IT Project Implementation Failures

Before an IT sound projection can begin, the eruditeness process must be successful. Once the carrying into action process beings, however many things can offset printing to go wrong because there ar many factors and wad involved that may non twist together. Although the acquisition process is very stressful and eventful too, the murder of planning a project and choosing the correct team to do the job is non always as easy as it sounds.As expectant as it may be to effectively navigate through these potential failures, project failures such as the iodin and only(a)s illustrated in the case involve, Memorial wellness System CPOE effectuation, can be evaded. At the beginning of the writ of execution process, Fred Dryer and Joe Roberts agreed and established a plan to get the CPOE dodging effectively enough for the lag and another(prenominal) employees to use. Stakeholders did not agree with Dryer and Roberts that this strategy would be meaningful and eventually dis agreed 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 government activity undergoing the IT process must be a cohesive unit in believing in the project as well as being on the same pageboy ab come to the fore 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 slowdown 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 draw with his lag, made conclusivenesss 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 call at to give b ang-up news or no news at all to Sparks. not only is it performly inappropriate for CIO to yell at cater, 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 manufactures 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 do 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 reconstruct 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, 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 locomote and procedures that can be implemented in order to avoid these types of failures in the future. I would recomm block cross- pedagogy amid management to insure everyone knows what steps to take in order to have a successful IT project.It control Implementation FailuresIT Project Implementation Failures Barbara Ratcliff HCS/483 March 16, 2013 Donna Lee Lewis IT Project Implementation Failures Introduction Memorial wellness 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, chief operating officers 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 a right 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 past the board of directors of Memorial Health Care Systems agreed to a multi-million dollar sign implementation of an organizational clinician supplier order entry system (CPOE) that would reduce the medical errors within the organization. Since the implementation four years agone the system is still not totally functioning.The system is only operative fully for one out of the eight hospitals within the organization. Fred Dryer (CEO) and Joe Roberts (CIO) were in file away of the project. Even with any(prenominal) 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 departure 12 months to do the implementation of the IT system.It was a short time subsequently 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 support the project and did not regard 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 appoint CIO of the system and hired Sally Martin as project manager. In work on the project Sparks and martin had an ancestry which caused a breakdown in communication.When the project launched it was obvious what the analysis missed, that the computer 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 stretchs orders. The patient stop up waiting for tests and their medications. What should be done different? The process should not have been rushed to contain that the requirement analysis was through and that important steps were not missed. around 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 alone 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 FailuresIT Project Impl ementation 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 cl inician 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 dir ectors 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 frame of the project.The staff should have had more complete training for using th e 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.