Cosgrove Computer Systems Inc

Document Sample
Cosgrove Computer Systems Inc Powered By Docstoc
					                               Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


9/28/06

                 USER v Supplier - Analysis Supporting Opinions
                                                            Contents

Technology Issues -- Analysis Supporting Conclusions ................................................... 2
  Rebuttal to Claims........................................................................................................... 2
  Summary of Analysis Supporting USER’s Claims .......................................................... 2
Delivery Dates – Predicted, Promised, Missed ................................................................... 3
Custom Modules Not Completed........................................................................................ 5
Data Conversion Not Completed ........................................................................................ 5
  Specifications Delivered Early ....................................................................................... 5
  Requirements Dropped Substantially ............................................................................. 5
  Other Vendors Converted Easily .................................................................................... 6
  Synchronization Problems .............................................................................................. 6
  Conversion Effort Not Progressing in 2004.................................................................... 6
Low Level of Effort ............................................................................................................ 6
  Evidence of Delays ......................................................................................................... 7
Underestimation .................................................................................................................. 7
Understaffing ...................................................................................................................... 7
  Supplier Project Management ......................................................................................... 7
  Supplier Business Analysts / Designers .......................................................................... 8
  Supplier Programmers .................................................................................................... 9
  USER Project Staff ......................................................................................................... 9
Inadequate Communications ............................................................................................. 10
  Specifications ................................................................................................................ 10
  Shared Problem Log ..................................................................................................... 10
  Status Reporting ............................................................................................................ 10
  Software Documentation .............................................................................................. 10
  Bypassing the Project Manager .................................................................................... 10
Change Management ........................................................................................................ 11
Security ............................................................................................................................. 11
Supplier Problems not Unique to USER project............................................................... 11
Diagrams Showing What Happens When a Project is Delayed ....................................... 12




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                                    1                                            9/15/2012
                     Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis



TECHNOLOGY ISSUES -- ANALYSIS SUPPORTING CONCLUSIONS
Rebuttal to Claims – “Answer to Demand for Arbitration and Counterclaim,
4/2005”
       Paragraphs 11 and 12: While Supplier did convert some of USER’s data to work
with version 3.6 of Pledge_Ap as a system to allow USER staff to “familiarize”
themselves with Pledge_Ap, that data required re-conversion to work with the 4.0 version
that would support USER’s business operations, and with the custom software that
Supplier was to develop. By November of 2004 the data hadn’t been converted to the
point where it would run in a usable production environment.
        Paragraph 13: The contract didn’t require USER to provide expertise or staffing
for the conversion process. USER was prepared to provide a reasonable amount of
support even though it wasn’t specified. However, Supplier required substantially more
expense than the original estimate, and required a large amount of USER involvement.
Other vendors have been able to convert the same data with minimal effort on the part of
USER.
      Paragraph 14: In addition to failing to convert the data, Supplier still hadn’t
completed all the custom software modules specified in the contract.
        Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23: Although the contract and exhibits do not
specify a “go live” date, a series of such dates were provided both implicitly and
explicitly, but never met. There is evidence that Supplier provided them to induce the
customer to continue the contract, but didn’t expect to meet them.
         Paragraph 24: USER occasionally failed to meet one of the terms of the April,
2002 Memorandum of Understanding, requiring response to Supplier questions within 48
hours. The infrequency that such lapses were documented by Supplier seems to indicate
a fairly good response rate on USER’s part. On the other hand, Supplier has failed to
deliver the product that USER purchased.
       Paragraph 25: In order to use Pledge_Ap software in production, USER required
both the converted data and the custom software that weren’t delivered.
Summary of Analysis Supporting USER’s Claims
       A series of spurious “go-live” dates was provided to USER, in many cases
endorsed by the CEO of Supplier. In at least one case, the CEO admitted that he didn’t
believe the date he had just provided.
       After more four years, the custom software wasn’t completed, and there were
unsolved problems with some of the modules.
       Supplier initially estimated that data conversion would take about four man-
months. After four years, the data had not all been converted, and there were unsolved
problems with some of the files.
       Without the all the data and all the software, the system as a whole couldn’t be
adequately tested. Final acceptance testing typically uncovers still more problems.



