IT Project Implementation Failures

Before an IT project can begin, the acquisition process must be successful. Once the implementation process beings, however; many things can start to go wrong because there are many factors and people involved that may not work together. Although the acquisition process is very stressful and important too, the implementation of planning a project and choosing the right team to do the job is not always as easy as it sounds. As hard as it may be to effectively navigate through these potential failures, project failures such as the ones illustrated in the case study, Memorial Health System CPOE Implementation, can be evaded. At the beginning of the implementation process, Fred Dryer and Joe Roberts agreed and established a plan to get the CPOE system effectively enough for the staff and other employees to use. Stakeholders did not agree with Dryer and Roberts that this system would be meaningful and eventually disagreed with them. This must be a common problem with the implementation process, because it is very difficult to get so many people to work together cohesively. The organization undergoing the IT process must be a cohesive unit in believing in the project as well as being on the same page about what needs to happen. Since the stakeholders have too much power in the process, Roberts and Dryer left the project. The other project failure demonstrates the difficulty of choosing the right team members and management personnel to effectively run the project. The interim CIO, Melvin Sparks, was, to put it mildly, the wrong person for the job. He illustrated many of the project failures. He was unable to effectively communicate with his staff, made decisions that negatively affected the project and ultimately committed a huge mistake by changing the scope of the project during the implementation process. The project manager in the case study was yelled at to give good news or no news at all to Sparks. Not only is it completely inappropriate for CIO to yell at staff, but communication is integral in the implementation process, whether it is good news or bad. Changing the scope of the project during the implementation process creates chaos. A good acquisition process will create an environment where large deviations from the initial project scope are not accepted. Another vital problem in the case study was the lack of testing done on the system. Testing assures the team of the functionality as well as the problems that may arise from the system, and gives time to fix it. Sparks created no confidence in the team and showed none in the initial project. Conclusion: The case study’s project failures could have probably been avoided. The main job of the implementation team, besides implementing the project, should be to create a strong team with strong management and staff. Without this backbone, the process is doomed from the start. There are steps and procedures that can be implemented in order to avoid these types of failures in the future. I would recommend cross-training between management to insure everyone knows what steps to take in order to have a successful IT project. It Project Implementation Failures IT Project Implementation Failures Barbara Ratcliff HCS/483 March 16, 2013 Donna Lee Lewis IT Project Implementation Failures Introduction Memorial Health System is an eight-hospital integrated health care system. The Memorial Health System implemented an IT system which failed. When an organization implements an IT system every one of its employees needs to be on the same page. This includes the stakeholders, CEOs and managers. When an organization has made the decision to implement an IT system it is important for the organization to have an IT staff that knows how to work with the system.When the organization that is implementing the system does not have the IT staff properly trained then the system could fail. This is main reason that the Memorial Health System implementation failed. Why the process failed In this case Memorial Health Care system failed. Four years ago the board of directors of Memorial Health Care Systems agreed to a multi-million dollar implementation of an org anizational clinician provider order entry system (CPOE) that would reduce the medical errors within the organization. Since the implementation four years ago the system is still not totally functioning.The system is only working fully for one out of the eight hospitals within the organization. Fred Dryer (CEO) and Joe Roberts (CIO) were in charge of the project. Even with some of the stakeholders not sure of this the go ahead was given. There were others complaining that the new system would double the workloads. In an effort to prove their timeline could be met Dryers and Roberts rushed the requirement analysis, had a RFP issued, selected a vendor, and signed the contract in just six months leaving 12 months to do the implementation of the IT system.It was a short time after that the two leads on the project Dryers and Roberts left the organization. The then chief medical officer, Barbara Lu was made CEO and put in charge of the implementation even though she was opposed to it. Th e board of directors still supported the project and did not want to lose the large down payment to the vendor so Lu was instructed to proceed with the implementation of the system. Dr. Melvin Sparks was appointed CIO of the system and hired Sally Martin as project manager. In working on the project Sparks and martin had an argument which caused a breakdown in communication.When the project launched it was obvious what the analysis missed, that the software was flawed and user-end training was not done. Doctors could not sign in to the system and the nurses could not enter the doctor’s orders. The patient ended up waiting for tests and their medications. What should be done different? The process should not have been rushed to ensure that the requirement analysis was through and that important steps were not missed. Some of the missing steps were training of the user staff, the cost of the whole project and the time frame of the project.The staff should have had more complete training for using the system. The cost should have been better explained so the organization could budget for all the costs. The time frame needed to be realistic not rushed. Conclusion All in all, this implementation of the system failed due to the rushed requirement analysis the lack of training for the staff using the system, and the lack of communication during the implementation of the system. It did not help that the key project managers changed during the process of implementing the system. The end result is that only one out of eight hospitals is using the system. It Project Implementation Failures IT Project Implementation Failures Barbara Ratcliff HCS/483 March 16, 2013 Donna Lee Lewis IT Project Implementation Failures Introduction Memorial Health System is an eight-hospital integrated health care system. The Memorial Health System implemented an IT system which failed. When an organization implements an IT system every one of its employees needs to be on the same page. This includes the stakeholders, CEOs and managers. When an organization has made the decision to implement an IT system it is important for the organization to have an IT staff that knows how to work with the system.When the organization that is implementing the system does not have the IT staff properly trained then the system could fail. This is main reason that the Memorial Health System implementation failed. Why the process failed In this case Memorial Health Care system failed. Four years ago the board of directors of Memorial Health Care Systems agreed to a multi-million dollar implementation of an org anizational clinician provider order entry system (CPOE) that would reduce the medical errors within the organization. Since the implementation four years ago the system is still not totally functioning.The system is only working fully for one out of the eight hospitals within the organization. Fred Dryer (CEO) and Joe Roberts (CIO) were in charge of the project. Even with some of the stakeholders not sure of this the go ahead was given. There were others complaining that the new system would double the workloads. In an effort to prove their timeline could be met Dryers and Roberts rushed the requirement analysis, had a RFP issued, selected a vendor, and signed the contract in just six months leaving 12 months to do the implementation of the IT system.It was a short time after that the two leads on the project Dryers and Roberts left the organization. The then chief medical officer, Barbara Lu was made CEO and put in charge of the implementation even though she was opposed to it. Th e board of directors still supported the project and did not want to lose the large down payment to the vendor so Lu was instructed to proceed with the implementation of the system. Dr. Melvin Sparks was appointed CIO of the system and hired Sally Martin as project manager. In working on the project Sparks and martin had an argument which caused a breakdown in communication.When the project launched it was obvious what the analysis missed, that the software was flawed and user-end training was not done. Doctors could not sign in to the system and the nurses could not enter the doctor’s orders. The patient ended up waiting for tests and their medications. What should be done different? The process should not have been rushed to ensure that the requirement analysis was through and that important steps were not missed. Some of the missing steps were training of the user staff, the cost of the whole project and the time frame of the project.The staff should have had more complete training for using the system. The cost should have been better explained so the organization could budget for all the costs. The time frame needed to be realistic not rushed. Conclusion All in all, this implementation of the system failed due to the rushed requirement analysis the lack of training for the staff using the system, and the lack of communication during the implementation of the system. It did not help that the key project managers changed during the process of implementing the system. The end result is that only one out of eight hospitals is using the system.