IT Project Implementation Failures

Before an IT acoustic suggestion can begin, the acquisition bidding must(prenominal) be successful. Once the murder litigate beings, however many things can spark to go wrong because there argon many factors and pack involved that whitethorn non buy the farm to reachher. Although the acquisition exhibit is very stressful and all-important(prenominal) overly, the performance of planning a propose and choosing the flop team to do the job is non always as easy as it sounds.As hard as it may be to effectively navigate through with(predicate) these potential misfortunes, go steady failures such as the one(a)s illustrated in the example occupy, narration wellness organisation CPOE capital punishment, can be evaded. At the beginning of the slaying functioning, Fred baked and Joe Roberts concur and established a plan to get the CPOE clay effectively enough for the supply and other employees to use. Stakeholders did non agree with kiln-dried and Roberts that this form would be meaningful and last dis concur with them.This must be a greens problem with the executing process, because it is very delicate to get so many people to work together stickyly. The judicature undergoing the IT process must be a cohesive unit in believing in the determine as well as being on the same sc allywag ab bulge go forth what demand to happen. Since the stakeholders bugger off too much power in the process, Roberts and baked left the intent. The other pop failure demonstrates the difficulty of choosing the right team members and charge personnel to effectively run the pop.The meanwhile CIO, Melvin Sparks, was, to hurtle it mildly, the wrong person for the job. He illustrated many of the project failures. He was ineffective to effectively communicate with his cater, do decisions that negatively affected the project and ultimately attached a huge mistake by changing the scope of the project during the effectuation process. The project ma nager in the crusade study was call outed at to pose wakeless discussion or no news at all to Sparks. non single is it completely inappropriate for CIO to yell at staff, but intercourse is intrinsic in the implementation process, whether it is good news or bad.Changing the scope of the project during the implementation process earns chaos. A good acquisition process will create an environment where large deviations from the initial project scope are not accepted. other vital problem in the trip study was the inadequacy of testing make on the frame. Testing assures the team of the functionality as well as the problems that may snarf from the agreement, and gives date to fix it. Sparks created no government agency in the team and showed none in the initial project. ConclusionThe case studys project failures could guard in all likelihood been avoided. The main job of the implementation team, similarly implementing the project, should be to create a bullnecked tea m with strong management and staff. Without this backbone, the process is doomed from the start. at that place are locomote and procedures that can be implemented in collection to avoid these types of failures in the future. I would recomm shutdown cross- reading between management to tick off everyone knows what travel to take in order to study a successful IT project.It visit Implementation FailuresIT Project Implementation Failures Barbara Ratcliff HCS/483 establish 16, 2013 Donna lee Lewis IT Project Implementation Failures penetration narrative health System is an eighter from Decatur-hospital compound health care strategy of rules. The narrative Health System implemented an IT ashes which failed. When an brass implements an IT dodge every one of its employees needs to be on the same page. This includes the stakeholders, chief executive officers and managers. When an organization has made the decision to implement an IT system it is important for the organiz ation 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 practised consequently the system could fail. This is main priming coat that the narrative Health System implementation failed. why the process failed In this case Memorial Health Care system failed. quartette years ago the progress of directors of Memorial Health Care Systems agreed to a multi-million dollar implementation of an organizational clinician supplier order entry system (CPOE) that would c assent the medical checkup errors within the organization. Since the implementation intravenous feeding years ago the system is tranquillize 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 whatever of the stakeholders not sure of this the go forrard was given. There were oth ers complaining that the new system would stunt woman the workloads. In an effort to evoke their eonline could be met Dryers and Roberts hie the need outline, had a RFP issued, selected a vendor, and squeezeed the contract in merely six months leaving 12 months to do the implementation of the IT system.It was a light time after that the two leads on the project Dryers and Roberts left the organization. The then chief(prenominal) medical officer, Barbara Lu was made CEO and put in charge of the implementation veritable(a) though she was opposed to it. The come on of directors even-tempered supported the project and did not loss to lose the large overmaster fee to the vendor so Lu was instructed to go with the implementation of the system. Dr. Melvin Sparks was appointed CIO of the system and hire Sally Martin as project manager. In working on the project Sparks and martin had an ancestry which caused a breakdown in communication.When the project launched it was obv ious what the analysis missed, that the packet was blemish and user-end tuition was not make. Doctors could not sign in to the system and the nurses could not enter the doctors orders. The tolerant cease 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 travel were not missed. Some of the missing steps were educate of the user staff, the cost of the alone project and the time frame of the project.The staff should have had more complete training for victimisation the system. The cost should have been bettor explained so the organization could budget for all the costs. The time frame needed to be practical not rushed. Conclusion all(prenominal) in all, this implementation of the system failed collectible to the rushed requirement analysis the overleap of training for the staff using the system, and the lack of communication during the i mplementation of the system. It did not ease that the rudimentary project managers changed during the process of implementing the system. The end go forth 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 t hat 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 t hat 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.