IT Project Implementation Failures

Before an IT count on burn begin, the achievement serve up must be successful. Once the execution of instrument process beings, nevertheless many things can start to go wrong because there are many factors and people involved that whitethorn non thrash together. Although the skill process is very stressful and important too, the effectuation of planning a project and choosing the right squad to do the job is not incessantly as easy as it sounds.As hard as it may be to effectively navigate by these potential failures, project failures much(prenominal) as the ones illustrated in the case study, remembrance health transcription CPOE execution of instrument, can be evaded. At the beginning of the carrying place process, Fred Dryer and Joe Roberts agreed and launch a plan to get the CPOE arranging effectively enough for the stave and other employees to use. Stakeholders did not agree with Dryer and Roberts that this governing body would be pregnant and eventu ally disagreed with them.This must be a common problem with the execution of instrument process, because it is very difficult to get so many people to induce together cohesively. The organization undergoing the IT process must be a cohesive unit in believing in the project as advantageously as being on the same page about what call for to happen. Since the stakeholders confuse too much power in the process, Roberts and Dryer left hand the project. The other project failure demonstrates the difficulty of choosing the right team members and caution 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 transcend with his staff, made ends 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 watchword or no newfounds at all to Sparks. Not precisely 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 greathearted deviations from the initial project scope are not accepted. Another decisive problem in the case study was the miss of testing make on the system. Testing assures the team of the functionality as well as the problems that may arise from the system, and gives period to fix it. Sparks created no confidence in the team and showed none in the initial project. ConclusionThe case studys project failures could have probably been avoided. The main job of the implementation team, in like manner implementing the project, should be to create a strong team with strong vigilance and staff. Without this backbone, t he process is doomed from the start. There are move and procedures that can be implemented in ordering to avoid these types of failures in the future. I would urge on cross- teaching between management to insure everyone knows what steps to take in order to have a successful IT project.It declare oneself Implementation FailuresIT Project Implementation Failures Barbara Ratcliff HCS/483 March 16, 2013 Donna Lee Lewis IT Project Implementation Failures Introduction story wellness system is an 8-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 needfully 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 happy and so the system could fail. This is main reason that the Memorial health System implementation failed. Why the process failed In this case Memorial Health business concern system failed. Four years ago the board of directors of Memorial Health Care Systems agreed to a multi-million dollar implementation of an organizational clinician provider order entry system (CPOE) that would reduce the medical errors at bottom the organization. Since the implementation four years ago the system is lock in not solely functioning.The system is only functional fully for one out of the eight hospitals within the organization. Fred Dryer (CEO) and Joe Roberts (CIO) were in foreign mission of the project. Even with whatsoever 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 cartridge holderline could be met Dryers and Roberts belt along the compulsion synopsis, had a RFP issued, selected a vendor, and traited the contract in except vi months leaving 12 months to do the implementation of the IT system.It was a piddling time after that the two leads on the project Dryers and Roberts left the organization. The hence chief medical officer, Barbara Lu was made CEO and put in charge of the implementation even though she was opposed to it. The board of directors still support the project and did not want to lose the large pour down stipend 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 perspicuous what the digest 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 doctors orders. The forbearing ended up waiting for tests and their medications. What should be done opposite? 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 monetary value of the whole project and the time skeleton 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 position needed to be realistic not rushed. Conclusion all told 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 offspring is that only one out of eight hospitals is using the system.It Project Implementation FailuresIT 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 organizational 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. The 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 doctors 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 fr ame 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.