Is there evidence in the case to demonstrate that JLE planners and management used the systems approach or systems engineering? In your discussion, consider the following: JLE as a “system,” stakeholders’ identification and needs identification, requirements definition, interface management, and system operation.

Other contributors were the differences in contracts and resulting ambiguities over roles and responsibilities of the involved parties. Two kinds of contracts were used; one was based upon payment schedules and milestones, the other upon design and performance specifications. These differences later proved incompatible.
JLEP required significant design changes throughout the project; many of them were poorly controlled and managed or were approved post facto. Differences between early proposed designs and working design drawings were poorly communicated, and many designs were “frozen” by engineering and architectural groups even though elements of the design were still in the conceptual stage. Construction contractors were minimally involved in the design. The project team faced political pressure to complete JLE in time to serve as a main transport link to the Millennium Dome, which was then in construction. Consequently, it set an overly ambitious project deadline of 53 months.
The project was managed through the project director, project manager, and a large project team. Contractors were chosen independently, and interfaces between them were not defined.
This led to confusion and left the project team with the substantial task of managing all contractor interfaces and coordinating their work. Substantial changes in design and lack of clear targets and milestones led to difficulties in monitoring progress and applying the milestone payment system.