Semester 2, 2021 BUMGT6973 Project ManagementPage 1 of 6BUMGT 6973 Project Management Final AssessmentSemester 2, 2021ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTSRead the following case study and write an answer to each of the following 4 questions.The word document needs to clearly state each question and then provide a writtenresponse. Each answer should be approximately 300 words. The completed worddocument needs to be uploaded via Turnitin.Essential Assessment Criteria:1. Please check the marking guide to understand how marks will be allocated.2. Answer each question completely, this includes any sub-questions posed.3. Each answer should include a case study reflection directly related to thequestion.4. Use relevant theory to support your answers.5. Extend your critical thinking beyond the case study. Examples provided tosupport an answer do not have to be specifically in the case.6. APA referencing is required. It is suggested that a minimum of 2 references peranswer should be cited. Please provide a reference list for each question. Note,the reference list is NOT included in the word count.Online Submission is required for all studentsPlease submit your assignment online by the due date.Word limit: 4 x 300 (approximately 1,200 words) (+/- 10%). Excluding references.Weighting/Value: 40%Semester 2, 2021 BUMGT6973 Project ManagementPage 2 of 6Final Assessment Case Study [Total = 40 marks]The Queensland Health Payroll FiascoThere are many reasons why projects of any kind fail. Analysts point to insufficientresources, inappropriate resource allocations, poor communications, and misalignedgoals among many other options as possible causes of why projects fail to come in ontime or on budget. However, when the project fails because of all of those concerns (aswell as many other contributing factors), the high level of disappointment is oftenoverwhelmed by the excessive economic cost of the debacle. Such is the case with theQueensland AU Health sector digital payroll disaster.They Just Needed an Updated Payroll SystemThe Queensland Health System (QHS) provides public healthcare services to Australia’sQueensland province. The sector has over 65,000 workers employed in its Department ofHealth and its 16 Health and Hospital departments. In 2006, QHS was looking for areplacement for its then soon-to-be-obsolete payroll system, support for which was set toexpire in 2008. In December 2007, the agency finally contracted with IBM Australia todesign and implement a new system at a budget of AU $6.9 M, deliverable in July 2008.Early Signs of an Impending FiascoFrom its very beginning, several factors were playing into the project’s ultimatelydisastrous conclusion:Insufficient Calculations of Scope and TermThe complexity of the project was immense and involved the management of over 24,000differing combinations of wage payments and withholdings for over 80,000 workers andsubcontractors. Because of the fear that the existing system was in imminent danger ofimmediate failure, IBM agreed to take just seven months to develop and implement an“Interim Solution” to tide the agency over until a full replacement became operational.Within that seven months, only two weeks were set aside at the beginning of the projectto scope out the “critical business requirements” needed by the agency and the digitalsolutions that would respond to those demands. Not surprisingly, the lack of identifiableobjectives was a significant cause of the project’s abject bungling.Inexperienced “Leadership”Despite its affiliation with a global digital leader, this was IBM Australia’s first attempt atdelivering a project of this size. That fact was not helpful considering that QHS wasprobably the most complex of the Australian agencies needing the overhaul and wasperhaps not the best candidate for IBM’s first go.Semester 2, 2021 BUMGT6973 Project ManagementPage 3 of 6Additionally, the “Solution Design Authority (SDA),” the state agency with theresponsibility to define and maintain the scope, architecture, and design of the newsystem, was “passive, perhaps lazy” about communicating its requirements for a payrollsystem. Before project development began, the SDA accepted IBM’s “incomplete, …unsatisfactory scope [of work] documents” as is and with no questions. The project wasoff to a horrible start.Too Many Players Cluttering the FieldManagement of the project became even muddier after it commenced. Numerousagencies and boards divided oversight and authority, causing significant confusion which,in the end, rendered them all “ineffective in establishing a shared understanding ofstakeholder expectations in relation to the quality of project deliverables”:§ The SDA (which, during this period, transformed into the Program Delivery Office(PDO) of the state’s “CorpTech” IT division);§ The Queensland Health Enterprise Solution Transition (QHEST), the state’sinformation technology management program and acting project manager(which inexplicably retitled the “Interim Solution” as the “Queensland HealthImplementation of Continuity” (QHIC) – no confusion there!);§ The “Executive Steering Committee” (ESC) which included personnel fromCorpTech as well as the Shared Services Agency (SSA) and the Department ofEducation, Training and the Arts (DETA), and§ The “Release Steering Committee” which answered to both the ESC and CorpTechand counselled its Chair regarding the development of the Interim Solution.While there appeared to be lots of oversight of the program, Australia’s Auditor-Generalreported that “it was not clear which Accountable Officer had responsibility for theoverall governance and successful completion of the whole project.”Cut to the Chase: The Consequences of this Disastrous ProjectSuffice it to say that the project rolled out with the same high level of difficulty anddisaster as it had begun:§ When the payroll programming finally went live in March 2010, its estimated costwas AU $101 M and the system still wasn’t working. Further, analysis of thebotched-but-barely-operational system in 2013 (three years afterimplementation) indicated that it again wasn’t performing as expected and thatgetting it fully functioning within the next five years (by 2018) would cost anotherAU $836 M, taking the total cost of the project to AU $1.2 Billion.