes parallel deployment involves duplication of duties and this can bring some resistance from the end users.
I believe one of the most cost effective and application acceptance effective is the pilot implementation system. The pilot system is great for implementation acceptance because it requires an isolated location to fully accept the new system out of necessity. This necessity wall help when bugs need to be identified. Without a backup system to go to or the old way of doing things, everyone is actually motivated to make the system work. On the economic side if there is a bug or misstep in the application that is so badd that a drastically affects business, again they were only affecting an isolated environment. The isolated nature and documentation of the implementation can also act as a great use case and a start for best practices for the rest of the organization in the implementation of the system.
In terms of two systems be run in parallel, it has pros and cons. The pros are parallel running allows results to be compared to ensure that the new system is working without any errors. If errors are found, user can refer to the old system to resolve the problem and make modifications to the new system thus operation can continue under the old system while the problems are sorted out. This also allows training of staff and help them to gain confidence in the new system. The cons are the cost of implementation is very expensive because of the need to operate the two systems at the same time. It is a great expense in terms of electricity and operation costs. This would be prohibitive with a large and complex system. Parallel running implementation also requires a lot of time and needs frequent maintenance. This will slow production in a firm as workers need to do twice their normal workload for a period of time in order to achieve the same goal for both systems. This involves inputting or changing the same data for both systems to ensure the information are identical in both systems.
Last but not least, education and training for using the system can be carried out at various levels, by considering the size and complexity of the system. Staff and personal need to be informed about the overall information structure and how to operate the system. This will give some overall understanding of system in place and how information is handled throughout the organization.
I like your point. Parallel implementation also requires a lot of time and requires frequent maintenance. This will slow down the company’s production speed because workers need to complete twice as much work as normal work within a period of time in order to achieve the same goals for both systems. This includes entering or changing the same data for both systems to ensure that the information in both systems is the same.
The general system deployment process consists of several interrelated activities, also system deployment is the critical aspect of SDLC. In the real-world system deployment depends on business requirements and the running system.
Higher level managers usually believe that the Direct cut deployment method has a high risk of business daily practices. Considering all the risks involved with the Direct cut method, parallel systems deployment method is more acceptable among IS managers.
Each of this methods can have a tangible or intangible cost associated with them such as end-user training, licenses, cloud environment fees and time. having a accurate cost feasibility is the recommended decision-making tool for these projects.
Down the road, this is an open-ended question for each organization and there is no standard preferred recommendation. Each business is different and needs to customize base on its requirements an resources.
A Direct-cut deployment method cuts off an old system while deploy new system immediately. It is the cheapest method but with relatively higher risk since it is not easy to go back to the old system if any failure or mistakes happened during the process. Parallel deployment method and runs the old system and new system simultaneously. It is more expensive since the company needs to operate two systems together. The risk of this method low because the new system needs to be ready first before cutting off the old system. Phased implementation method is to transmit data from old system to the new system gradually. It limits failure and mistakes within a specific stage so that it is less risky, but it is a more complicated method requires more attention.
A company makes the decision based on what kind of risk appetite they have. Some risk can be so severe because the system is critical to the business that it may be worth spending more many to run a parallel deployment method. Other times the risk is low so if failures do occur they can be worked out while live.
The deployment of the systems is a flexible issue needed to be consider according to specific circumstance accordingly.
The directly deployment replace the old systems into the new one at the same time, which is risky but save the maintaining cost of both new and old systems. It should only be conducted when we have great confidence on the development teams and in inferior financial status.
The parallel deployment is costly for maintaining the both new and old systems, while it can more likely assure the continuity of the operations without the influence of the errors caused by either systems. It can be considered, when the development team is not so sophisticated, and the new system is not so urgent for uses.
The phased implementation is in the middle of directly deployment and parallel deployment. It is either too costly nor to risky, while when the new system is too complicated, and each part related closely, or the system is urgent to be updated. It would be hard to conduct.
In conclusion, we should consider different situations to apply different deployment accordingly.
I believe this decision on approach of when/how fully implement is based on the organizations opinion, and preference. If a company were to base their decision on urgency (which is a no. no) I would run the new and old system parallel to ensure that data integrity is still in place.
Running the systems parallel to each other would be my choice. This allows people to get used to the new system.
After an organization acquires or develops a new system, it is important for the organization to deploy the system. In order to ensure that the new system can adapt to the production environment, the organization has three ways to replace the system.The first is the direct cutting method. This means that after immigrating all data to the new system, people will shut down the old system. This is the cheapest way to deploy a system. Because the organization does not need to pay for the operation of the two systems. However, this is the most dangerous way, because when people shut down the old system, if the new system has problems, restarting it will take a long time. This will affect work efficiency.The second method is a parallel method. This means that the organization will run new and old systems simultaneously for a period of time. This approach will ensure that the new system works well before shutting down the old system. This will cost money, but it will reduce the impact of the poor performance of the new system. For small companies, balancing risk and cost is reasonable.The last method is a phased approach. This means that people deploy the system step by step to ensure the performance of the new system. This will require more time throughout the entire process. Although it has the lowest risk, the cost is too high in this process because the organization needs to pay for the operation of these two systems for a long time. This method is suitable for complex projects in large companies.
Direct cutting method could definitely lead to some problems. Cutting off that old system right away could hurt the efficiency of the users as they need to get used to the new one.
I think that running the 2 systems simultaneously would yield the best results. This allows everyone to get used to the new system while still having the old one to fall back on. Take Blackboard and Canvas, for example. Canvas is clearly the better of the two, but it takes time to get used to the new interface. By phasing out blackboard slowly, Temple made the transition into a new system easier. Using this method would ensure a smooth transition into something new, and I think people will respond well to it.