Before an IT project can initiate, the purchase procedure must be successful. Once the execution procedure starts, however, a lot of things can begin to go off beam because there are several aspects and people concerned that may not work as one. Even though the acquirement procedure is very tense and essential too, the execution of setting up a project and selecting the right team to do the job is not at all times as simple as it appears. As difficult as it may be to efficiently steer through these possible failures, project failures such as the ones described in the case study, Memorial Health System CPOE execution, can be avoided.
At the commencement of the execution procedure, Fred Dryer and Joe Roberts determined and established a plan to get the CPOE system successfully enough for the personnel and other employees to use. Stakeholders did not agree with Dryer and Roberts that this system would be significant and ultimately differed with them. This must be a widespread problem with the execution procedure, because it is very hard to get so many people to work together simultaneously. The institution going through the IT procedure must be a interconnected entity in believing in the project as well as being on the same book about what needs to occur. Since the stakeholders have too much authority in the procedure, Roberts and Dryer abandoned the project.
The other project failure expresses the complexity of selecting the right team members and supervising personnel to successfully administer the project. The acting CIO, Melvin Sparks, was, to put it gently, the wrong person for the job. He demonstrated many of the project failures. He was incapable of efficiently communicating with his employees, made decisions that unconstructively affected the project and eventually committed a massive blunder by altering the range of the project during the execution procedure. The project manager in the case study was shouted at to give good news or no news at all to Sparks. Not only is it totally unsuitable for CIO to shout at staff, but communication is essential in the execution procedure, whether it is good news or bad. Altering the capacity of the project during the execution procedure generates disorder. A good acquirement procedure will produce an atmosphere where huge divergences from the original project capacity are not well received. Another critical trouble in the case study was the shortage of testing done on the system. Testing guarantees the team of the functionality as well as the troubles that may occur from the system, and gives time to repair it. Sparks created no confidence in the team and demonstrated none in the primary project.