Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Jen: Hello, and welcome to the Introduction to
Project Management for Team 5, the ITPM Professionals: The members of our team are (Jen) Jennifer
Mastromatto, (Rob) Robert Lazar, (Sonny) Larry Saxton, (Marci) Marci Watson, (Taisha) Taisha
Webster and (Jeff) Jeffrey Wertz.
As we are currently experiencing with the US Government rollout of the Health Care Act
it is not easy to develop a large scale public format application and have it roll out smoothly.
There is a long history of failed and catastrophic projects that have been quite noteworthy over
the years. Our project had similar ongoing problems when
our Stakeholders were behind schedule for implementing a centralized database system.
We will be reviewing some of the areas of success and failure of the Project Management
Process Groups for the SCCS Project.
Jeff: (Background and goals) To start let us give you a some background
on the project. The goal of the SCCS Project Team was to create an automated application
system and database that would link with other similar national systems to track and search
information for our Stakeholder SCCS. The initiation and information that was to
be contained in this system was being enforced by Federal law. The contractor that we examined
was the third to take on the project since 1988, the year the original law came into
effect. The original project had a deadline of 1997. The most recent contractor won the
bid for the project in 2007, with a 36-month schedule. However, in 2008, the contractor
asked for an extension. The contractor was given 73 more months to complete the system,
but in September 2012, they had only completed 54% of the necessary systems check, according
to the stakeholder SCCS.
Over the life of the project the scope had not changed. The time and cost goals that
were set were far exceeded. These were both areas of failure. While we don't have solid
numbers on the original project budget, the project has exceeded its allotted time by
21 years (and counting).
Marci: So What went wrong: · 1 User involvement - The original contract
was written as a dynamic contract. Users in the SCCS Dept's could authorize changes at
any time. · 2. Executive support - Due to a mismanagement
of finances during the initial phases this led to a virtually complete turnover of qualified
personnel and the first Milestones being missed. · 3. Clear business objectives- The map being
used to make sure that all the goals and objectives were met kept being changed.
· 4. Emotional maturity - How well was a response to the situations being handled?
There were claims by both parties of inefficiency and inexperience of personnel.
· 5. Optimizing scope - The project was a failure due to the task-scoping and time-scoping
not being met. This has happened three times over the project life cycle.
· 6. Agile process - Software developing methods were based on incremental and repetitive
development. Solutions evolved through collaboration between the cross-functional teams but there
was a failure in many cases to agree. · 7. Project management expertise - Lack
of qualified personnel led to instability in upper management. There were many changes
in the stakeholder's management and contractor teams and management over the project life
cycle. · 8. Skilled resources -- Due to Financially
· 9. Execution -- Due to a couple of major changes being forced by the SCCS and the personnel
turnovers there was poor execution and missed milestones.
· 10. Tools and infrastructure - Overall the systems, equipment, software and services
were not completed on time leading to the project failure.
Rob:
Along with striving to meet the Triple constraint goals of Project Scope, Time and Cost Goals
the new IT vendor had a lot to live up to since in reality this project had already
failed meet all three in the Stakeholders project life but they accepted the project
with all good intentions of meeting and exceeding the goals of developing and implementing a
compliant working computer system for SCCS to be operational by the end of 2013.
For 22 years the Stakeholder "SCCS" paid more than $104 million in penalties, along with
losing funding. Previous contractors have agreed to pay some of the penalties, but the
SCCS also owes $50 million of the $151 million cost of the project. Including penalties,
the cost to the stakeholder will be around $116 million, if the system goes online sometime
next year. The SCCS had repeated unsuccessful attempts at development of a compliant, working
system. Unfortunately, the stakeholder SCCS runs a system that is unique, so any contractor
cannot just adapt current systems for the stakeholder.
Taisha: This project is a failure of project scope
because of both parties did not agree on the final compliant working computer application.
The goal was to be tested and rolled out to the public by the end of 2013.
As of June of this year the IT Development team demonstrated the system to show its functionality.
Of 424 test scripts, 361 were approved prior to termination. Of the remaining 63, 28 related
to one or more of the "broken interfaces," leaving 35 test scripts at issue. This system
was to be rolled out in August and September of 2013.
An analysis showed the computer code written was reliable and testing of the system was
almost complete when the stakeholder SCCS terminated the project contract with the IT
developer.
Sonny: This past year the IT vendor was fired by
the SCCS for a breach of contract by failing to timely complete the system test, failing
to properly test the application, failing to properly staff the project failing to properly
document project work, failing to maintain and estimate the project schedule, and failing
to participate in an orderly transition upon the termination of the contract for cause,"
The IT developer denies the claims of mismanagement of the project and states that the stakeholder
repeatedly changed the type of system they wanted, changing targets and the scope of
the project had been changed over the lifespan of developing the system and that had impacted
its delivery schedule. It is alleged that the Stakeholder wanted various changes to
the system but were unwilling to pay for the changes. The contractor also alleges that
the stakeholder intended to fire the contractor, and use their code and former personnel to
finish the project without paying the contractor. This is not the end of this for the Stakeholder
SCCS. They will continue to be charged penalties for non-compliance. The SCCS alleges that
it will take up to 6 more years and $75 million more in penalties before the project is complete.
Jen: In conclusion this project demonstrated how
important all of the Project Management processes work together when trying to execute (or implement)
a successful project and managing changes throughout the life of a project. Communication
is the equalizer in the progress of keeping the project on schedule and all Team members
must work together to achieve the final project deliverables and goals.