825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc           2                             9/15/2012
                                       Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


        In spite of demands by USER for full staffing of the project by Supplier, the
project was not staffed full-time on Supplier’s side. The project manager was responsible
for several other projects; by mid-2004 there was no longer a project manager at all. The
project manager complained repeatedly about the unavailability of analysts to design the
software. Only a single programmer was assigned to the data conversion effort. Even
with the project far in arrears he was pulled off to work on other customers’ projects.
       The project delays were becoming self-perpetuating – the longer the project took,
the more changes in the business environment for both Supplier and USER created
changes in USER business requirements, changes in Supplier’s Pledge_Ap product,
changes in they underlying technologies (such as new versions of Oracle), changes in
Supplier staffing, and new, competing projects for other Supplier customers. These
changes created still further project delays. Objective measures of progress fail to show
clear movement to conclusion over the last several months before the project was
terminated.
        These problems were exacerbated by inadequate communications: specifications
were misplaced, problems and other issues weren’t logged until late in the project – when
the customer, not the developer, established a log. Status reporting within Supplier was
often just verbal, not documented. Supplier didn’t ensure that USER had up-to-date
documentation even for its standard product. Except for the first two changes recorded as
part of the contract, there didn’t seem to be a formal change management procedures.
        These problems weren’t unique to USER’s project. Supplier top executives and
managers were already aware that they had problems with customer support on similar
projects.
DELIVERY DATES – PREDICTED, PROMISED, MISSED
       Supplier repeatedly promised to have the system ready by certain dates, but was
never able to meet them. Figure 11,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. shows how the go-live date for
USER’s customized Pledge_Ap system was repeatedly put off.
                            8/1/2004

                           1/14/2004

                           6/28/2003
           Go-Live Date




                          12/10/2002

                           5/24/2002

                           11/5/2001

                           4/19/2001

                           10/1/2000

                           3/15/2000
                                       9/25/2000

                                                   11/25/2000

                                                                1/25/2001

                                                                            3/25/2001

                                                                                        5/25/2001

                                                                                                    7/25/2001

                                                                                                                9/25/2001

                                                                                                                            11/25/2001

                                                                                                                                         1/25/2002

                                                                                                                                                         3/25/2002

                                                                                                                                                                     5/25/2002

                                                                                                                                                                                 7/25/2002

                                                                                                                                                                                             9/25/2002

                                                                                                                                                                                                         11/25/2002

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  3/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              5/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          7/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      9/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  11/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               1/25/2004




                                                                                                                                                         Prediction Date


                                                                                                                            Figure 1


825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                                                                                                             3                                                                                                    9/15/2012
                                                               Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


        Figure 2 shows how the delivery dates varied over time, months to completion
having an asymptotic trend towards infinity along the X axis – the time remaining kept
getting shorter, but was not tending to zero. The estimates were apparently not developed
according to any realistic estimating procedure, since they repeatedly failed.

          Predicted Months to Completion   14

                                           12

                                           10

                                           8

                                           6

                                           4

                                           2

                                           0
                                                9/25/2000
                                                            11/25/2000
                                                                         1/25/2001
                                                                                     3/25/2001
                                                                                                 5/25/2001
                                                                                                             7/25/2001
                                                                                                                         9/25/2001
                                                                                                                                     11/25/2001
                                                                                                                                                  1/25/2002
                                                                                                                                                               3/25/2002
                                                                                                                                                                           5/25/2002
                                                                                                                                                                                       7/25/2002
                                                                                                                                                                                                   9/25/2002
                                                                                                                                                                                                               11/25/2002
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1/25/2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        3/25/2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    5/25/2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                7/25/2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            9/25/2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        11/25/2003
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1/25/2004
                                                                                                                                                              Prediction Date


                                              Figure 2
        The original contract included a warranty valid for 1 year after the agreement
date. This warranty implied that the system would be completed and operational within
the year – otherwise the warranty would be worthless.
        The go-live dates predicted on 9/25/0016, 2/5/0217, 3/4/0218, 1/28/0319, and
8/8/0320 were signed off (or at least not contradicted in responding email) by David
Spacone, CEO of Supplier. The 3/4/02 estimate was made over the strong objections of
Karen Developer-PM, the Supplier project manager, who didn’t believe the project could
be completed close to the time specified21,22. The estimate was sent to USER by her
manager on her behalf while she was “out sick”23.
        Dave Spacone didn’t believe the estimate he gave to USER either. In an email of
3/28/02, he told Eric Brooks and Sharon Lambert “We could offer to work with them for
the original price through our projected go live date of August 1” or, as another option,
“Work with them until they go live (I just don't think there is any way we can do this, as
we all know it will not be August 1; maybe 2003)”.24
        Bill User B reported similar problems at the next level of management – that
Sharon Lambert repeatedly made promises that were not kept25.




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                                                                                                                            4                                                                                                9/15/2012
                                               Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


CUSTOM MODULES NOT COMPLETED
        Schedule E of the contract included 27 custom items to be developed. Two of
them were never defined, or required from Supplier. Figure 3 tracks the percentage of
these items that were either reported as done, or at least didn’t show up on an error or
future-delivery report26,27,2829,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37. More than 40% of them were still not
fully acceptable by the time the contract was terminated.

