Introduction

Lassiters problems can be highlighted clearly in his shortcomings based on the

Essence Graph. This graph is based on what was assumed to be included in
Lassiters Scope as well as conducted activities of the project. Upon dissection of
these various criteria one can posture as to why this project was doomed to
failure.

There were a number of deficiencies which predisposed the rollout of the Unitrak
tool to not being successful.

Stakeholders
200

Way of Working

Opportunity

100
Target
0
Work

Score
Requirements

Team

Software System

As can be clearly seen in figure 1, There are severe deficiencies in the manner in
which the following as seen above:
1. Stakeholders Stakeholder Management
2. Way of Working - The tailored set of practices and tools used by the team
members to guide and support their work
3. Work Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve
a result
4. Team The group of people actively engaged in the development,
maintenance, delivery or support of a specific software system
5. Software System A system made of software, hardware, and data that
provides its primary value from the execution of that software
6. Opportunity The set of circumstances that makes it appropriate to
develop or change a software system

The perception as indicated from the information in the textbook case study was
that some criteria for Opportunity was met, but not adequately.

Whereas if we look at Requirements then we have effectively met those

required conditions. In the following sections we will discuss each of these
requirements for a successful development and implementation of a software
system.

Stakeholders
In order for Lassiter to get extensive and solid buy-in to this project, this should
have been his first port of call. This project required a Top-Down approach. This
intimates that the change initiative will be initiated and enforced from the top of
the Organizational Hierarchy and pushed to the bottom (Lidman S, 2013).

Management buy-in was therefore required by Lassiter in order to push out his
agenda through the organization. He needed to build horizontal coalitions in
order to successfully execute. Horizontal coalitions are described as the forming
of relationships with peers at the same/similar level in the organizational
hierarchy.

Successful Stakeholder management come s from the principals of knowing your

Stakeholders and thereby knowing their pain-points, engaging with ALL those
Stakeholders identified as early as possible, Listening as openly, transparently
and attentively as possible, communicating extensively, Use policies to
encourage rather than enforce and Create communities and forums to share
knowledge and experiences (Sharma R, 2008: 1).

This approach follows the Stakeholder Management Cycle which consists of:
Identifying, recognising and acknowledging stakeholders, Analysing and
understanding the responsibility, contribution, commitment and support of each
stakeholder, Planning and scheduling any activities that need to be performed to
ensure effective participation, commitment and support, develop the action plan,
Monitoring the outcomes, reviewing the stakeholder analysis and, plan and
taking corrective action. (Archer L, 2003)

Identifying, Recognising and Acknowledging Stakeholders

This is a requisite step in order to engage these entities in the upcoming

endeavour. Without effectively identifying these stakeholders there is a greater
opportunity for miscommunication resulting in failure of execution. There are 3
types of stakeholders that should be identified in this project:
1. Enabling Stakeholders These are the people that allow the project to be
undertaken. Member of this group can include the Board of Directors, as in
the case study, The project sponsor (Wallingford). It is basically the people
that enable this endeavour by allocating financial capital towards it.
2. Project Stakeholders These are the people in the project that have a
direct bearing on the execution and rollout of the project and its
deliverables. They are from various aspects in business and lend their
various skill sets to the value of the project.
3. Business Stakeholders These are the individuals in the project that will
reap the benefit and directly engage with the value that the project yields.
The project relies on the input from business as well as the system output
which these stakeholders will ultimately consume.
(Archer L, 2003)

Analysis
In order to identify any of the above stakeholders, one must identify anyone
whose interests may be affected or touched at any point during the intended
systems rollout of use. A stakeholder will be someone that has engagement,
participation (direct/indirect), influence on the project, any party that may impact
on the project regardless of whether they need to be communicated with.
(Identify Stakeholders, 2009: 71)
There are multiple methods of identifying and documenting these stakeholders
including templates and methodologies. These can be utilized in order to
formalize and communicate the individuals or groups required to execute this
project successfully.
The benefits of Stakeholder Management and Analysis is:
-

The most influential stakeholders perspectives can influence the path and
a success of any project such as Lassiters. The earlier this is done the
better the quality as well as the greater the efficiency.
The Top-Down approach as discussed will also enable the provisioning of
resources from these influential stakeholders
Early Support from these identified stakeholders is imperative for the
system success. The more they are included and engaged, the more their
understanding and backing

Understanding who your stakeholders are also allows you to understand

what these individuals or groups require. This will enable you to forge
relationships and strategize how to approach these people in order to
glean their full support

(Thompson R, 2011: 1)

Planning
Once the stakeholders have been identified and this has been communicated to
all relevant, planning of the project activities can be conducted. These activities
that are documented and circulated to all relevant stakeholders give a heavy
commitment in writing to all stakeholders involved. This makes the process open
and transparent and all stakeholders now understand where they stand with
relative to the project (guideline-stakeholder-management.pdf).

