Information Technology Project - Coursework Example

Project management Table of Contents Part 3 Executive Summary 4 Part 2: 4 Introduction 4 Background 4 Discussion 5 Conclusion and Recommendations7 Reference List 8 Part 1 Planned Value (PV) is the amount of work expected to be completed at the end of the period (Pinto, 2007). As per the above data, actual cost of the project was £2.3 billion, which was to be spent over a period of three months. As per the revised estimates, the project cost was escalated to £12.4bn over a further 10 year period. So, total cost of the project was £14.7 billion over a 13 year period. The first three years utilised £2.3 billion with x% of the work completed. For the revised project, we eliminate x% of the work to get another complete project, that was worth £12.4bn over a 10 year period. It is said that at the end of 2011, which is after 5 years of the rescheduled project, total money spent was £6.46 billion. PV = 50% of the total at the end of 5 years = 50% of £12.4 billion = £6.2 billion Rate of performance is portion of work (in percentage) that is actually complete as compared to the work schedule to be achieved (Meredith and Mantel, 2008). It is assumed that 50% of the work is completed at the end of 5 years in 2011 since no information is available. Therefore, Earned Value = value of the work that is completed in reality, in money terms is Planned value * rate of Performance 50% * £6.2 billion = £3.1 billion This implies that the project utilised £6.2 billion for a work, which should have been £3.1 billion as per budget estimates. Future Cost = PV of the complete project * (Earned Value/ Actual Cost) £12.4 billion/ (3.1/6.2) = £24.8 billion If project delays were indicative, then budget overruns would be estimated. Executive Summary The report is an analysis of the key causes of failure of the national program for Information Technology project undertaken by the UK government so as to unify patient records over the digital platform countrywide. The cause have been analysed based on theories in importance of project governance and leadership in successful project implementation. It was found that lack of objective and goal definition, proper leadership communication and proper guidance on importance of data security and need for communicating with doctors were key causes behind failure of the national project. Part 2: Introduction Project governance assists in ensuring that the project is being executed as per standards set by the organization, which is using the project. Such governance assures that all activities are executed as per the required standards and ethical compliances are maintained while creating provision for accountability of the project management team. The project manager uses project governance to develop a proper reporting system under the structure of governance and such structures also define the roles and responsibilities of each project team member. The project manager can also utilize the governance structure for priority setting within project objectives. Project leadership, on the other hand, refers to the emphasis of project managers on planning, devising processes, developing structures and solving problems. The project manager is responsible for planning out projects, measuring performances and resolving conflicts and roadblocks that hamper project progress. Project leadership involves visioning, communication, strategizing, empowering, listening, questioning and team building roles for success of any project. Background The unpleasant story of Electronic Patient record system Project marked the beginning of electronic data management of healthcare in the U.K. In 1998, the government of United Kingdom launched National Health Service Information program for creating a system of electronic recording of patients’ health records for the purpose of maintaining a central record of clinical information. This was again revised and superseded by a new program by the name of National Programme for Information Technology Project (NPfIF) in 2002, which was aimed at delivering a 21st century support of information technology for patient record maintenance on the national scale. Nine years later in 2011, the public Accounts Team of UK Parliament declared that a few sections of the program, which was worth USD 16 billion, were not viable (Allassani, 2013). The original cost of the project was estimated to be about £2.3 billion for the three year period ending in 2005 (House of Commons, 2012). The national Audit Office reviewed the costs at end of the three year project plan period. They estimated that the failed project would need another £12.4 billion and more than 10 years for its revival and successful completion in 2016 (Maughan, 2010). It has been determined that the total cost overruns have gone as high as £20 billion as per latest news reports, which indicates a total cost overrun of 770% (National Audit Office Report, 2006). In September 2013, the Public Accounts Committee announced that the National program of IT was disbanded in 2011 successfully. Discussion The Department of Health (DOH) refused to chart out a proper set of objectives for the NPfIT and the structure and set of objectives were also not made public. The lack of proper guidance was a reflection of complete absence of any governance system within the project (Stal-Le Cardinal and Marle, 2005). The lack of objective definition pointed towards ambiguity on the part of project team regarding their deliverables. This was one of the critical factors that caused project failure and defrayments. No objectives also implied that there was no way to monitor progress of the project and the team members associated. With an understanding of the governance structure and way in which it fits within the larger organizational context, the project manager can choose different objectives, which he wishes to pursue. He can also change and