The project collapse of Queensland Health is to date the highest IS disaster in the Southern Hemisphere, losing 1,25 billion AUD dollars. This case emphasizes how important it is to evaluate the project problem systematically. It discusses the case organisation data, the report of the Royal Commission, the report of the General Auditor and 118 testimony files concerning the implementation project of Queensland Health. The purpose of this case is to demonstrate (1) the reasons leading to the execution project of Queensland Health and (2) to clarify the more general implications of this project failure to national and industrial legislations.
Project stakeholder analysis.
A critical analysis of the project
The Australia State medical system (now Queensland Health) reportedly is the most impressive failing in the application of the Information Technology (IS) in the Southern Hemisphere. It took 18 months for the initiative and 300 percent for the budget. In comparison, many Queensland Health staff, including physicians and nurses, were paid inappropriately or in no form while they were working. It is projected to raise nearly $1.25 billion in estimated project costs, including construction, stabilisation and repair (KPMG 2012).
The development of major IS initiatives is protected by a wealth of literature. The emphasis of these analyses is on crucial performance drivers (Francoise et al. 2009), project management problems and the experience of effective execution of the IS in general. In functional terms, IT failure cases are not rare. For instance, Bridgestone, the world's largest tyre manufacturer (Bridgestone 2014), struggled to produce a scheme that undermined core business operations, resulting in the loss of sales of supposed $200 million (Krigsman 2013). Marin County in California has experienced a complete breakdown in execution, leading to the scheme being scrapped.
The purpose of this case is to explain project management and policy problems relevant to the execution of IS programmes. The case reports that the Southern Hemisphere's highest IS loss costs Australians AUD 1.25 billion. This case-store was produced with the transcripts of the Royal Commission hearings, the Report of the Auditor General and 118 witnesses interviewed in the report of the Royal Commission. In contrast with the theory-led inference, thus, the method used in this analysis is inductive.
There were heavy casualties, including the retirement of the Minister of Health, trade strike action, and relocation of jobs to other employers in some situations. To investigate the cause of the collapse to include a collection of guidelines to be used for potential broad legislative IS ventures, the Queensland government has conducted the highest judiciary inquiry in Australia (Royal Commission). Auditor General and Royal Committee recommendations illustrate concerns relating to project management and governance. This case explores further the causes of the tragic introduction project of the Queensland Health IS. The following teaching cases include: (1) a review of the factors of the environmental and technical projects; (2) the functions and obligations of the main players in a project; (3) the strategy to implementation; (4) the consequence of the project implementation; and (5) discourse on the reasons for the inability to execute it.
The Government of Queensland is comprised primarily of three categories of organisations: (1) government institutions and departments; (2) government-owned corporations; These accounts are to both the State Treasury of Queensland and its respective Queensland ministers. When elections are held every three years for the state government in Queensland, ministers and corporate agendas will essentially represent the policies of the governing political party. Thus, owing to evolving authority and ingrained bureaucracy, political institutions are turbulent in nature.
All organizations have been required to standardise their personnel and financial processes. Therefore, a government unit specializing in the administration of all payroll and funding programmes for the related government agencies (called CorpTec) was responsible. As a part of the Queensland Health implementation, three key stakeholder teams were involved: (1) Queensland Health workers were the primary end-users of the Queensland Health system and Queensland Health's project identified and reported market criteria during the test process.
(2) In the Queensland Health Implementation Programme, IBM was the prime contractor (also referred to as the primary consultant). They were originally hired to administer and enforce the unified technical framework required by the government for all government agencies. However, owing to the expenditure and overtime expended in the case of Queensland Heath, the IBM programme was no longer responsible for the execution of the remaining government agencies. The third stakeholder group CorpTech controlled and selected IBM.
(3) CorpTech was responsible not only for the management of the primary contractor role of Queensland Health (IBM) but also of the complete realization in the departments of Queensland Health. The roles of a team are documented in Figure 1.
Although IBM has eventually been chosen as the prime contractor, many people have raised concerns that this has been the correct choice and have indicated that prejudice may exist (Chesterman 2013). In the phase of tenders, CorpTech must remain impartial and provide the same details to all consultancies which differ in the role of the main contractor. The Royal Commission found that IBM was eventually favoured by the Project Managing Director (Mr Terrence Burns), granting them a comparative edge.
For the complete adoption of the SSI in all government agencies, a total of AUD 153 million is allocated (AUD). The Department of Housing introduced SAP HR effectively before the introduction of Queensland Wellbeing, and SAP Finance had been adopted by the Department of Justice. Queensland Health used the configuration structure used in its introduction by the Department of Housing. Documents for implementation and research were approved in January 2008 and Queensland Health began project design and scope in November 2007.
The project was subsequently initiated by IBM. The plan was originally to complete the design by August 2008 with minimal changes, but IBM agreed to carry out further planning in June 2008 in order to include the final full solution. Further preparation in October 2008 showed that IBM vastly underestimated the scale and difficulty of the project. In the end, this shift in complexity and the absence of specified market criteria created significant delay and cost overruns.
Between July 2009 and February 2010, a variety of stage payroll and user approval assessments were conducted in parallel. In comparison with the legacy LATTICE Method, which resulted in a $1,2 million increase in pay spending for two hours, the first payroll test compared the pay of 10 per cent for workers from all job categories when conducted using the SAP HR and WorkBrain rostering approach. In February 2010, a second payroll examination was performed that led to just $30,000 AUD anomalies, but no overtime or casual statements were checked. Queensland Health acknowledged potential risks and preferred Go-Live in March without having thoroughly checked all the system's working.
