Executive Summary
Water Regional Police services (WRPS) is a police force that was initially comprised of 10 police agencies. The WRPS was involved in the construction of the Common Information Management Systems Project (CIMS) but as time went by; its number dwindled from 10 to seven agencies due to various constraints encountered by three agencies that left. In addition, the project had already commenced, but had encountered unresolved hitches along the way.
Disputes arose between the project managers that represented the WRPS and officials of Integrated Technologies Group (ITG), the principle contractors of the project. Chief Larry Gravill a manager of the police force is in a dilemma of whether to dispatch a major payment installment to the ITG or sought for other alternatives with the aim of attaining smooth completion of the project in jeopardy.
Current Situation
The CIMS is a four years and counting project whose idea was brought about by the need for WRPS to integrate its systems among police services and improve its resource in order to improve community service (Movold and Compeau 3). Initially, the WPRS comprised of 10 agencies that were committed to the project but currently, the 10 member police agencies have been reduced to seven.
The CIMS project is an expansion of the existing information system of the police that includes the Police Regionalized Information Data Entry System (PRIDE) (Movold and Compeau 3). The disputes arising in the CIMS project have put the project in jeopardy as the project had stopped and upon resuming, the disputes reignited forcing these disputes to be resolved at the level of the police chiefs (Movold and Compeau 8).
Problems: The problems of the CIMS project range from the interpretation of the requirements to the sending of the Functional Design Specifications (FDS) in adobe format instead of usual Ms Word format. It is stated that there was a moment when the project team and the vendor disagreed on over 200 issues.
This was considered demoralizing by the project team as the ITG is said to have implemented an earlier project (PRIDE) that entailed the same implementation details. On the other hand, the ITG claims that on changing some of the issues in favor of the project team, they will be incurring extra costs. Some of these changes include changing of the wording that is hard coded in the systems of ITG (Movold and Compeau 8).
These disputes were not addressed hence resulting to break down of communication that lasted for several months. The issues were later addressed in a meeting of project teams, regional chiefs and the vendor. All of the stated problems arose due to the following.
First, poor structuring of the Functional Design Specification (FDS): The FDS should have been specific in details of the kind of implementation standards expected from the vendor. It has been stated that from the moment the project team and the vendor started reviewing the FDS, problems started arising to a figure of over 200 disputes (Movold and Compeau 6, 7). This is not expected if the WRPS had specifically stated their specific requirements and not relying on assumptions of previous dealings with ITG.
Second, lack of inclusion of dates in the milestones: by inclusion of dates in the milestones, the ITG would have been forced to be on schedule in order to receive the payment of job done. The case indicates that the next phase of the project was due to begin on February 2001 while the date of commissioning the complete project back to WRPS was August 2001 (Movold and Compeau 9).
Third, communication breakdown: The case indicates that the project team and the vendor had disputes of interpretation of the requirements that resulted to stalling of the project. It took the intervention of the regional chiefs for the project to proceed. Moreover, the project team had to travel to America to try to resolve the disputes on a face-to-face basis.
Fourth, mischief from the vendor: The act of sending the FDS documents to the WRPS by the vendor in Adobe acrobat format instead of the usual Ms Word indicates a sense of mischief. This is because the WRPS were finding it hard to compare with previous version of FDS (Movold and Compeau 8, 9).
Fifth, lack of commitment: The ITG are said to be asking for a sign-off and payment while on the other hand, they had not started writing the code thus indicating they had not allocated resources for the project (Movold and Compeau 8).
Criteria
The WRPS should have thought through the project and not assume the previous dealings with the ITG will play a major role in the current project. Factors that could enable WRPS in the criteria to follow for successful project include the following.
Scheduling of the project and payment in terms of time
The WRPS would have at least indicated the dates the various phases of the project are expected to be complete. This would coincide with the payments made not as indicated by the case that the payments were at 50% of the whole payments while the work done on the project had not achieved the 50 % mark. This scheduling can be achieved by use of Gantt chart that stipulates tasks according to their priority (Fioravati 15)
Have a second option
The WRPS should have identified a second bidder for the project in case of a fall out with the principal contractor of the project.
Risk management
The risks in every step of the project implementation should be identified and planned for in advance. Risks are the product of loss occurring if a predetermined event occurs (Lientz, Larssen, 10) and may include:
- Financial risks: The WRPS should plan for the alternative sources of funding options in case of withdrawal of agencies funding the project
- Disputes risks: The WPS should plan for various disputes that may cause delayment of the project.
Alternatives
Considering the various factors mentioned, the WRPS has two major alternatives.
- They can proceed with the project using ITG as the principle contractor
- They can cancel the contract, face litigation and enter into a new contract with a new vendor
In the first option the advantages are:
- The ITG is already familiar with the project hence less time needed for implementation
- The disputes surrounding the project can be resolved by the top chain of command as shown in experience.
- A whole new set of agreement is not needed for continuation of the project
- The WRPS will avoid legal action due to cancelation of the contract
Disadvantages
- The delay of the project’s completion
- Continuation of the disputes
- Possibility of failure to meet the project’s objective
In the second option the advantages are:
- Correction of previous wrongs e.g. specification of intended requirements
- Incorporation of new knowledge and experience from the incoming vendor
- Proper scheduling of the remaining part of the project
Disadvantages
- The new vendor is not familiar with the project
- High possibility of not achieving completion date
- Legal battles with the ITG for cancellation of the contract
- Long time of acquiring a new contractor as the previous one took one year
- Withdrawals of more agencies from the WRPS
Recommendation
On considering the two options available, the better option would be the first one. In the first option, the WRPS can arrange for a meeting with the ITG an iron out the contentious issues that are delaying the project’s implementation. The meeting should comprise regional chiefs and the top management of the ITG. This is because from experience, the project wheels rolled after intervention from the top chain of command. This option is better as Kozak-Holland suggests that, “some projects are failures, particularly those cancelled or aborted during the project” (Kozak-Holland, 11).
In case the first option does not succeed, the WRPS management should have a plan B, which will be part and parcel of a long-term solution. In plan B the management will have no other option but to transfer the project for continuation to a vendor that will be close in meeting the integrations required. However The WRPS should not let the situation reach the plan B part, as the will suffer withdrawal of more member agencies not to mention the extra cost and time to be incurred by plan B.
Implementation Plan
The top management of both sides should convene a meeting before it is too late and discuss the disputes facing the project. Specific requirements should be stated and recorded on the part of the WRPS. On the other hand, if the cost is the issue on the part of the ITG, the two parties should agree on the amount to be added in order for the new specified requirements to be implemented. The issue of time should be agreed upon to complete the project on time.
The first option will work effectively with the formation of a project management team that should comprise of top members of WRPS and ITG. The mandate of the team will be to oversee smooth implementation of the project in terms of; the project is on schedule, specific implementation of the requirements and approval of payments. The project management team should meet at least once per month for effective monitoring of the project’s progress.
In case this option does not succeed an independent consultants should be consulted to help in the implementation of the project. If push comes to shove the vendor may be dropped, form a new RPF and hand the project to a new vendor for continuation.
Works Cited
Fioravati, Fabrizio. Skills for managing rapidly changing IT projects. PA, IRM press. 2006. Web.
Kozak-Holland, Mark. Titanic lessons for IT Projects. Ontario, Multi-Media publications. 2004-2005. Web.
Lientz, Bennet P. and Larssen, Lee. Risk management for IT projects: how to deal with over 150 issues and risks. MA, Elsevier. 2006. Web.
Movold, Jane and Compeau, Dborah. WATERLOO REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES: THE CIMS PROJECT (A). Ivey Management Services. 2001. (Attached material).