A Computer System Implementation Gone Wrong:
A Study in Project Management
What’s the Problem?
• In the late 1980s the institution faced increased competition.
• Its antiquated processes and computer systems put it at a competitive disadvantage in attracting and keeping students.
• Senior management decided to invest in an integrated student information system that would update and merge various unrelated databases into one fully functional system.
The Business Climate for Higher Education:
• Highly competitive
– College age (18-22 yr.) population declining
• Numerous providers in a small geographic area
• Limited capital expenditure funding
– State funding for public institutions was declining
Climate at the Institution:
• Technology dated from mid-1960s
• Labor-intensive processes and procedures
• Student body increasing
• Funding for capital projects very limited
• Complaints from “customers” about services
• Competitors had advanced technology
The Decision Process:
• Committee formed to investigate products and vendors, and recommend alternatives
• Criteria established for acceptance
• Final recommendation presented to Board of Trustees for approval
• Project management team established
Criteria for Acceptance:
• System needed to be compatible with current hardware
• Long-term, on-site vendor support was required
• Value for investment must be high
• Product needed to provide a long-term solution
Recommendation Made:
• Utilize beta testing opportunity
• Promoted as the low cost alternative
• Vendor consultant appeared at the board meeting
Problems Encountered:
• Human resource problems
• Technical problems
• Financial problems
Human Resource Problems
• Director of computing resigned within the first year after the project began
• Lacking key staff in user departments
• Project manager left soon after the director of computing was replaced
• Senior management did not take an active role
• Skill level of programmers and analysts was inappropriate or insufficient
Technological Problems:
• Hardware vendor recommended that the system run from a dedicated mini-computer
– Other beta sites followed this recommendation
– Institution chose to split its current mini-computer instead of investing in more hardware
• Insufficient DASD (memory) resulted in system slowdowns and crashes
Financial Problems:
• Initial financial investment underestimated
• Delays in project increased personnel costs in all areas
• Expected revenue increases were delayed or lost due to delays in implementation
Effects of Problems on Implementation:
• Project leadership disappeared
• User departments stopped working on the project
• Unable to attract talent needed for the project
• Problems were not addressed quickly
• Time delay in testing software programs
• Cost overruns halted the project for six months
Lessons Learned
• Critical that senior management be involved in such projects
• Budget needs to include adequate contingency planning
• Choose projects that match employee skill levels, or plan for contract employees
• Utilize expertise of vendors and equipment manufacturers
Improving the Implementation:
• Accurate assessment of the labor, skills, and hardware required
• Quick replacement of leaderships positions
• Clear timeline needed with due dates for milestone events
• Adherence to the timeline by assigning responsibility and requiring regular reporting on progress
Improving the Implementation Continued:
• Senior management involvement and commitment
• Utilize advice and experience from beta sites
• Recognize the need to pay for programming knowledge and talent
• Utilize an evaluation process to solicit feedback on each phase of the project