A series of errors were made in the procurement, design, implementation, and introduction of the system. Ambulance crew staff had no confidence in the system and were not fully trained. There had been no attempt to foresee fully the effect of inaccurate or incomplete data available to the system. In particular, the decision on that day to use only the computer generated resource allocations was a high risk move. Following are the problems that existed in LASCAD, and some causes: • Existing systems were dismissed as inadequate and impossible to modify to meet LAS’s needs • Contract had to be put out to open tender • Most suppliers raised concerns over the proposed timetable of less than 1 year • Only 1 of all the proposals met all of the project team’s requirements • System Options had no previous experience of building dispatch systems for ambulance services • The Systems Manager, a key member of the evaluation team, was already told that he was to make way for a properly qualified systems manager.
Discussion There were several obstacles and pitfalls throughout the project, which had disastrous consequences in their system implementation phase. Some critical aspects include the lack of user-defined requirements during the purchasing phase. There was also the lack of communication and therefore a lack of participation. The computer selection committee didn’t communicate with the users, and even though they were supposed to have representatives on the committee, they didn’t know what they were doing. No one discussed the fact that any of the systems that they were looking at and whether those systems would help or satisfy our needs.
This infers that the central executive is unsatisfactory because it doesn’t explain anything as it's probably more complicated than represented in the WMM. Furthermore Baddeley didn’t actually know anything about the central executive he just pieced evidence together to get a rough idea of it. Another problem is the case of LH, he was involved in a road accident, consequently LH
The key risks for the Field Data Collection Automation project are the lack of validated and approved baseline requirements for the project, lack of a risk management process, and ineffective management oversight(Laudon & Laudon, 2010). Examples of the key risks that were spawned from the risk factors were failure to meet the census deadline and the lack adequate performance by the handheld devices. When they contracted to have the handhelds created, they were not clear as to the level of excellence that the products had to perform. Moreover, the producers were not held accountable as to the deadline of the project completion. Consequently, they failed at meeting the deadline and the handhelds that were created did not work.
According to Citizen Schwarz Ag (C-S), Span Systems did not deliver on schedule and more to that, the quality of the deliverables were substandard with bugs in the testing stage. Citizen Schwarz Ag (C-S) therefore requested immediate rescission of the contract and release of the code. However sensible this might have been to them, Span systems had delivered over 50% of the deliverables therefore it would be breach of contract if the contract is cancelled. Citizen Schwarz was too concerned with the deliverables but it did not take into account the entire new user and system requirements that had changed over time causing delivery slips. The new changes have been difficult to accommodate within the existing budget and timeline.
Because of the lack of managerial experience Peterson becomes overwhelmed by the “big picture”, which addresses all current problems with the catheter’s launch, to the problems with commercial manufacturing operations, to the interpersonal problems between the team members. In addition, Peterson’s Manager Jeff Hardy has no experience in this kind of launch and thus gives little to no advice or guidance to helpfully move the launch forward. The reporting relationship is ambiguous from the start with no formal delineation
Gary Allison, the project manager of the Orion Shield Project, has trouble with Henry Larsen, the director of engineering. Who continuously interferes in Gary’s project and encourages unethical behavior such as: lying in a proposal and keeping information from the customer, Space Technologies Industries, STI, and project team. Gary needed to fully read the contract for the project to be aware of all the requirements. Gary also ends up having to settle for adequate staff and even has key personnel taken off the project and replaced by an inexperienced member. Gary struggles to balance his administrative and technical roles, not keeping track of everything going on in all aspects of the project due to insufficient planning, and also lack of communication.
During the search, an alternative was found but in the research and the implementation, plenty of flaws and issues were found and caused several problems for MSCC. By employing DMA to handle the installation and support of the new system, the decision made the possibility of salvaging the system harder and almost non-existent by the end of the case. This left the new Vice President trying to find new ways to repair the damage done to an already flawed system. Key Problems The major problem that seems to plague MSCC is the fact that there was no opinion or guidance from an experienced information system professional. On either installation you can visibly see that the decisions were made quickly and even if there was research performed, it was not enough to quantify the decisions to implement either one of these systems or business.
| Orion Shield Project | | [Author name] 11-5-2013 Executive Summary | The Orion Shield case presented several situations for an inexperienced project manager and showcased appropriate and inappropriate actions with associated results for the production of a material used for an orbiter’s launch booster rocket. In the end, SEC produced a successful product but the challenges that occurred throughout the project for the project manager could have been a disaster and ultimately resulted in him being relieved of his responsibilities as PM. There were contractual, ethical, communications, technical, legal, structural, and training issues that impacted the performance of the project, being over budget, relationship strains, and a lack of trust by the customer. Solutions are recommended to minimize the reoccurrence of these issues in future projects, such as strategic planning, frequent meetings throughout the project, use of project management software, and progress reporting to the customer. Lastly, the project manager’s performance is critiqued and comments made on how he could improve as a project manager.
Lassiter’s choice to adopt the UNITRACK system was not well planned and required a closer examination with Kovecki and Wilson. Lassiter position as the Vice President of Marketing had hindered his ability to recognize the needs of the company. He also lacked the knowledge and research needed to make an informed decision to implement the UNITRAK system. Lassiter admits, “It’s partly my fault because I didn’t establish teamwork up front nor did I make clear early