                                                                         % items complete


                                         90%

                                         80%
           % Schedule E Items Complete




                                         70%

                                         60%

                                         50%

                                         40%

                                         30%

                                         20%

                                         10%

                                         0%
                                               9/25/00   12/15/01   1/9/03   6/1/03      3/24/04   8/26/04   9//8/04   11/4/04
                                                                                      Date


                                                                         Figure 3


DATA CONVERSION NOT COMPLETED
         Four years after the start of the project the data was still not converted. A
substantial set of specifications had been delivered before the contract was signed, and
half of the original 65 files were dropped from the requirements. Other vendors had little
trouble converting the same data. Part of the problem was synchronizing changes in the
data with changes in Pledge_Ap versions.
Specifications Delivered Early
         Most if not all of the basic conversion data was in Supplier's hands when the
contract was signed with an expected go-live date of 11/01. On 6/12/00 Bill User Jhad
sent Bill Finley detailed specs on 48 files38. By 6/15/00 Supplier provided a conversion
estimate totaling 699 hours for "programming, project analysis, and conversion
monitoring", or about 4 man-months39.
Requirements Dropped Substantially
         USER had a total of 65 files to be converted according to Karen Developer-PM's
list of conversion tasks in the 2/01 Project Scope Documentation40. By 10/01, that



825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                                      5                                9/15/2012
                    Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


number had dropped to 27, including three that replaced a larger file41. A few were
added later, for a total of 3242.
Other Vendors Converted Easily
        USER didn’t anticipate problems with data conversion, because they had
previously had a conversion by Previous_Supplier which went smoothly43. Recently,
DPC&S was able to convert the data in less than 30 days44, though of course with the
benefit of cleanup that had been done for the Supplier project.
Synchronization Problems
        In July of 2002, the conversion was being held up by difficulty in synchronizing
with the current versions of Pledge_Ap. According to Developer-1, “There is nothing I
can do as far as getting this to work on 4.0.1.1, we need a reliable database to test this
conversion on. This is a very involved conversion and we cannot to afford to keep having
this version problem stand in the way of our progress and completion.”45
        The dilemma of synchronizing USER’s data conversion with the current version
of Pledge_Ap was reflected in a string of emails from August 19. Developer-PM: “As
their custom work involve up-to-the-minute changes/enhancements and fixes to v4.0, we
will need the database to reflect that.” But according to Mike Pecoraro “If the current
development is not quite stable, this could mean problems for whomever is developing
USER code against that schema. The constant changes to the schema could mean that one
week something works and the next it breaks. The development schemas can be
extremely volatile. It could be like hitting a moving target. I wouldn't advise it in this
case…. In my opinion, testing "accurately and efficiently" is difficult in an environment
that can potentially change on a weekly basis.”46
Conversion Effort Not Progressing in 2004
        In August '03, conversion was supposed to be completed by 9/1/03 according to a
document signed by the President of Supplier, nearly 36 months after project start47.
        In January '04, 23 of 32 files had been converted, leaving 9 to go, according to
Sue Chu48.
        In a report a month later, 12 files had multiple errors in a conversion test49.
Others had warning messages. Early June updates marked on that report still listed 8 files
with serious errors. Files with single errors were usually marked “OK” (perhaps the
single errors were artifacts of the report or the conversion process).
        In the fall of 2004, there are two conflicting test reports. One is labeled as an
October update of a 6/23/04 report50. The other is a 9/13/04 conversion report,
interpreted by Developer-1 in an 11/1/04 email51. The September report indicates that 2
files would have to be handled manually, and 2 should be left "post-conversion", so at
least 4 were still unconverted; Developer-1 said 3 issues were in test, 3 still to be
addressed. The October report lists 8 files with multiple serious errors. In either case,
data conversion had not made much progress that year.


LOW LEVEL OF EFFORT
     There is substantial evidence that Supplier was making little effort to complete the
USER project in accordance with the promised completion dates, though there were