The plan will be developed and made available to the public or the relevant
stakeholders. This plan document will be incorporated as part of the project plan
or related documents and would comprise of 3 elements:
1. Project Goals The plan must identify and satisfy the end goals of the
development
2. Project Methods Details such as project costs, schedules, resources,
testing etc. must be supplied and alternative methods for project success
3. Project Risks Risks must be identified and mitigated against. This is a
continuous and iterative process
(Bourda F, 2013: 8)

Commitment and Support

Without stakeholder commitment and support, such as what occurred in this
case study, would occur every time. Support and commitment ensure that all
relevant parties are aligned and understand the purpose and outcome of the
project.

Stephen Covey says The process of building total stakeholder commitment is

challenging. Stakeholders have needs in conflict: employees want more pay,
shareholders want higher dividends, and customers want lower prices and higher
service levels. It is difficult for any one stakeholder group, even departments
within the same organisation, to appreciate or understand each other's needs

and how they must all work together to maximise the long-term benefit for all."
(Voge W, 2009).

Figure 2: Patterson-Conner Commitment Curve

Source: Nortjie Y, 2014

The above figure depicts the sentiment that Covey is conveying. In order to
secure the support and commitment of your target audience once would
naturally and purposefully go through this progression as shown here in Figure 2.
Continuous feedback loops together with communications will ensure maximum
commitment and support for this development (Nortjie Y, 2014).

An effective stakeholder support strategy is one that increases the support

steadily throughout the project. IT also serves to placate negative sentiment
towards the development.

Develop an Action Plan

The execution of the project should naturally proceeds from the planning stage of
the cycle. By seeing the plan coming to head, the support grows at this stage as
it cements the stakeholders into the project and their roles in the project.
According to Bourda F, 2013: 10, these activities could include:
-

Continuous communication with all relevant parties to let them know the
progression of the project
Relevant information from the stakeholders that would benefit the overall
strength of the project

Expectation Management
Relevant Stakeholders are involved in every aspect of the project including
decisions, developments, risks, etc.

Some of the obstacles that Lassiter encountered can be found in the list below.
These are the fundamental risks he ran without addressing:
-

Inadequate Project information communicated

Stakeholders not sufficiently involved in the project from the outset
Lack of commitment/ unavailable to the project
The stakeholders are not comfortable with the proposed changes due to
job security, involvement etc.
Inadequate authority in the given project to influence the outcomes
Insufficient skill sets
Team/ personality conflict
Reservations of the said vendor to perform the given required functions

(Bourda F, 2013: 11)

Once identified, these obstacles can then be assessed and included in the project
documentation.

Monitoring the Outcomes and taking Corrective Actions

This is an iterative process performed in order to sustain the stakeholders
commitment and support to the project. This step closes the loop in terms of the
Stakeholder Management Cycle. By addressing these findings positively these
allay fears and enforces support. Confidence grows when it is evident that there
is open acknowledgment of challenges and an action plan to alleviate and
resolve these challenges. (EntSol-Whitepaper-Stakeholder-Management-07131.pdf)

Table 1: Stakeholder Feedback Tool (Bourda F, 2013: 15)

This step is also used to realign expectations, outcomes etc. of the project
without fundamentally changing its initial purpose. If there are drastic changes in
the realignment then these are referred to as exceptions and should be
managed, communicated and agreed upon by the significant, influential
stakeholders (Archer L, 2003).
Table 1 shows the various methods that can be utilized in order to solicit
feedback in order to take corrective actions or monitor the progress of the
project and communicate it to various organizational stakeholders.

Way of Working
According to the SEMAT Essence Model, Ways of Working is described as A
tailored set of tools used by the team members to guide and support their work.
How does the team plan on achieving their objective?

According to the manner in which Lassiter rant his project, this was also a major
deficiency scoring little or nothing on the Essence Alpha Cards. We will look at
the numerous facets of this function and see as to what could have been done to
pass it.

Principles Established
Lassiter did not get the active support of his team. His first mistake was he had
not formally identified and communicated who his team was in the first place.
With this stakeholder identification and communication, there was no support. He
has also not drawn out or documented any of the principles required in order for
the team to collaborate and work towards a single goal.

From the outset this was a disparate team with little or no direction and
commitment to the project. Communication was unidirectional and
asynchronous, meaning that most or all of Lassiters communication was with
the upper echelon of the organizational hierarchy. He communicated effectively
to the Board of Directors and that is how he acquired the capital for this project.

There was no evolution of the project, rather he developed an idea of which he

thought was good. He eloquently stated this to the board from a financial aspect
but then he lacked the organizational skills in order to formalize and run this
endeavour through the organization. He did not involve the key influencers and
role players in the project from the outset. Lassiter should have identified and
then involved all influencers in this project from the formulation of the thought of
this kind of project. Without the proper buy-in and personnel, this project would
not succeed.

