We found that the client’s unique business drivers
justified the decision to invest in a custom-built application rather than a
customizable off-the-shelf (COTS) package.
But its choice of a development technology had ignored critical risk
factors that had put the project in serious jeopardy. The business sponsor had assumed an inappropriate level of
control over development decisions.
The technology that the sponsor had insisted on required hard-to-find
talent to develop and maintain the application. The technology was also
proprietary to a specific hardware vendor.
If the client ever wanted to, or needed to switch vendors, it would
have been able to keep its functional design, but not its code. We advised the business sponsor that the additional time and
cost of continuing the project with the current technology would keep the
application from being completed for at least another year, and with no
certainty of success. We demonstrated the impact of business influence on
technology selection. Finally, we identified three non-proprietary technology
options with a large base of development and maintenance resources, The business sponsor agreed to work with the IT organization
to select one of the three technology options we had recommended. The sponsor
also agreed to leave the final technology selection to IT management. As a result, the client was able to use the
functional specification with a lower-risk, lower-cost implementation
technology. The project was completed successfully 3 months after the
decision to change implementation technologies. Property-Casualty Insurance After a new claims processing system had been rescoped and rescheduled three times, it was 18 months
behind schedule and 150% over budget The development vendor resigned and
turned the project over to the client.
The client decided it had no choice but to continue the project and
needed independent quality management support. We first reviewed the business case against the client’s
current business drivers. We recommended staling back the project to just
enough functionality to meet the revised business case. We then reviewed the
existing business and user requirements and found most were not needed to in
the first release. We recommended
eliminating these from the implementation plan. We also evaluated the quality of the specifications for each
remaining requirement and incorporated testing specifications into each
requirement. This enabled the creation
of a business risk-based testing plan and a 3- month testing schedule. Finally, we provided oversight for execution of the testing
plan. The resulting first release
included all of the functionality needed to meet the revised business case
and provided the foundation for future enhancements.
The client needed help in determining a going-forward strategy
for a global scale staffing management system serving key customers. The system had been deployed in several
customer operations but had met strong resistance from customer personnel who
were expected to use it. The client felt that some of its strategic choices
had led to a real threat to the account, worth over $100 Million per year. We interviewed the client’s own development management
team and their customer counterparts.
We identified the most serious areas of customer dissatisfaction
threatening the relationship. We also identified unexpected, but significant
competitive advantages in the client’s relationship with their
customer. We recommended a going forward strategy that would address the
most serious deficiencies in the application. We also recommended a new
strategy for managing the customer’s expectations and for improving
communications with customer personnel. The client reported that our findings and recommendations
enabled critical, effective decisions on a new account and product
approach. Our findings of unexpected
competitive advantages made it possible for the client to leverage powerful
entry barriers to any internal or external competitor. Municipal Payroll Operations The client sought independent verification and validation of
its approach to management oversight of a redesigned payroll and workforce
management system. The new system, intended to serve 155 municipal agencies
and over 100.000 employees, including all uniformed services, was 3 years
behind schedule. It was also on track to cost the local government over $40
Million with nothing to show for it. We reviewed the client’s overall approach to vendor
oversight. We found serious deficiencies in the client’s management
practices and communications with the vendor and stakeholder agencies. We
informed the client that, if they did not implement specific changes, the
project would likely be a catastrophic failure. Client management revealed that they had expected a report
that would whitewash the actual situation.
They demanded that we revise our report or face the loss of future
business with the local government. We refused to revise our report, on the
grounds that we were ultimately responsible to local taxpayers, not to the
management personnel who had hired us. The client refused to accept our report. We considered whether or not to submit our
report to the City Controller. When we determined that this would not be
possible, we left the project. Two
years later, the client commissioned a second assessment by another
consultant. The consultant informed us
that he had reported the same findings and recommendations, and had gotten a
similar response from the client. We have included this example of our work because it
demonstrates that
Contact
Us |
|
|
|
Copyright Hamilton
Technology Management 2008 |