825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc          6                            9/15/2012
                     Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


occasional flurries of activity. This slow speed itself probably contributed to still further
delays.
        On 4/17/03, 31 months after the contract was signed, Lambert reported the
billable hours spent on the project so far: 336 hours of analysis, and 326 hours of
programming and monitoring52. That’s a total of less than 4 man-months – or an
equivalent of one Supplier staff member spending an average 13% effort.
Evidence of Delays
        There were numerous complaints from the Project Manager and the Conversion
Programmer about delays in the project.
        In October of 2001, Developer-PM complained about delays caused by a ban on
spending “implementation time” on the project: “Two other files are dependent on
design decisions (cannot discuss implementation solutions with client until
implementation time ban is lifted).”53 “cannot spend implementation time on client.
Impacting the ability to execute project efficiently and provide proper implementation for
client. Will result in major problems pre-and post-live.”54
        In May of 2003 she said, “I feel there has been no clear direction on when we are
allowed to work on this project. I can name specific multiple dates that we were told to
not work on this project, to put it on hold, or to not make it a priority because they are not
paying their bills, or other clients were of higher priority. As both Jim and I pointed out,
this project needs a devoted block to time to complete successfully, and we haven't been
given that kind of go-ahead. Rather, we have worked on it piecemeal, which doesn't make
major strides in completion of the project, and then we are told to shift priorities to other
clients.”55
        According to James Developer-1, there was a period of at least 10 months that he
wasn’t working on the conversion56. Conversely, Sharon Lambert remembers a delay of
6 weeks in USER sending them the data57. This was presumably the most dramatic delay
on USER’s side.
        According to a 10/6/03 Developer-1 email to Lambert: “my time is being nickel
and dimed and USER is not getting done.”58
        In an email of 7/9/02. Paul Yurkey of Supplier said his requirements analysis for
the mail selects turned up several significant implementation changes. According to Bill
User J, the list selects had been provided a year and a half before that59. Those list selects
hadn’t been completed by the end of the project more than two years later60.
UNDERESTIMATION
        One source of problems was that the work had been greatly underestimated.
According to Developer-PM in July, 2001, the reports estimated at 8 hours each would
probably take a minimum of 35 hours. Several Exhibit E issues which were not to be
billed would require substantial amounts of time.61 In October of 2001 she reminded her
manager “I pointed out multiple times internally earlier: that some of the conversion files
were grossly underestimated for the complexity of what they wanted to do.”62
UNDERSTAFFING
Supplier Project Management



825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc            7                              9/15/2012
                     Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


         Karen Developer-PM seemed reasonably competent to be Project Manager, with
certification as a Project Management Professional (PMP)63, 5 years’ experience with
Pledge_Ap as a customer64, and 5 years at Supplier as implementation specialist65. She
tried to introduce basic management principles within her department66.
         However, she frequently expressed frustration that she wasn’t allowed to manage
the project properly. In an email to her manager near the start of the project, she felt it
necessary to introduce the idea of planning the project together with the client, “Seeing
all the trouble we have gotten into with clients and their expectations….”67. In November
of 2002, she said “I need to send some response to Bill User Jtoday. Do I tell him that we
don't have any plan formulated for his project because there is no implementation time?
Or should I tell him that you will respond Monday to his needs? At any rate, it makes us
look bad if we don't have planning in place for this project.68
         When some of the custom software was finally delivered to USER in April of
2003 for user acceptance testing, fully converted data was unavailable, and Developer-
PM had no time to support them because she was assigned to another project. She
recognized that “Testing the custom work actually involves setting up a lot of additional
coding not in their conversion which takes an understanding of how Pledge_Ap works
and how their custom work was spec'd. Even if I provided a list, I am sure they will not
understand how to do this and will need lots of hand-holding (again, which has no budget
line).”69
         Although she expected USER to have dedicated project staff that were not
specified in the contract70, she herself wasn’t dedicated on the Supplier side. Her status
report of 10/25/0171 lists three other projects she was working on; her 4/23/04 report72
lists six others.
         When Developer-PM left mid’04 there apparently was no longer an assigned
project manager on the Supplier side. USER’s impression was that her performance on
their project had deteriorated for several months before that. According to Bill Bill B, “in
the first few months of 2004, there was a time period where -- after one of our efforts to
get the data and convert where we found a tremendous number of difficulties within the
software package itself. And we were sending those to Karen, and we just did not receive
a response.”73
Supplier Business Analysts / Designers
         Developer-PM complained several times about availability and reliability of
Supplier’s design staff. “Design is late and cannot be held accountable to produce on
time. This happens constantly”74 “Sherry was scheduled to work on three files relating to
new 4.0 custom modules in the last few weeks … but was unable to continue due to other
client responsibilities.”75 “Sherry contacted Julie today to get details and table
layouts/functionality on the RPA module. Julie told her that the specs have not even been
started, although months ago she secured information from the client and had a
conference call with Bill and Bill to clarify any further questions. Julie tells me this
project yet to be assigned to her. It is critical functionality for 4.0 November, and it is
now October 5 and we are hearing this project has not even been started… Again, we
find USER custom work delayed due to late delivery of the associated design project.”76
         Two days before the 8/1/02 go-live date, an analyst assigned to USER was moved
to other projects by Lambert, who told Developer-PM “That will need to go back to you.


