10656NAT Enterprise Resource Planning | IT Project Management

The basic objective of the case is to analyse the inconvenience of students and staffs at RMIT University due to the system failure of the Oracle-based financial system. The "Go Live" process was not working at the initial stages and lots of confrontations have come due to that. The process of poor project management, poor project governance and lack of organisational engagement for the respective project is the key matter in that case (Hoch and Dulebohn 2013). This "Go Live” process was allocated and send by the administration by the huge turn back of the process and software problems in management highlight the issue in that case (Freeman and Seddon 2005). The PeopleSoft version of 7.6 system is successfully repaired. The customised version has come in 2002 and in 2006 the system was originally intended. The budgeted cost of the process was $12.6M, and after that £4.72M and £9.2M consecutively (Freeman and Seddon 2005). The legacy financial system and operate the process in multiple screens is another objective in that process. 

The basic objective of the "The Largest Admitted IT Project Failure in the Southern Hemisphere: A Teaching Case”

The objective of the case is to analyse the largest project failure in the southern hemisphere. $1.25 billion AUD was invested in the project but the project fails and that penetrated Queensland Health implementation (Eden and Sedera 2014). The illustration of the health care disaster process is the key concern in that case and understand the legislation and policies in this section was the main narratives in such a situation. The IS project management service failed and the industry got a severe threat in that situation. The amount of $200 million USD lost as revenue and policy implementation in such situation was the main fixing problem that company confronted in that situation (Eden and Sedera 2014). The operating system in the Royal Commission Report witnessed 118 people, who interviewed the process and understand the failure of IS discipline. The payroll standard of implementation and poor decision in the official section is the key issue in that case for the functional development of the process (Kwak et al. 2012). The healthcare responsibilities in Queensland Healthcare system is under threat and management procedures are revised for the formative re-structuring of the advanced IT management.

System development and analysis

The system development in "Go Live" is an Oracle application for the transaction and multi-model database marketing and also help the process in online transaction cases. The database allowed the mixed of data warehousing and workloads (Freeman and Seddon 2005). The enterprising process is formulated as the grid computing and cost-effective information in the different application are stored and retrieved through the software. The process of 12c is the high performance, an enterprise-class database that contains 500 new features and multitenant architecture (Freeman and Seddon 2005). The process of system development helps in Cigna Healthcare and that helps in pricing multi – calculations. The customer relationship management project is the key administrative process in that case and implemented system administration of SAP was in the advanced mood in that case.

On the other hand, “IT Project Failure in the Southern Hemisphere” workforce mobility and opportunities was the key approach in that case and cost of services with the reduced opportunities in data accumulation is the key approach in that case (Eden and Sedera 2014). The consistency level in HR and finance department for the information in government agencies and enable core competencies in service standard process was the key approach that determines the economic scale of the process (Tsai et al. 2012). There are some multinational companies and consultant firms used that process but the implementation in process development and change contractor model is the approach that signs in the contracting cases.

Implementation approach of both the cases

In the case of "Go Live" process, argue of problems and low-level staffing to resolve the problem is the key approach that combined a massacre situation. In simple words, lack of senior management understanding and poor project management was impacted over the project and RMIT project failure continued throughout the process (Freeman and Seddon 2005). The real involvement for the employees is lacking and technological advancement in the project directorial process highlighted in that case. The good project would be initiated if PEAS implementation process allocates in project involvement and organisation was in the common thread of success.

In contrast, “IT Project Failure" implementation process was ready on the other hand, but still, it failed. They appointed trained staffs and defined business requirements, however, time was needed then to cope up with the process and Queensland Government Departments are the prime contractor, who failed to manage the situation and configured the work brain solution improperly (Eden and Sedera 2014). The entire audit and finance compliance was under threat and demodulation of the earlier process needs to change.

Success factor of both cases and comparison between them

The success factor for "Go Live" process would be very impactful if the process of live handling of factors in technological means is formulated in a different way and with proper maintenance. Decision-making support, employer engagement, the input of project managers, scope for the clear and relevant business objectives, along with the firm based requirement for projects and reliable estimates are the key success factors for the project.

On the contradictory, “IT Project Failure" had different scope if it was implemented at the initial level. Though the project implementation has enough acceleration after being implemented and stakeholders’ engagement in that case with the support of government is the key process of redefining the management process (Eden and Sedera 2014). System testing facility was introduced along with the data quality management for the key decision-making section is the exhibit of key support that could have been found if the process development in IT and the testing process would be formulated in a controlled manner.

Project outcomes and comparison

Support of business competitive environment, clear cost-benefits, IT infrastructure and skilled business process are the major development area of the success factors. The objectives are consolidated in “Go Live” process deals with managing stakeholders (Freeman and Seddon 2005). They flexible the vendor support so that project planning through the advanced IT system continues and customisation in testing data process need to be implemented in a legitimate way.

On the other hand, there are four project outcomes like typical client consultant engagement, client-consultant engagement at Queensland health. The prime contractor was introduced in the process, consultant vendor relationship and vendor relationship in Queensland healthcare process (Leon 2014). The vendor process is being initiated and related approaches are controlled through the process.

 Conclusion

Therefore it can be concluded that system failure is the common part of these case studies but the extended approach of consequences and policies and government complexities are highlighted through these. The relationship and responsibilities with stakeholders and IT observations in the controlled critical path is the formative way of control management process.

References

Eden, R. and Sedera, D., 2014. The largest admitted IT project failure in the Southern Hemisphere: a teaching case. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Information Systems: Building a Better World Through Information Systems. AISeL.

Freeman, P. and Seddon, P.B., 2005. Benefits from CRM Based Work Systems. ECIS 2005 Proceedings, p.14.

Hoch, J.E. and Dulebohn, J.H., 2013. Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementation. Human Resource Management Review, 23(1), pp.114-125.

Kwak, Y.H., Park, J., Chung, B.Y. and Ghosh, S., 2012. Understanding end-users’ acceptance of enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in project-based sectors. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(2), pp.266-277.

Leon, A., 2014. Enterprise resource planning. McGraw-Hill Education.

Shao, Z., Feng, Y. and Liu, L., 2012. The mediating effect of organizational culture and knowledge sharing on transformational leadership and Enterprise Resource Planning systems success: An empirical study in China. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), pp.2400-2413.

Shaul, L. and Tauber, D., 2013. Critical success factors in enterprise resource planning systems: Review of the last decade. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 45(4), p.55.

Tsai, W.H., Lee, P.L., Shen, Y.S. and Lin, H.L., 2012. A comprehensive study of the relationship between enterprise resource planning selection criteria and enterprise resource planning system success. Information & Management, 49(1), pp.36-46.