IT sphere has received particular attention in recent years and attracts multiple stakeholders. However, it is interesting that a variety of public and private sector companies have acquired programs that failed and cost them and their contractors a significant amount of money. Afterward, these organizations began to approach their performance with the correct practices of project management. Yet, it is still valuable to analyze the mistakes of the past to be able to prevent them in the future. As such, Nelson (2007) provides a priceless assemblage of the fiascos that different American companies faced when they tried to implement IT into their operations at the turn of the century. The examples of such projects of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Bank of America (BofA) illustrate the inability to serve a contractor, unskilled setting of requirements, and inappropriate risk evaluation practice.
Summary
It is necessary to briefly overview the projects that experienced a lack of adequate management. In the case of the FBI, the project Trilogy aimed at “a new computer network …, providing a modern database for storing case information and allowing agents to share and search files electronically” (Eggen, 2005, para. 9). The software was never finished and existed only in the pilot version. In turn, BofA resolved to construct a new “large trust accounting system” MasterNet (Cook, n.d.. para. 17). The company’s initiative was poorly realized and lacked support from the clients as a result.
Analysis
It is essential to analyze both cases and establish the reasons for their failures. First, the FBI’s project should be investigated to find the problems that caused the low-quality result of their initiative. As such, it is known that “FBI had identified 400 problems with early versions of the troubled software – but never told the contractor,” Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) (Eggen, 2005, para. 2). SAIC was responsible for the technical part of the project and was able to implement changes if they were needed. Yet, the FBI withheld the necessary information and caused the earliest as well as the latest versions of Trilogy’s software to be inappropriate for work. Moreover, the FBI has failed to deliver precise requirements for the software and attempted to broaden the focus of the engineers during the development phase, which resulted in distributed attention to multiple areas but no united product with minimum errors (Eggen, 2005). Thus, it is evident that the FBI’s issues were the lack of cooperation with their contractor as well as of focused guidelines for the project.
The situation in BofA and the reason for its failure might seem more complex. The organization formulated its requirements clearly and acquired qualified staff for the realization of the project MasterNet. Moreover, it had planned the implementation of its new policy of modernization and determined that it would benefit the performance of its different facilities, which were overloaded because of the growing popularity of BofA. Furthermore, the workers responsible for the program met on a weekly basis so that there were no communication problems.
Yet, general misconduct in the organization due to the weak leadership of its new CEO led to first financial problems and then a lack of support of the project’s stakeholders. The other issue was the shift of the department that was involved in the construction of the software and conversion from papers to electronic devices. Some employees that had played significant roles in MasterNet quit, so the software was finished in haste. As a result, it did not satisfy customers of the bank and urged them to use traditional accounting systems or change the provider of these services (Cook, n.d.). Thus, BofA underestimated the risks that could interfere with the project’s implementation.
Recommendations
Several critical practices can be recommended to the organizations mentioned earlier. A communication plan would address their failure to contact the contractor for the FBI. Moreover, it would be beneficial if the FBI and SAIC established a board with project managers and met on a regular basis to discuss their progress and laid-backs (Nelson, 2007). Next, to prevent the unfocused work in the project, it would have been advantageous to plan the desired outcomes precisely before the launch of the operation (Nelson, 2007). Furthermore, the organization could discern small achievable parts of the software development process that would inform them that they work in the right direction (Nelson, 2007). Finally, BofA might have used a risk management department help which would have provided them with identification, prioritization, and prevention strategies for the situations that had occurred (Nelson, 2007). Hence, the mentioned issues of the projects could have been escaped via appropriate management practices.
Implications
The proposed practices could affect the mentioned organizations in several important ways. First, thorough planning would prevent the lack of the expected results (Nelson, 2007). Second, a risk assessment would guarantee that the companies do not overestimate their ambitions and accessible resources as well as have strategies for crisis situations (Nelson, 2007). Third, the communication plan can allow transparency of the project management (Nelson, 2007). Therefore, the interventions discussed in the paper lower the risks of projects failure.
Reference
Cook, J. E. (n.d.). MasterNet: A case study. Conscientious Humanitarian Associates. Web.
Eggen, D. (2005). FBI pushed ahead with troubled software. Washington Post. Web.
Nelson, R. R. (2007). IT project management: Infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS Quarterly Executive, 6(2), 67–77.