825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc           8                             9/15/2012
                     Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


She can finish up her work on the mappings she is currently working on and any
remaining tasks for the US Mailing Analysis. This should also free up some of your time
as you will not have to coordinate Sherry's projects.” Developer-PM responded “That is
fine. Although it will save some time in communication of project implementation and
coordination to Sherry, I believe it will not free up any of my time as the amount of work
I an acquiring will be greater than the amount of time which will be freed up. The
timeline for the USER project will need to be reconfigured due to the loss of resource on
this project.”77
        Developer-PM had reported in mid 2001 that certain reports would be complex
and that the requirements weren’t well defined. In mid 2003 she asked for access to
support from experienced Supplier designers, or to put the burden on USER to accept a
standard Pledge_Ap solution, or provide the design, or pay more for requirements that
changed. What she was offered was help from Lambert herself and the programmer Jim
Developer-1. Developer-PM felt that neither of them was adequately skilled in design.78
        Much of the design work was left to Developer-PM, who didn’t seem well-suited
to that part of the job. In her deposition, she didn’t mention any special training in
analysis or design. Her technical solutions were second-guessed in Supplier management
meetings79, and in April of 2003 Lambert told Dave Spacone that she didn’t think
Developer-PM was the best person to do the analysis for the remaining reports80.
        According to User B, “I feel if we had just taken the package off the shelf, Karen
would have been able to guide through that process. But I felt that some of the custom
enhancement turned up to be too much for her where she couldn't find solutions.”81
Supplier Programmers
        According to Supplier programmer Jim Developer-1, he was not told about any
specific dates or deadlines for USER data conversion82. He had no requirement to bill a
specified number of hours to any particular project or customer83. In Fall of ’04 there
was a drop-off in work on the file conversion because although he was the only
programmer working on USER, he was in the middle of the Grizzard conversion, which
probably took 75% of his time. That project ran from maybe 6/04 through 3-4/05. He
was also working on other projects besides Grizzard and USER at that time84.
USER Project Staff
        Karen Developer-PM frequently complained about the lack of USER staff
dedicated to the project. However, Supplier’s contract didn’t require that such staff be
available, and Developer-PM’s concerns weren’t clearly conveyed to USER until the
project was well underway. Despite the lack of requirements, USER did provide
substantial technical and management resources to the project.
        According to Lynn User H, “we were being billed for project management time.
“when we called and talked to Supplier about that, they said, well, we're billing you
because you don't have a project manager and you are supposed to be managing the
project. And we're having to take your responsibility for the management of the project”
This was the first time any of us knew anything about that. The preliminary
documentation indicated that Supplier was going to manage the project85.
        Despite additional assurances that the data conversion would take place with little
effort on their part, USER was prepared with both data and hardware /operating system
expertise, and part-time project management86. Bill User J remained active in managing


825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc           9                             9/15/2012
                     Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


the project the entire time, including the period when USER had an additional, dedicated
project manager87,88. Both a database expert and infrastructure support people were
available as needed throughout the project89. Later in the project, USER added dedicated
staff exclusively for the project90,91.
        User J’ recollection of Supplier’s salesman’s assurances about data conversion
was: “He told me not to worry. ‘We have people here that that's all that they do. They're
experts at it.’ We have conversion programs that had been written. He said, ‘We've got
clients where they don't even have database. They don't even have any technical people.
We handle everything.’”92
INADEQUATE COMMUNICATIONS
         Supplier sometimes neglected the standard forms of formal communication
between client and software developers: signed-off specifications, a problem log, status
reporting, system documentation, and even keeping its own project manager informed.
Specifications
         According to Bill B, Jim Developer-1, the primary programmer for USER
conversion, was skilled and knowledgeable, but he was not given enough information to
fulfill his job – knowledge of the business rules needed for some of his tasks93. And
“during the last part of the conversion especially, there was no specifications given at all,
even when changes were made. Nothing that we signed off on. We asked for them, and
we were told they were coming, and they never did…. the information that he asked me
that I provided him was definitely given to Supplier, because I gave it to them.”94
Shared Problem Log
         A software project typically has some sort of errors or issues log that is shared
between the developer and client to keep track of things that come up during the course
of the project. Supplier didn’t provide one; USER instituted one late in the project95.
According to Supplier programmer James Developer-1, his reports of status and problems
were frequently verbal, not documented96.
Status Reporting
         Sue Chu mentioned that Supplier wasn’t responsive, except for Developer-1, and
Developer-PM early in ’04: “I had to keep sending them the status on my problem logs
and asking for answers.”97
Software Documentation
         Supplier didn’t ensure that USER was using documentation that reflected the
most current version of its product. In May of 2003 USER discovered that the
documentation they had was for Pledge_Ap 3.1 – not 4.0 which was supposed to be
current, or even the 3.6 which they were originally given for testing98.
Bypassing the Project Manager
         Supplier apparently didn’t even always keep its own project manager in the loop:
“Please copy me on all correspondence or conversations or decisions involving any of my
clients in implementation, Lincoln Center and Morris Cerullo. It is difficult to manage
these projects when information told to the clients is not passed forward to the project
manager.”99




