Project Failure

The failure and withdrawal of the clinical system from The new south Wales project in 1996 was an unfortunate yet an eye opener to organization implementing complex system like the NSW project. The NSW shows areas of incompatibility in their implementation strategy. The case study vividly outlines and fits into the sculpture of the theories of failure outlined by Saucer [1996] and Lyytinen and Hirschheim[1987].Saucer’s theory of failure emphasis on failure due to different perspectives from different users, it stresses the need to balance 3 keys factors; system, supporters and social organizations. Links to lack of some of these key elements in the strategy is evident in the case of the NSW, which will be discussed in detail later in the report. Lyytinen and Hirschheim [1987] failure theory on the other hand categories failure in 3 different facets being interaction correspondence and process failure. All these failures appear in the NSW implementation process. Having said that, it is without doubt that the ideas of these failure theories greatly explain certain ideas in the case study.

System incapability with intended users
The initial system of the NSW clearly did not meet its user’s requirement, which in turn led to a correspondence failure. The degree in which employees take part in the implementation development is very important. Clinicians resisted the system because they felt that it did not perform any relevant work for them and hardly matched with their roles.

There was also a process failure in NSW project because the sites were insisting change to suit their needs where as the central control was being reluctant to allow such changes to occur. The process failure occurred in the form of delay and these many changes resulted in and a budget-blow out which is a form of a process failure too. It is clear that with such misfit between strategy and the decentralized structure, correspondence or interaction failure and eventually a process failure