§ The state paid additional millions of dollars pursuing investigations into thecauses of the failed project, each of which identified the list of factors cited above,as well as numerous other contributors to the debacle.§ The state also sued IBM to recover some of its costs expended during the projectterm but lost in court and was compelled to pay IBM its costs of the suit.§ But perhaps the project’s worst failure was caused by the inability of teamleadership to adequately plan and test the system during the developmentprocess. Back in 2010, because of time constraints and cost overruns, it wasSemester 2, 2021 BUMGT6973 Project ManagementPage 4 of 6determined to let the system go live without testing, which resulted almostimmediately in over 35,000 payroll anomalies. Thousands of workers wereunderpaid or didn’t receive payment at all, while the system inadvertentlyoverpaid thousands of other employees by a total of AU $400 M. Queensland hasconsequently spent millions more collecting those unearned funds from theiremployees; as of July 2017, almost 32,000 QH workers still owed the state $38 Min payroll overpayment attributable to the failure of the QHS Payroll Project.Project managers in any sector will do well to delve a little deeper into facts that drovethe QHS payroll fiasco, which is an excellent opportunity to embrace the adage that it’snot necessary to experience a failure to learn from one.Source: Beyond Software. (2017, November 21). The Queensland health payroll fiasco.Retrieved 21 September 2020, from Beyond Software website:https://blog.beyondsoftware.com/the-queensland-health-payroll-fiascoSemester 2, 2021 BUMGT6973 Project ManagementPage 5 of 6Question 1This case identifies that Queensland Health System (QHS) needed a replacement for itsthen soon-to-be-obsolete payroll system. The issue was that support for the existingpayroll system was set to expire in 2008.Considering this case, compare the benefits of financial and non-financial projectselection approaches. Provide a recommendation as to what project selection approachyou would recommend and why? You need to be critical, use relevant theory, reflect onthe case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencing asrequired. [10 marks]Question 2This case discusses a range of risks that have occurred throughout the project lifecycle.The risk project lifecycle (below), illustrates the concept that the chance of a riskoccurring is more likely in the defining stage, but the cost is low. The chances of a riskoccurring decreases through the project lifecycle but the cost to fix a risk event increases.(Larson, E., Honig, B., Gray, C., Dantin, U., & Baccarini, D. (2014). Managing risk. InProject management: The managerial process (6th ed., p. 223).Considering the risk project lifecycle illustrated above, explain how project risks affectedthe Queensland Health Payroll project through its lifecycle and what the costimplications were. You should describe the risks, critically analyse what actions weretaken, and recommend what actions could have been taken to mitigate those risks. YouSemester 2, 2021 BUMGT6973 Project ManagementPage 6 of 6need to be critical, use relevant theory, reflect on the case, and provide examples tosupport your answer. Use APA referencing as required. [10 marks]Question 3This case identifies a key issue as being disorganised project leadership. This sentimentwas expressed by Australia’s Auditor-General who reported that “it was not clear whichAccountable Officer had responsibility for the overall governance and successfulcompletion of the whole project.”This case indicates the importance of project managers having appropriate skills. Discusswhat skills are needed to be an effective project manager and explain how these skillscan address the project leadership concerns. You need to be critical, use relevant theory,reflect on the case, and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencingas required. [10 marks]Question 4This case raises the importance of lessons learnt as a key aspect of project closure. Thecase concludes with the statement: “Project managers in any sector will do well to delvea little deeper into facts that drove the QHS payroll fiasco, which is an excellentopportunity to embrace the adage that it’s not necessary to experience a failure to learnfrom one”.Considering this case, what are some of the lessons learnt that you can identify, explainwhy are they important for future projects. You need to be critical, use relevant theory,reflect on the case and provide examples to support your answer. Use APA referencingas required.[10 marks]
- Assignment status: Already Solved By Our Experts
- (USA, AUS, UK & CA PhD. Writers)
- CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS, GET A NON PLAGIARIZED PAPER FROM OUR EXPERTS