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc            10                            9/15/2012
                     Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


CHANGE MANAGEMENT
        There are two formal change requests near the beginning of the project, to which
“optional” modules to include100. These modules seem to be standard Pledge_Ap
components that could be included or not; such changes should have had very minor
impact since they were made before implementation.
        There are a number of custom non-contract items listed in early ‘02; most are
described as "n/c", presumably no charge, and minor101. The other 6 items seem well
within the expected range for changes in a project of that size, so shouldn't have affected
the schedule significantly. We have found no later reports that seem to introduce new
modules, so any other changes must have been reinterpretation of how data was to be
converted.
        Lynn User H said he never received communication from Supplier that USER
was increasing the scope of the specifications102.
SECURITY
       Supplier was unwilling or unable to set up secure automated remote access to
USER’s system, so required considerable effort from an USER operator to set up each
session for them103
SUPPLIER PROBLEMS NOT UNIQUE TO USER PROJECT
        The problems at Supplier with this project were not due to unusual circumstances
associated with USER, but were chronic.
        According to Sharon Lambert, other Supplier customers had complained to her
about lack of support104. She also said “We continually have issues who are surprised
and upset when they receive invoices or service authorization forms for Implementation
Services or to Authorize more hours.”105
        According to Eric Brooks, “This is the third major account in the last year that has
had a problem with our implementation charges versus what they signed for on the
contract (UNCF, ACLJ, Morris Cerullo and I think EDF had a problem/surprise that they
weren't thrilled about)”106




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc           11                             9/15/2012
                    Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


DIAGRAMS SHOWING WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PROJECT IS DELAYED
       The following set of diagrams might help explain how a failure to execute a
software development project as quickly as possible can lead to problems.
 Starting Point



     SofTrek’s
   Pledgemaker
     Software
                                         MCWE’s Data

                                                                         MCWE’s
                                                                  Business Requirements




 SofTrak contracted to do:


                  Custom Software
                   Development                  Data Conversion




 Agreed end result



                  Customized
                  Pledgemaker
                    Software
                                                        Converted Data




     Supplier signed a contract to turn its Pledge_Ap software, USER’s data, and
USER’s requirements into a customized system that worked with a converted data set.




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc         12                            9/15/2012
                    Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


 Expected Information Flows



      SofTrek’s
    Pledgemaker
      Software
                                          MCWE’s Data

                                                                          MCWE’s
                                                                   Business Requirements




                  Custom Software
                                                      Data Conversion
                   Development




                  Customized
                  Pledgemaker
                    Software
                                                         Converted Data




       The team doing custom software development needs information about
Pledge_Ap software, USER’s data, and USER’s requirements; so does the team
converting the data. In addition, the two teams must exchange information so that the
developed software will work with the converted data.




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc         13                             9/15/2012
                    Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis

      Actual Information Flows (total number of PledgeMaker versions and
      requirement changes increases as time goes on, multiplying changes that need
      to be managed by both software development and data conversion)

               Changing SofTrek                                   Changing MCWE
               Business Drivers                                   Business Drivers




                  SofTrek’s
                Pledgemaker
                  Software               MCWE’s Data

                                                                          MCWE’s
                                                                   Business Requirements




                  Multiple                                          Requirements
                versions of                                           Change
               Pledgemaker                                           Requests
                                           Changes in Data




                 Custom Software
                                                       Data Conversion
                  Development




                Incomplete                                   Unconverted
                 Software                                       Data
       As time goes on, a variety of factors affect both Supplier’s and USER’s
businesses. These factors drive changes in the core Pledge_Ap software and in USER’s
business requirements. The business requirement changes may also change USER’s data.
During the development process, the two teams must respond to every change in
Pledge_Ap, USER’s requirements, and USER’s data. They must also communicate
every change in solution to each other. Every change causes some small delay and
increases chances to make errors that must later be corrected.




