Factors Leading To Project Failure
Factors Leading To Project Failure
Factors Leading To Project Failure
The Harvest City case describes the implementation of a cloud- and IoT-based intelligent
procurement system at a new convention complex in the U.S. Midwest. The decision to build
a convention complex is a strategic initiative for this city and involves extensive use of
information technology. The risk of implementation failure is high. Such fail? users are costly,
highly visible, and affect multiple stakeholders. This case explores the challenges of large-
scale, computer-based system implementation by examining the events, decisions, and
actions taken to implement the intelligent procurement system at Harvest City. This case
helps students to reflect on and discuss the challenges of implementing IT-enabled change
initiatives, especially those that requires streamlined and integrated inter-organizational
processes.
Miscommunication
As the new executive team failed to understand how integral the procurement system was
to the entire project, they consequently refused to communicate with Miller; setting a
chaotic environment of confusion, misunderstanding and miscommunication among key
team member of the project.
The communication kept on worsening so the Harvest city Corporation even dared to go out
of the contract terms: Without Venso’s knowledge, he allowed an unexperienced third party
to tape into the sensor for setting its fire emergency. This arbitrary access to the system,
might have highly contributed to the Mid-November 2016 incident.
Furthermore, Venso’s complaints about the executive team were simply ignored.
Who is mostly at fault?
John Casper’s most fault was to not be able to identify the need of an intelligent
procurement system in time and try to accommodate everything to fit in the timeline.
Mayor Andres Thompson’s major fault was to misuse human resources. Instead of hiring a
new CEO, he compensated the resignation of Casper by diving his responsibility in the
remained members, who was already overwhelmed by events.
Harvest Corporation’s was responsible of not take into account of Venso’s tea members
complaints by ignoring them. The worse mistake was to employ a vendor configure the one
of Venso’s product (the Sensor) without previously informing Venso.