Re: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens

[Greg Keogh]

>
> For those interested in this story, here is some new information regarding
> the audit:
>
> https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/implementing-a-new-infringements-management-system
> I found the following quote from the article particularly interesting:
>
>
> *"DJCS expected VIEW to deliver 90 per cent of its required functionality
> at the go-live date. However, following its launch, it became apparent that
> the vendor had delivered substantially less functionality than DJCS
> expected, which DJCS later estimated to be 5 per cent on go live."*
>

Wow! well found. I only scrolled down the very long page, but it looks like
they bought an off-the-shelf system that needed +70% customisation. They
did not have the IT expertise to know what they were buying or might need
to build. There was no proper manager over the whole thing. Oh! There were
conflicts of interest. Inadequate contract management. Inadequate testing.

As an aside: the article only contains 13 "impacts".

*Greg K*

Re: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens

[DotNet Dude]

For those interested in this story, here is some new information regarding
the audit:

https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/implementing-a-new-infringements-management-system

I found the following quote from the article particularly interesting:

*"DJCS expected VIEW to deliver 90 per cent of its required functionality
at the go-live date. However, following its launch, it became apparent that
the vendor had delivered substantially less functionality than DJCS
expected, which DJCS later estimated to be 5 per cent on go live."*

Crazy stuff.

On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:20 AM DotNet Dude  wrote:

> Very interested to see how this ends up. My sources tell me managers and
> testers are jumping off sinking ship.
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 09:44, mike smith  wrote:
>
>> Reposted, cos it bounced ;)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 13:23 mike smith  wrote:
>>
>>> Another article
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.itnews.com.au/news/fines-victorias-it-woes-force-21m-write-down-534151
>>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 22:44 Ken Schaefer  wrote:
>>>
 This works for building a bridge, when you have “firm foundations” on
 which to build upon aka what are the immovable requirements and
 constraints. Many infrastructure projects run into the same problems as IT
 projects - overruns due to changing requirements, or a lack of due
 diligence re requirements.



 At the same time, analysis has its own costs – the cost of employing
 people to keep examining details, and the opportunity cost of forgone
 benefits deferred.



 What I see a lot of in these messages is casting blame onto other
 people (e.g. PMs in this case). Most PMs work within broader enterprise
 constraints (like confidence around cost/time/effort, in order to get
 funding approved). SMEs need to play their part in ensuring that the right
 level of information goes to PMs, in the broader context of “getting stuff
 done”



 Regards

 Ken



 *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  *On
 Behalf Of *g...@greglow.com
 *Sent:* Monday, 28 October 2019 9:20 AM
 *To:* 'ozDotNet' 
 *Subject:* RE: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens



 I think one of the biggest issues is that so many project managers
 still think you can plan IT projects like you plan building a bridge. The
 difference with a bridge is that you can specify what’s needed, and it’s
 unlikely to change before you finish building the bridge.



 Unfortunately though, that’s also how the people funding it look at it.
 They want to know what it will cost before they start.



 Somehow, we have to get project planning to match reality. At present,
 when there are variations from the plan, that’s seen as a problem, and seen
 as unexpected. But the reality is that it’s totally expected. The problem
 was the idea that bridge-style planning is appropriate.



 Regards,



 Greg



 Dr Greg Low



 1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676
 4913 fax

 SQL Down Under | Web: www.sqldownunder.com
 
  |http://greglow.me
 



 *From:* ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com  *On
 Behalf Of *Ken Schaefer
 *Sent:* Sunday, 27 October 2019 9:38 PM
 *To:* ozDotNet 
 *Subject:* RE: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens



 Depends on how your measure success.



 By the typical bottom-line, most projects aren’t “successes”. However,
 lots of organisations have:

1. Arbitrary limits on how much contingency can be included – which
then doesn’t reflect the true level of uncertainty in the project
2. Requirements change
3. Vendors, systems integrators etc. go bust, change direction or
what-have-you
4. Your project competes with everyone else’s for scarce capital,
so everyone has an incentive to downplay cost, and upsell benefits
5. Technological cost estimates can be done relatively accurately,
but large-scale projects include significant organisational change 
 which is
much harder to estimate/cost up-front.



 By my guess, about 15-20% of large IT projects ($50-100m+) are
 successful. 

DNN skills

[David Connors]

Does anyone on the list have good DNN skills?

David Connors
da...@connors.com | M +61 417 189 363
Telegram: https://t.me/davidconnors
LinkedIn: http://au.linkedin.com/in/davidjohnconnors