B06 Story – significant

Please read this story as is. Because it is as is, real and not edited.
It’s not bad taste or unprofessionalism on our part that you may find mistakes in the text.

We can assist you avoid being trapped inside stories like this one. Sure, the story is not nice, but we are.

We are problem solvers. Discretion and professionalism, our highest values.

Apologies for we don’t even have time to dot the “is” and cross the “ts”, let alone editing this little real anecdote which seems to be more commonplace than not.

This story reminds one about Lefty’s “Fugazzi” fuggedaboutitt diamond ring and Don The Jeweller

Gracias an read on please!

*************************

Application procurement and implementation (this is how the story goes…)

A decision has been made to implement a new application, we don’t know when and how.
Procurement took 1 year and was done on the basis of a requirements document.
The requirements document was 100 pages, very detailed in terms of functionality and structure.
This was possibly an overkill because ticking all these boxes using a torough approach would take forever.
When it came to testing the requirements had to be aggregated to a checklist of 30 items.

A number of important aspects were overlooked at the procurement stage.

  • Configuration specification.
  • Implementation methodology and template plan.
  • Resources and skills needed for implementation.
  • Project initiation document not available.
  • High level scope of the project not available.
  • The current application state and complexity of its data was not considered.

The complexity of the implementation based on the current application was not appropriately considered.
Source application (to be replaced) had around 300 data items (columns, fields).
Configuration of current application was inconsistent to a high degree based on historic mismanagement.
There were over 800k records (with 500k deleted???) in the current application.
There was no documentation and appropriate level of support for data extraction was non existent.
The actual implementation required adhoc reverse engineering of the current application data.
There was no technical support for the current source application.
The plan to achieve a full implemenation in 3 months was unrealistic .
Unrealistic plan that the new application will be implemented in 3 months, given the conditions.
The subsequent contract signed was based on documents that were inconsistent and unrealistic.
Schedule of work document was full of contradictions and inconsistencies in itself.
Data migration was proposed to be achieved in 30 man working days (a total aberration).
Clear methodology and plan template detailing the skills and resources needed were missing.
Supplier had no experience of implementation with data migration (never migrated a thing).
Ownership (supplier or client) of various products needed for the implementation was missing.
Level of support and supplier accountability were entirely missing or vague.
We was asked to help out with reverse engineering the source data database into something useful and meaningful.
We was not given a specification or documentation of any kind. The only brief was to get some meaningful tables of data out.
We was told that if We do that then the supplier will do all the rest to migrate the data. It sounded suspicious and We was right.
We knew very little about the project manager who was also a senior system integration analyst.
We assumed he had at least basic technical knowledge of data structures, databases, application implementations.
My assumptions were incorrect but We only got to realise that after a little while when We got more involved.
It took a week to do the blind data reverse engineering. Then We was invited to attend project meetings but not told what for.
During the first project team meeting We assisted it became immediately clear that nobody knew what they were doing.
There was willingness more or less but there was no knowledge, clarity, consistency, unified vision.
The meetings were just a talking shop with no tasks, actions, ownership, dependency discussions.
Project management had no clue of what to do or how to do it and We suspected the project board was mislead.
An issue that should have taken 5 minutes has taken 2 hours of discussion and no decision was made.
There were more than 50 such issues to decide on (configuration) We later discovered.
The implementatin was already going for 3 months at this stage.
The skills needed for management and for working effectively in a project team were entirely missing.
We didn’t report the situation to anybody because We was there in project support (advise when asked) capacity.
When the supplier consultant turned up at the second meeting We realised that the consultant didn’t have the skills needed.
These doubts were brought to the attention of higher management (programme manager) verbally but no action was taken.
We suggested to programme manager that the project needs clarity on method, deliverables and ownership
The suggestion was left unactioned and 3 weeks later the programme manager resigned, new one coming in.
Under the new programme managers regime we were given the freedom to do what it takes to put the project on track.
Actions taken included, planning, training of project team, intensive team and one to one meetings.
The one to one meetings were hands on, working on deliverables for skill transfer, understanding and quality assurance.
Deliverables were defined, understood and owned by individuals in the project team.
Each project team member had a deputy and more people with useful knowledge came in as subject matter experts.
Within 1 month the static reference data was agreed by all various professional groups in the project.
We clarified the migration scope of the project and by doing so we reduced the complexity by 50%.
This activity took place in a hands on manner in 3 intensive workshops with project sponsor taking part as well.
We organised the data extracted in a way in which data quality from source application can easily be looked at.
We built a data quality search and define tool which was subsequently presented for sign off and used.
We presented the data quality search and define tool to the project team and we trained them for this task.
Meanwhile, since we started moving and needed more technical support from supplier we discovered supplier challenges.
Indeed the delegated supplier consultant wasn’t skilled enough to understand the basic implementation process.
This got us into receiving contradicting, illogical and irrelevant replies to our queries as a delaying tactic.
Migration specification was missing and support for mandatory data items was not explicitly demonstrated.
There was no migration specification or documentation as such from the supplier part. We were blind.
Configuration specification has changed out of the blue half way through this process, we had to redo the work.
We specified our mandatory data (decided by the business and legal processes) and we asked for assurance it can be migrated.
We did so by supplying a list of mandatory fields to migrate asking the supplier to do the data mapping to target.
Nearly 10% of our mandatory to migrate data was not mapped by supplier into the target application.
Some of the mapping was questioned as semantically incorrect. Some was clarified some needed to change.
We delivered the config files, first cut within 1 month of us taking over the project.
These files were not accepted were sent back to us for new rules not previously specified.
After another month and numerous such exchanges the files were accepted.
The build that had to be delivered using our submitted config files supposed to be delivered 30 days later.
With any supplier We worked with before this whole task takes maximum 3 to 4 days including supplier testing and adjustments.
The build was delivered 60 days later and we suppose to test it but no test templates or support was given.
We did our own test plans and templates, we organised our testing process and performed the testing.
The build delivered failed the functionality testing with a score of 1 out of 5.
At a closer scrutiny, even the config data that we delivered to the supplier was missing or was different.
Later we discovered that supplier had all the technical expertise outsourced to india and nobody in the uk.
We suggested to programme manager and director to decisively pull the plug and start recovery procedures.
After 1 year and 400k overspent on supplier consultancy fees the application was still not live.
Programme manager’s reluctance to start recovery procedures was explained through the contracts we signed.
We still believed that the contracts signed could be challenged and invalidated based on conflicting statements.
From our side, whoever signed the contract (former programmed manager) signed invalid clauses.
This was the result of no reading, not paying attention and not having the necessary skills or all combined.
The contracts signed had no audit trail of quality assurance, peer or technical review.
All progress reports were inacurate and documents not technically reviewed, project board lacked technical expertise.
The project was 24 months delayed (including a comms freeze of 6 months) and 400k over budget.

Conclusions
Technical expertise has to be present troughout the timeline of an it implementation project.
Quality assurance processes based on technical and peer reviews are necessary.
Technical, management and implementation experience are needed at all levels of authority.
Authority coupled with technical hands on expertise can ensure delivery to requirements, on time and on budget.

Superconclusion:

  • The project sponsor, a non technical director, was sold a “Fugazzi” project.
  • The finance director and other people paid 400k more than the original price.
  • The merchandise was delivered 1 year later (and I doubt it was good).
  • The ones that sold the “Fugazzi” and their inside accomplices were not punished.

We can efficiently assist you with this kind of stuff. Let us be your expert jeweller so that you never buy a “Fugazzi” diamond, whether you ever bought one yet or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *