Question 1

i. Factors leading to project failure

 Divergence in the project approach:
There were contrasting viewpoint about the Venso’s project approach. The first executive
overhead by Casper, together with Venso, had signed of an integral system approach
contract while the new executive team viewed it as a modular project. As a result they the
new team did not prioritize direct communication with Venso. Instead they surrendered
Miller negotiate with subcontractor. This matter clearly slowed down the implementation of
the intelligent procurement system.
The methodology of project management was not clearly established and understood by all
parties. Some members were acting arbitrary, imposing new specifications and constantly
changing the constraints on one hand. Others could not stand any modification on
requirement on the other. The situation was confusing, nothing showed if they were
whether using the traditional Water flows or new agile approach.

 Late Identification of need business

The planning team failed to survey and identify the tenants need for e-commerce
technologies earlier. Therefore, they included them so late in the requirement; leaving to
Venso no enough time to develop the product. Additionally, that made it complex to
implementation as some of technologies involved in the intelligent procurement system
were supposed to be embedded from day one in the constriction plan.
This trouble brought them into adding new and removing previous specifications at critical
stage of the project. They also had to frequently alter the project scoop and budget in order
to conform to the new specification. Nevertheless Venso, overwhelmed and under pressure
of time, was not willing to consider such recurrent changes of requirement.

 Miscommunication
As the new executive team failed to understand how integral the procurement system was
to the entire project, they consequently refused to communicate with Miller; setting a
chaotic environment of confusion, misunderstanding and miscommunication among key
team member of the project.
The communication kept on worsening so the Harvest city Corporation even dared to go out
of the contract terms: Without Venso’s knowledge, he allowed an unexperienced third party
to tape into the sensor for setting its fire emergency. This arbitrary access to the system,
might have highly contributed to the Mid-November 2016 incident.
Furthermore, Venso’s complaints about the executive team were simply ignored.
ii. Who is mostly at fault?
John Casper’s most fault was to not be able to identify the need of an intelligent
procurement system in time and try to accommodate everything to fit in the timeline.

1|4
Mayor Andres Thompson’s major fault was to misuse human resources. Instead of hiring a
new CEO, he compensated the resignation of Casper by diving his responsibility in the
remained members, who was already overwhelmed by events.
Harvest Corporation’s was responsible of not take into account of Venso’s tea members
complaints by ignoring them. The worse mistake was to employ a vendor configure the one
of Venso’s product (the Sensor) without previously informing Venso.
As far as I am concerned, I find the Venso CEO Bill Miller the most at fault. Because he
should not have signed such a risky contract with such an unrealistic timeframe. He was
intimidated by John Casper’s persuasive speech, who in the end was now blaming him. He
was not that a proactive manager: He did not assessed risks before engaging whit Harvest
City. Instead he wait for the chaotic situation to start complaining.
Question 2.
i. Identification of the sequence of the problem
1. At the very beginning, in 2010, no Information technology architect part of the task
force to assert all needs
2. In 2013, when the budget and the schedule were being elaborated, still no
specification about IT such as e-commerce was unnoticed.
3. Later in 2014, the management team of the Hotel at Harvest City started being aware
of the need for the hotel to provide a state-of-the-art hotel booking and property
management system. But still no one in Panning team was able to capture this
business need.
4. Only in June 2014, after spending considerable time in searching new sensor,
Internet of things, a vigilant manager could clearly notify the need and inspired the
CEO Casper of the requirement of an intelligent procurement system.
5. In November 2015, Miller reconsidered Venso’s position (influence by Casper) and
signed a risky $21 million contract to develop a “Best in class cloud- and IoT-based
procurement system”.
6. Venso agreed for irrevocable deadlines in the terms of the contract though knowing
the contract was not part of the original timeline. Miller’s awareness of risks did not
stop him from accepting to implement the intelligent procurement system on a
project already constructed.
7. In mid-November 2016, the convention scheduled to hold first national conference
seven weeks the hotel was supposed to begin serving guest.
8. A month later, in December 2015, when Casper resigned due to illness; his
responsibilities were dispatched among the remaining team members instead of
hiring a new CEO
9. After Casper resignation, the new executive team failed to understand the Venso’s
project approach and miscommunicated.
10. In February 2016, an operation team at the convention center requested a change to
intelligence system.
11. In March 2016, the catering vendor for the convention center, requested another
modification in the procurement system.
ii. What could have been done to prevent the problem?

2|4
The business case
Before initiating the project, a business case should have been constructed, capturing all the
business needs in a well-structured written document in order to highlight the knowledge of
deciders. It had then to be verified, approved, and tested as many times as possible by
expert. This would help to elaborate a more detailed, consistent and complete requirement
for the future project.
The proposals
At the beginning of phase 1, before even standing building, the Harvest Corporation
executive team could have send request for the intelligent procurement system implement
to potential developers. The later would have enough time to assess about the feasibility of
the project and send back their respective proposals. In this way, they could include every
aspect on the project in the line time and obviously Venso could start building is product
from day one as require.
Risk management
A Systematic identification analysis and assessment of potential risks would have saved time
and money. Once they agree to start implementation of the intelligent procurement lately,
they would at would at least reconsider the deadline of the opening so to give Venco enough
time to implement a “Best in class” product. In fact the best solution was to imply controls of
events before they happened and not try to react to them when they rise: Proactive
management. And then once they occur, transform them into opportunities rather trying to
ignore them because they will still be there anyway.
iii. What could have been done differently?
To address different event-matters listed in question 2.i, following actions had to be
considered by the executive team:

 Human Resource: To assure continuity and effectiveness of project team member, a

new experiment CEO should have been hired on Casper had resigned due to illness
instead of overloading the remained members with his responsibilities.
 Communication: The executive team should have professionally react the Vencor’s
complains about themselves rather that ignoring then by at considered. They could
at least keep direct communication with Miller to as his project was key in the future
operational the convention Centre. This would help to discuss on what was going
worse and fixe problems. As the miscommunication among teams and stakeholders
involved is one of the main reasons why these problems often arise.
 Accountability: After the incident event of November 2016 an once the delay in
opening was definitely established, blaming each other could not help in the process
of fixing the matter and/or developing new alternative. The best approach to
accountability would be the recognition of charred responsibility among all parties.
This would help them to well construct solution. Transparency and open
communication should have been promoted

3|4
Question 3
As far as each of party has got a responsibility in the delay of the Harvest centre’s opening,
Miller has to be confident that he can prove and demonstrate factors that brought to this
situation including flaws in the overall design as well as the unmethodical change request
approach.
He has right to request an independent investigation about all the events before, during, and
after the emblematic incident of November 2013. He can still demonstrate that Harvest
Centre did not respect the contract terms by approving an arbitrary access to the Venso’s
product that was still being finalised –and without at least previously inform him.
The evidence of an intentional lack of communication can be proved one of impotence
problem that established the situation of chaos. Instead of cancelling the contract that
worth $26 million, he can demonstrate that he was supposed to work in direct collaboration
with the main executive members of the harvest centre but the later almost “knocked him
out”
The least faire option for Miller would be the acknowledgment of his part of responsibility
while pointing out others responsivities as well. In this the penalties will be equally divided
among all parties involved in the Venso contract.
Taking all argument into account, with regards to the above summary, Miller should also
deeply work with his company’s lawyers in order to implement and construct a good
response that the other parties cannot deny. He does stand a good chance of winning the
case either way because of the contract that he had signed with Harvest City Corporation.

4|4