alter those objectives, which do not conform to the larger organisational goal. Governance monitoring by the project manager assures that projects are well aligned with the organizational requirements and such projects act as good and sound investment during the project life cycle. This absence also marked the need of sound leadership for the huge government aided project. The project lacked any mechanism for strategising, visioning and communicating the project objectives and key goals of the NPfIT programme. Apart from this, the U.K. government was also criticised for reluctance towards auditing and evaluating the program on a regular basis. This is a clear case of improper governance system within the project. The project governance is to allow for timely evaluation and monitoring of progress of the project in order to ensure that it is working as per the desired standards as well as scrutinizing for any variances from the actual goal. The project manager also acts as a leader and checks for any conflicts that might arise during the project process and tries to resolve the same by proper resolution techniques (Merchant and Stede, 2012). The project manager makes use of steering committees for the purpose of resolving conflicts that might surface in course of the project. These committees offer solution for mitigating conflicts, thereby bringing the project back on the adherence of governance standards and overall organizational goal. In absence of any audit and evaluation mechanism for NPfIT programme, there was no way to question failures of the project and address the causes of failure, before refinancing the extensions to avoid their repetitions. The project of NHS failed to develop the ICT strategy, where benefits and costs of the project were not weighed properly. The technologies used for development of the same were also poorly informed. The NPfIT program had been highly criticised for ignoring the data security needs and issues associated with electronic data in maintenance of patient records. It has been claimed that NHS did not provide for adequate security and privacy of data on the NPfIT, dismissing needs for high levels for privacy safeguards. Concerns and reports were foregrounding complaints that clinical engagement desired for such a large project was not up to the expected levels (Darbyshire, 2001). This implied that NHS doctors were not adequately involved in the government project and their interest with the project dropped from 70% in 2004 to 41% in 2005 (Hendy, 2005). The main cause behind the above facts has been lack of complete leadership in the project, which would have facilitated significant project leadership. The governance of the project would have allowed for proper and adequate sourcing of all information necessary for the project. The project manager’s role, in this case, would have been to coordinate between the team and the doctors for gaining access to necessary information and key focus areas while developing the IT plan. This also points out absence of proper guidance from the project leader over the management of project information. Lack of privacy and security of data, along with low levels of awareness, regarding importance and relevance of the same with reference to patient health records was a reflection of complete dearth of knowledge on importance of data security with critical personal information for doctors, hospitals and patients (McNulty and Ferlie, 2002). Conclusion and Recommendations The above analysis brings up the following recommendations: 1. Setting of predefined objective in relation to the project for project goal definition and clarity in monitoring and tracking project progress (Hoeksma, 2002). 2. Timely and regular monitoring of project progress for identifying any variances as well as estimating project progress at even intervals. 3. Establishment of sound training and communication facilities to train employees over different critical information pertaining to the project and also allowing for proper communication of all relevant data. Reference List Allassani, W., 2013. The impact of it governance on it projects -the case of the Ghana rural bank computerization and inter-connectivity project. Journal of Information System technology Management, 10(2), pp. 8-21. Darbyshire, P. 2001. The practice politics of computerised information systems: a focus group study. Nurse Researcher, 8(2), pp. 4-17. Hendy, J., 2005. Challenges to implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT): a qualitative study. Bio-Medical Journal, 331(7512), pp. 331-336. Hoeksma, J., 2002. IT strategy lies in ruins as only five trusts hit April EPR targets. Health Services Journal, 57(9), pp. 4-5. House of Commons, 2012. Great Britain Parliament Select Committee on Public Accounts. Assurance for major projects fourteenth report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 June 2014]. Maughan, A., 2010. Six reasons why the NHS National Programme for IT failed. [online] Available at: http://www.computerweekly.com/opinion/Six-reasons-why-the-NHS-National-Programme-for-IT-failed [Accessed 26 June 2014]. McNulty, T. and Ferlie, E., 2002. Re-engineering health care: The complexities of organisational transformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Merchant, K. A. and Stede, V. D., 2012. Management Control Systems. London: Prentice Hall. Meredith, J. R. and Mantel, S. J. 2008. Project Management: A Managerial Approach. London: John Wiley & Sons. National Audit Office Report, 2006. The National Programme for IT in the NHS. [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 June 2014]. Pinto, J. K. 2007. Project Management, Achieving Competitive Advantage. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Stal-Le Cardinal, J. and Marle, F., 2005. Project: The Just Necessary Structure to Reach Your Goals. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), pp. 226-233. Read More