There was no methodology or continuous assessment used on this project.

Lassiter had a single goal, objective and methodology in mind was not prepared
for deviations or exceptions to this project. Because of the exceptions
encountered he did not know how to handle it, chose to ignore it and rant the
project to the ground. There should have been a continuous assessment of this
project with a defined schedule, timelines, resources and risks. These should
have all been communicated and feedback loops should have been in place to
solicit project progress at all levels of the organization. The lack of a feedback
loop and progress updates hindered progress as well as adaptation to challenges
which then led to a lack of continuous improvement.

The ownership was taken solely by Lassiter himself which can be seen by the
comment from Hedges Go ahead and purchase the software, Hedges told
Lassiter. Its your system anyway.. (pg 15 textbook). There was little or no
collaboration or agreement with the team until it was time for the actual
execution of implementing the system.
The organizational policies and standards set within the company were also
immature. The case study mentions that Lassiter reviewed the processes within
the Sales and Marketing functions and found shortcomings. There is no mention
that these were rectified. We can therefore assume that Lassiter tried to
implement a computer/software application without first establishing formalized
Processes and procedures in which to superimpose into the required system. This
should have been the one of the first tasks Lassiter should have looked at before
deciding on which system to uptake and implement.
Without going through a formal methodology and systematic reviews and team
communication and collaboration, risks and challenges were never identified or
documented. As a result these risks could not be mitigated. Something as
fundamental as Koveckis leave was unanticipated and led to a lag time in the
delivery of the project. We could also look at the nature of the security holes that
were overlooked by Lassiter due to a lack of communication and collaboration.

Work

SEMAT describes work as Activity involving mental or physical effort done in

order to achieve a result. There is also a sever deficiency in this function.

Again, this function looks at Team work and collaboration within the project
environment and its stakeholders. The result is solely based on all the work done
by the team to achieve a specific result, i.e. implement a piece of software
required to meet certain business needs across business to optimize and
streamline operations and decision making. Silos were formed due to a lack of
communication and collaboration. Business stakeholders, as a result, were
fragmented or not involved in the project. There was no alignment in the
approach and the required outcome of the project.

There was no planning done by Lassiter. This should have been done in
conjunction with influencers and relevant business stakeholders. Planning would
have evolved and involved business in the project from the outset. It would have
bred greater Project buy-in. As a result of the participation of the team and the
lack of planning, the team was not aware of the timelines, tasks and schedules
that were expected and stipulated.

There was no set methodologies or principles laid out for the team to follow. This
was a haphazard way of executing Lassiters thoughts without the proper scoping
documentation or structured method of Project rollout.

A lack of a structured methodology or even a project plan did not allow the team
to have visibility of the ultimate outcome of the project or manner in which it will
be achieved. Tasks were not assigned, estimated or tracked as there was no tool
or mechanism to track this. As a result, resources were unallocated or
unavailable in order to perform certain tasks and meet the due date as promised
by Lassiter to the Board.

A well-drawn up schedule or scoping of work would have allowed resources to be

allocated, risks to be identified, and tasks to be undertaken concurrently if
possible rather than sequentially. A critical path could have been established and
the project may well have been delivered within budget and in time.

Team

Bibliography:
Lidman S, 2013. The Essence of Software Engineering: The SEMAT Kernel.
[Online]. Available At: https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2389616. [Online].
Accessed: 13/05/2015
Anderson N, 2014. Top-Down or Bottom-Up Approaches to Successful Change.
[Online]. Available At: http://www.tbointl.com/blog/top-down-or-bottom-upapproaches-to-successful-change. [Online]. Accessed: 13/05/2015
Sharma R, 2008: The 6 Principles of Stakeholder Management, Reed Business
Information: SCMR: 1-10
Archer L, 2003: Stakeholder Management Guideline, Laurence Archer: 3-11
2009, Identify Stakeholders: Chapter 7: 71
Thompson R, 2011, Stakeholder Analysis, Mindtools: 1
Bourda R, 2013, Effective Stakeholder Management, TCS, India
Voge W, 2009. Stakeholder Commitment: Why Is It Important?. [Online].
Available At: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/stakeholder-commitment-why-is-itimportant.php. [Online]. Accessed: 13/05/2015

http://www.tbointl.com/blog/top-down-or-bottom-up-approaches-to-successfulchange
media.12.pdf
guideline-stakeholder-management.pdf
stakeholder_analysis.pdf
stakeholder_engagement.pdf
http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/stakeholder-commitment-why-is-it-important.php
Nortjie Y, 2014, Stakeholder Engagement and Commitment. [Online]. Available
At: http://www.intuategroup.com/_resources/pagename/stakeholder-engagementand-commitment/. Accessed: 13/05/2015