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc          14                                  9/15/2012
                       Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis




1
  Amended Claim for Relief, Exhibit A - License Agreement, p. 1, #6
2
  10/23/01 Developer-PM email, Statusupdatebinder p.83, no Bates
3
  1/16/02 Rebaseline, Statusupdatebinder p.50, no Bates
4
  2/5/02 Supplier S letter, Statusupdatebinder p.58, no Bates
5
  3/28/02 User H email, Statusupdatebinder p.64, no Bates
6
  11/22/02 Delivery Schedule Statusupdatebinder p.91, no Bates
7
  12/30/02 Delivery Schedule, Statusupdatebinder p.94, no Bates
8
  1/9/03 Delivery Schedule, Binder G p. 753-54, USER 5488-89, SFT003885
9
  1/28/03 Supplier S email, Binder G p. 614 USER 5442
10
   8/8/03 User H email + attachments, Signed by Supplier S, Statusupdatebinder p.68-69, no Bates
11
   3/24/04 list of custom issues, Bdr. S p. 58, SFT002602
12
   8/26/04 Liang issues list, Bdr. R pp. 459-60, USER 370-71
13
   9/8/04 User J email, Bdr. R pp. 454-57, USER 365-68
14
   11/4/04 Customization Worksheet, Bdr. R p.78-80, SFT001173-75, Supplier S 76-78
15
   Calculations are shown in the “Predictions” tab of spreadsheet USER Non-Conversion Deadlines
16
   Amended Claim for Relief, Exhibit A - License Agreement, p. 1, #6
17
   2/5/02 letter from Supplier S, Statusupdatebinder p.58, no Bates
18
   3/28/02 email from User H, Statusupdatebinder p.64, no Bates
19
   1/28/03 Supplier S email, Binder G p. 614 USER 5442
20
   8/8/03 email from User H, Statusupdatebinder p.68-69, no Bates
21
   2/27/02 emails from User J and from Developer-PM, Binder E p. 986 Supplier S 7339, SFT0038
22
   2/28/02 Developer-PM email, Binder E p. 990 Supplier S 7343, SFT003940
23
   3/4/02 Supplier L email, Binder E p. 996 Supplier S 7349, SFT003843
24
   Supplier S email, 3/28/02, Binder E p. 946-47 Supplier S 7305-06, SFT002777-78
25
   User B Deposition p. 91
26
   Amended Claim for Relief, Exhibit A - License Agreement, p. 1, #6
27
   1/16/02 Rebaseline, Statusupdatebinder p.50, no Bates
28
   1/9/03 Delivery Schedule, Binder G p. 753-54, USER 5488-89, SFT003885
29
   2/5/02 Supplier S letter, Statusupdatebinder p.58, no Bates
30
   11/22/02 (?) Delivery Schedule, Statusupdatebinder p.91, no Bates
31
   12/30/02 Delivery Schedule, Statusupdatebinder p.94, no Bates
32
   6/1/03 Customization Worksheet, Bdr S pp. 545-547, SFT006252-54
33
   3/24/04 list of custom issues, Bdr. S p. 58, SFT002602
34
   8/26/04 Liang email, Bdr. R pp. 459-60, USER 370-71
35
   9/8/04 User J email, Bdr. R pp. 454-57, USER 365-68
36
   11/4/04 Customization Worksheet, Bdr. R p.78-80, SFT001173-75, Supplier S 76-78
37
   Calculations are shown in the “Completed” tab of spreadsheet USER Non-Conversion Deadlines
38
   Detailed specs on 48 files, Bdr. S, pp. 379-410, no Bates
39
   6/15/00 Conversion Estimate, Bdr. S pp. 501-502, USER 000045-46
40
   2/01 Project Scope Documentation, Bdr. S, pp. 248-249 and 295, SFT004338-39 and 85
41
   10/1/01-10/2/01 Developer-PM email response to Supplier L email, Binder C p. 26-27 Supplier S 7981-
82; attached document in Binder A, pp. 575-578, SFT002672-75, Supplier S 9422-25
42
   1/28/04 Chu email, Bdr. S p. 345, MCCD100672
43
   User H Deposition p. 95
44
   User H Deposition, p. 90-91
45
   7/28/02 Supplier L email, Binder E p. 136-37 Supplier S 6756-57
46
   8/19/02 emails from Developer-PM and Pecoraro, Binder F p. 755 Supplier S 654
47
   8/8/03 email from User H, Statusupdatebinder p.68-69, no Bates
48
   Chu Deposition p. 30
49
   2/23/04 Conversion Report Bdr. R, pp. 415-417, USER 341-43
50
   10/04 update of 6/23/04 report, Bdr. R pp. 50-51, SFT002512-13, Supplier S 49-50
51
   11/1/04 Supplier L email, Bdr. S pp. 444-447, SFT001142-SFT001145, Supplier S 56-59
52
   4/17/03 Supplier L email to Supplier S, Binder H p.752-56, Supplier S 5384-88



