Hello,

This is an old story.
Having done some change management in my career, I look more to primary
cause than the symptoms. If you were going to implement a change in your
organization, say convert your payroll procedures to
electronic/digital/paperless, you would not hand the conversion to your
payroll office. You would seek input from the payroll office but manage it
separately.

There was a Federal agency some years ago that was ordered to convert to
electronic record processes in order to reduce operating costs, increase
efficiency, speed the processes, and reduce mistakes. The project was well
funded and scoped. The project failed. The root cause, IMO, was that it was
not in the perceived interest of the people working in the agency to be
successful. There is a great deal of fear that implementation would lead to
the loss of their jobs. This is not unreasonable given the scope of change.
Ultimately the project was moved outside the direct control of the agency
and the conversion was achieved.

Change today is viewed as an incredible risk by those performing work. In
the past, if your job was lost do to changes in the organization, you
simply found another job. Today it is not so easy. If you are looking to
create the efficiencies possible by change, you must factor in, more than
ever, the push back of those directly impacted.

Organizational change is never easy. SAP has been at this game a long time.
My hunch is they did due diligence on their end. Cost over runs, missed
deadlines, failed processes, can usually be traced back to those being
asked to change. Whether there is risk to their job or they just "feel"
threatened, critical information will be left out. Whether intentionally or
not those in the mix will push back. Now more than ever.

Contrary to the Wiki definition of IG, one of our roles is to help manage
the changes that are coming our way, regardless of ht esource.

Chris Flynn

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Larry Medina <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> I was in the process of posting the GAO Report provided by Bruce White as
> it came up... funny how the more things change, the more they stay the
> same.
>
> Anyone read this (or the similar stories on FBI, NARA, other Fed Agencies)
> report and STILL wonder why the Government is in financial peril?  Sure
> there are other issues, but 10s and 100s of millions of dollars spent on
> failed deployments of technology due to a lack of planning up-front and
> continued reliance on Contractors that have proven their inability to
> effectively manage projects is a HUGE financial drain!
>
> There's a perfect example in CA right now where a deployment of a payroll
> system went HORRIBLY and CA has elected to suspend payments until things
> are made right...
>
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236662/California_ends_contract_with_SAP_over_troubled_IT_project?taxonomyId=72
>
> There is a lot of finger pointing going on right now, but CA is applying
> the Golden Rule (he who holds the gold makes the rules) for the time
> being... something the Feds don't seem to be able/willing to do.
>
> Larry
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --
> *Lawrence J. Medina
> Danville, CA
> RIM Professional since 1972*
>
> List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
> Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
> To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already
> present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the
> message.
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]