The decision to implement the project
Many projects have failed because of the last obstacle poor planning implementation or inadequate analysis immediately prior to go-live. And 'responsibility of the Project Manager in order to ensure that implementation was planned and communicated to all parties, and that sufficient due diligence is carried out before the project proceeds. This second point is often overlooked. Many project managers put together some form of implementation plan of the project or plan 'cutover' still fail to make the necessary rigorous analysis to determine if they should proceed. This article focuses on this analysis - what is called the 'decision go-live'.
The go-live decision or not is not to be taken lightly; It is undoubtedly one of the most important decisions in the life cycle of the project and mistakes can compromise the success of the whole project.
The implementation of a project may not all right result in:
- defects fixed
- inadequate testing
- insufficient training
- business processes not understand
- the procedures unwritten
- Stakeholders lose
- the lack of communications
- failure to migrate data
- Interfaces not work
- system administration and does not support on-site
- commercial areas not ready for changes
- there are no contingencies in place
- Workflows and exceptions untracked
- no backup and disaster recovery in place
- inadequate security system
- clear responsibilities, responsibilities and ownership
- inadequate implementation strategy
and at the end ...
- system / non-application
- Impact for the company / organization
- the failure of the project
While the Project Manager is always under pressure to deliver on time, sometimes it is prudent for them to step back and delay go-live rather than risk the consequences of a steaming ahead.
What due diligence should be done?
The project should ideally ensure an independent resource to perform the evaluation readiness. If the analysis is performed by the Project Manager, or persons closely associated with the project, there is the risk of bias or influence from the pressure to implement on time. Using an independent resource ensuring a degree of impartiality and thus credibility in decision-making. And 'also useful to get the perspective of an outsider, especially if it is from someone with years of experience and knowledge of the project. well-funded projects often employ outside consultants to carry out checks and healthchecks throughout the project life cycle, including evaluations go-live readiness.
Unfortunately, not all projects have the means or desire to use consultants, and therefore need to use internal staff. In this case it is best to use a resource with previous project experience (for example, another project manager), but with no vested interest in the outcome of the project. This improves the chances of an objective outcome and recommendations. Remember that it is in the interest of the project manager to get an honest assessment of where the project is really, any serious deficiencies must be either directed or attenuated before go-live. If the assessment result is predetermined or intentionally tilted, there is little point in making the evaluation!
If you can not guarantee an independent internal resource to rate readiness, the Project Manager can do yourself. However they need to make sure that they give an honest account of the situation, ask questions looking for people and not to hide problems. These assessments should never be conducted without broad consultation, as it is essential to talk to as many people as possible to the project to find out the real state of play. Some people can hide problems or just tell you the positives. It 'important to get the' good and bad 'view, as all the important issues and roadblocks have to be discovered and addressed before making a decision.
Checklist Implementation
What should be the assessment cover? Rather than starting from scratch, it is easier to use a checklist Implementation . This provides a starting point, based on the best common practice, and ensures that you do not miss any key areas in your review. Use what is in the checklist to prompt questions and controls that may be relevant to the project.
The project does not tick all the boxes to proceed, and there is no required score or pass / fail mark. However, if there are several gaps evident the decision becomes quite obvious. The checklist helps to identify significant gaps and deficiencies to be addressed prior to go-live. It can also provide support for additional funds or resources if a particular area needs addressing. The checklist should support decision-making, rather than provide the basis for a decision. Who makes the decision (usually a steering committee) must also consider the bigger picture and include other factors such as external pressure, the urgency of proceeding, appetite for risk, the consequences of delays, etc ...
, though significant gaps are identified, it is usually much better for all concerned to delay implementation until these deficiencies have been addressed / mitigated. The implications and costs of a go-live failed or troublesome are often much worse than a minor delay in the program. The only exception to this is if there is a non-negotiable date of implementation (for example, a response to the legislative changes that have to be in by a certain date). In this case the cracks of the checklist should be given priority and dealt with in order of importance and the ability to solve. In this case going-live the steering committee would essentially accepting the risks identified in the assessment, on the basis that meet the implementation date is more important to mitigate the risks and to have a smooth go-live.
0 Komentar