825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                  15                               9/15/2012
                       Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


53
   10/1/01-10/2/01 Developer-PM email response to Supplier L email, Binder C p. 26-27 Supplier S 7981-
82; attached document in Binder A, pp. 575-578, SFT002672-75, Supplier S 9422-25
54
   10/25/01 Tasks for Karen Developer-PM, Binder D p. 737-745 Supplier S 7833-41, SFT003813-21
55
   5/20/03 Developer-PM email, Binder H p. 230 Supplier S 5163
56
   Supplier L Deposition p. 46
57
   Supplier L Deposition p. 144-145
58
   10/6/03 Supplier L email, Bdr. S, p. 438, Supplier S 4453
59
   User J Deposition p. 114-115
60
   User J Deposition p. 113
61
   7/30/01 Developer-PM email, Binder C p.531 Supplier S 8417, SFT002241
62
   10/1/01-10/2/01 Developer-PM email response to Supplier L email, Binder C p. 26-27 Supplier S 7981-
82; attached document in Binder A, pp. 575-578, SFT002672-75, Supplier S 9422-25
63
   Developer-PM Deposition p. 13
64
   Developer-PM Deposition p. 23
65
   Developer-PM Deposition p. 23-24
66
   Developer-PM Deposition p. 29
67
   11/9/00 Developer-PMemail to Supplier L, Bdr. A, p. 139, SFT003774
68
   11/1/02 Developer-PM email, Binder F p. 224 Supplier S 6254, SFT002170
69
   4/7/03 Developer-PM email, Binder H p. 829 Supplier S 5456
70
   1/16/02 USER Pledgemaker Project Rebaseline Executive Summary, statusupdatebinder.pdf p.50-51
71
   10/25/01 Tasks for Karen Developer-PM, Binder D * p. 737-745 Supplier S 7833-41, SFT003813-21
72
   4/23/04 Tasks for Karen Developer-PM, Binder H p. 661-62 Supplier S 5366-67
73
   User B Deposition p. 87
74
   9/12/01 Developer-PM email, Binder C p. 146-47 Supplier S 8092-93, SFT003811-12
75
   10/1/01-10/2/01 Developer-PM email response to Supplier L email, Binder C p. 26-27 Supplier S 7981-
82; attached document in Binder A, pp. 575-578, SFT002672-75, Supplier S 9422-25
76
   10/5/01 Developer-PM email, Binder D p. 896 Supplier S 7939, SFT003690896
77
   7/29/02 Supplier L email, 7/30/02 Developer-PM email, Binder E p. 139 Supplier S 6759
78
    7/28/03 email from Supplier L, 7/27/03 and 7/29/03 emails from Supplier PM, Binder G p. 609-610
Supplier S 5943-44
79
   2/3/04 and 2/4/04 emails between Developer-PM and Supplier L, Binder G p. 566-67 Supplier S 5914-15
80
   4/17/03 Supplier L email to Supplier S, Binder H p.752-56, Supplier S 5384-88
81
   User B Deposition p. 89
82
   Supplier L Deposition p. 74
83
   Supplier L Deposition p. 82
84
   Supplier L Deposition p. 100-101
85
   User H Deposition p. 52
86
   User J Deposition pp. 57-61
87
   Chu Deposition p. 52
88
   User J Deposition p. 122, 125
89
   User B Deposition p. 18, 142
90
   Chu Deposition p. 13-14
91
   User J Deposition p. 124-125
92
   User J Deposition p. 34-35
93
   User B Deposition p. 90, 94
94
   User B Deposition p. 94-96
95
   User B Deposition, p. 88
96
   Supplier L Deposition p. 39
97
   Chu Deposition p. 36
98
   5/29/03 User B email, Binder H p. 129-30 USER 4759-60
99
   10/20/01 Developer-PM email to Supplier L, Binder C p. 38 Supplier S 7992
100
    Amended Claim for Relief, Exhibit A – Revised.1 and Exhibit A – Revised.2
101
    1/16/02 Rebaseline Estimates, statusupdatebinder p. 53, no Bates
102
    User H Deposition p. 69
103
    Smith Deposition p. 16-22


825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                 16                               9/15/2012
                        Exemplar -- Failed System, Supporting Analysis


104
    Supplier L Deposition p. 48
105
    9/18/01 Supplier L email, Binder D p. 809-810 Supplier S 7875-76
106
    9/18/01 Eric Brooks email, Binder C *p. 100 Supplier S 8055




825c9a3c-e154-441f-9023-25ce6620c6c7.doc                  17             9/15/2012

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:9/15/2012
language:English
pages:17