The project was 18 months behind the timeline and 300 percent over budget before the uniform solution within Queensland Health had been completed (see figure 2). There are various reasons on which these costs and time bypass may be imputed: (1) Firstly, there is an unspecific process of project management; (2) the strategy and framework of the execution adopted the Department of Public Housing which, relative on Queensland Health, is substantially less nuanced in pay structure; (3) The functions, obligations, and ownership of each of the three major stakeholder groups were not adequately established as an appropriate governance framework until 10 months after the scheduled day-to-day date, in June 2009; market criteria were badly established and the ensuing consumer testing process was adverse.
Owing to the limitations in programmes like this, time and expense overruns are the in ERP system deployment projects. In addition, owing to its focus and criteria, the health sector is often noted for its complications. Queensland Health's delivery initiative is unmistakable and is probably the biggest IS disappointment in the Southern Hemisphere. Finally, there was significant organisational and planned loss of the project itself. In comparison, the scheme collapsed and a substantial number of staff were not compensated or unfairly charged.
However, the system was not discontinued and after long-term care by Queensland Health, CorpTech and IBM the problems were ultimately addressed. In addition to the financial and operating costs due to the collapse of the system, many were affected by human suffering. The result was collective strike action and the eventual dismissal of some workers. Along with stabilisation and repair activities, the overall expense of the Queensland Health programme is expected to be AUD $1.25 billion (KPMG 2012).
There are many reasons why the project implementing Queensland Health collapsed, many of which may be due to inadequate project management due to bad leadership and lack of awareness of the problems involved in the project implementing the IS. The complexity of a big IS deployment project stems from: (1) business complexity; (2) system complexity itself and (3) customer / consultant partnership complexity. The project execution is an internal and technological undertaking, usually connected to a considerable amount of re-engineering activities in corporate structures, and fraught with complexity. As such, it is important for the adopting organisation: (1) to specifically express its needs. (2) to use an effective strategy; (3) to conduct substantial framework evaluation in advance of decision-making to live; (4) to use an acceptable project management approach. Multiple of these areas as well as concerns related to wellness and customer consulting were highlighted by several witnesses in the royal committee as core issues in the Queensland Health programme. The scope of the relationship between the consumer, the client and the provider often involves the contact between the customer and the supplier and the need for project management and productive communication.
Queensland Health Information Systems' inability to implement it IS deficiency shows obviously that the adopted organisation's total cost of initiating, stabilizing and sustaining the initiative is AUD 1.25 billion. This lack of deployment, which is based on industry management, processes and interaction dynamics, will draw some conclusions. (1) The ties that tend to occur in the current IS projects do not generally reflect conventional tripartite connexion between clients, suppliers and sellers; thus explicitly specifying the positions, responsibilities and directions of the relationship must be worked out before the project is initiated, in order to avoid a coordination breakdown. (2) The customers must negotiate and consent before contact with the primary contractor in an almost multiple client relationship, thus ensuring that each participant has a shared understanding of the targets. (3) The system should be thoroughly checked in tandem until a live decision is taken to illustrate the extent of obvious flaws of the system. (4) In order to avoid the burden to live before the system is ready because of the lack of funding from the legacy system provider, succession planning should be carried out for legacy systems as suggested by the Commissioner in 2013. The prescriptive project methodologies have not been adopted in the Queensland Health IS implementation project.
The Queensland Government dramatically strengthened its ICT policy and governance practises in response to Queensland Health's devastating compensation delivery programme. Two of these areas were: 1) risk-struggle stabilisation of ICT properties and 2) portfolio competencies, programme and project management (Queensland government 2013). The plan consisted of 12 main fields of change. Both of these fields concentrate on developing a management lifecycle strategy to mitigate the criticality of replacement of IS. In the result, these amendments add several layers to the governing process, growing red tape and the number of regulatory decisions. As a result, both the company and consultancy organisations are more vigilant during recent ICT ventures as enforcement increases and project costs escalate. In addition to the financial and social repercussions of the inability to introduce the Queensland Health plan, there have also been wide economic ramifications in national relations.
Altuwaijri, M.M., and Khorsheed, M.S. 2012. "Innodiff: A Project-Based Model for Successful IT Innovation Diffusion," International Journal of Project Management (30:1), pp. 37-47.
Amoako-Gyampah, K., and Salam, A. 2004. "An Extension of the Tecnology Acceptance Model in an ERP Implementation Environment," Information & Management (41:6), pp. 731-745.
Avison, D., and Young, T. 2007. "Time to Rethink Health Care and ICT?" Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery (50:6), pp. 69-74.
Bernroider, E.W.N. 2008. "IT Governance for Enterprise Resource Planning Supported by the DeLone- McLean model of Information Systems Success,” Information and Management (45), pp. 357- 269.
Bond, D.J. 2013. "Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry: Statement of Darrin John Bond."
Deodar, S., and Aiming, S. 2011. "The Influence of Organizational Factors on Successful ERP Implementation," Management Decisions (49:6), pp. 911-926.
Duke, M. 2013. "Queensland Health Payroll Commission of Inquiry: Statement of Witness."
Dunbar, J., Reddy, P., and May, S. 2011. "Deadly Healthcare." Sydney, Australia: Australian Academic Press.
Eden, R., Seder, D., and Tan, F. 2012. "Archival Analysis of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems: The Current State and Future Directions,” in: International Conference of Information Systems. Orlando, Florida.
Queensland Government. 2006. "Shared Service Initiative."
Queensland Government. 2012. "Queensland Government ICT Audit."
Queensland Government. 2013. "Queensland Government ICT Strategy."
Queensland Health. 2013a. "Blueprint for Better HealthCare in Queensland."
Queensland Health. 2013b. "Information Sheet: Queensland Health Rostering and Payroll Environment."
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....