Wed Apr 13 11:29:04 NZST 2005
At 10:55 13/04/2005, you wrote:
> From what I understand INCIS was a failure due to poor project
>management and "Scope Creep", INCIS is also not the first failure the
>government has produced and will not be the last.
>Several studies also firmly pointed the blame finger back at the
>government on it.
There is ample material available (publicly) that discusses the INCIS
situation in comprehensive detail.
Have you read the report of the Ministerial Inquiry into INCIS? For those
who are interested, you can access the PDF report here:
or the HTML report here:
A response to your statement "... INCIS was a failure due to poor project
management and 'Scope Creep'" is found in the Executive Summary:
"The reasons why the INCIS Project did not achieve its objectives were
numerous, interrelated and complex but they were not unique to the Police
and there were other examples both in Government and private enterprise
business in New Zealand and overseas. No single cause resulted in the
failure but the combined effect of the causes meant that INCIS would almost
certainly fail." -- Executive Summary,
However, if you contrast the Executive Summary with part of the
Relationship with Primary Contractor exposition, it is easy to understand
why the project was doomed from the outset:
"IBM appears to have accepted and proceeded within the limits of the
technology and architecture specified in the Request for Tender (RFT) and
Request for Proposal (RFP). However, in particular, having regard to the
Sapphire report, it is reasonable to assume that IBM should have known that
key elements of the technology and architecture were unproven in an
application of this size and complexity. The Sapphire report indicates that
IBM advised that a distributed object computing environment was impossible
to achieve and admitted that, in respect of its Object Oriented Iterative
Development Methodology, it had very little practical experience on any
project, let alone one the size and complexity of the INCIS Project. IBM
was also unable to demonstrate the process manager." -- Section 8.2,
Perhaps IBM assume that practical experience is an unnecessary or unrelated
qualifier when attempting a complex project?
I have personally been involved in a project where IBM was also the Primary
Contractor and where things turned pear-shaped. In that case that project
was abandoned after it had been running for ~20 months. Perhaps I have
become cynical? However when it comes to complex projects, cynicism saves a
good deal of money when compared to optimism, and truck-loads full of cash
when compared to blind optimism.
More information about the wlug
NOTICE: This is an archive of a public mailing list. The University of Waikato is not responsible for its contents.