The project had all the trappings of success beyond belief; everyone was
of the opinion that this would be the project that will change the way the
industry uses IT, at least for this specific use case. The vendor proclaimed
success in the global markets with large companies and leaders in the industry.
Published case studies were flourished and accepted on face value. The CEO
claimed to know a member of the board which added to the halo around the company
and derived credibility; and thus the high cost project got off to a ceremonial
start.
A team of business users were dedicated to the project along with IT;
the vendor CEO himself ran the workshops and requirement gathering. He almost
knew the subject and talked the language of the business; any shortfalls were
disguised under the barb of the users’ ignorance of global trends. He churned
out voluminous and complex documents that did not really say a lot and thus remained
under discussion and clarification for a long time. Timelines started slipping
as he rebuked the users for lack of participation.
Soon everyone wanted to get busy with other work and not be part of the
project that had serious communication challenges. Team members wanted to get
off and pleaded to their managers to get back to their previous roles. With
withering participation evidence continued to stack up against the business
with no sign-offs while payments to the vendor continued as per milestones
which according to him were achieved. No one challenged the situation afraid to
upset the board member with whom the CEO claimed be chummy.
The board member was involved in the project during inception but had
gotten off the team somewhere in the middle of the journey after he saw the
flamboyant display of expertise. He believed the project was in safe hands and
functionality appeared transformative. By the time the noise filtered through
to him it was crisis time. He reviewed the situation and was aghast by what he
saw; the project appeared irrecoverable and the blame game pointed fingers
everywhere. The vendor threatened to stop work and sue for recovery of dues.
A senior member was appointed to review and assess the situation; his
maturity and balance were the strengths which were the hallmark of a seasoned
professional. He reviewed past credentials of the vendor, current team members
from both sides, process of engagement, documentation, project plan,
communication, minutes of meetings, allegations on both sides, and deliverables
received thus far. He engaged an independent technology consultant to review
the efficacy of technology architecture, and solution delivered thus far.
The vendor’s company really had no past or for that matter employees in
any number to talk about. It was almost a one man team and his Secretary who
had worked on the projects which he had claimed against his name, though only
as an external consultant to another company. Effectively there was no depth in
the company that made lofty claims on global case studies. The relationship
with the board member was barely an acquaintance; no one had really asked the
board member about the level of camaraderie and assumed rather than risk asking.
The documentation was sketchy and inadequate, technology framework in
line with generally accepted industry trends, the solutions delivered partially
useable specific use cases. Users had not read through the volumes that
described the process automation and functionality; their ignorance evident in
the remarks and clarifications. Compliance to schedule of meetings and reverts
was far from satisfactory thereby leaving gaps which were exploited by the
vendor to his advantage. The absence of business leadership in the project was
glaring.
The vendor sued for un-cleared dues and the company sued for
non-delivery; compromise was ruled out. They decided to go into arbitration lasting
over 3 years; in the interim neither could use the limited solutions created.
Business continued to use their legacy solution while the vendor CEO had
collected many times the value of the deliveries made. The industry continued
to evolve with newer solutions whereas the leadership step taken by the company
failed to bring any benefit because of lack of due diligence, ownership and
perceptions of team members.
The above case is based on reality though has been exaggerated for impact. Suing each other kept everyone with a bad taste and frustrated
experience. With passing time the relevance faded away and it appeared to be a
futile exercise. A collective failure that could have been averted easily !
When customers sue their vendors or vice versa, what is the cost of a win to
either ? Time, effort and opportunity loss cannot be easily quantified
especially when the industry is evolving at a rapid pace. It is better to break
free and move on !
