Business Process Projects (modifying, developing or acquiring software and/or hardware) range from small, simple and quick to large, complex and time-consuming. Projects that are larger and more complex represent greater levels of risk, which must be managed. Although the technologies involved and the applications may vary greatly, multiple projects may be compared according to four key dimensions: size, degree of definition, technology familiarity, and organizational readiness. Below are some questions related to each dimension: Size: How big is this project? (e.g., human resource requirements, lines of code, function points) How much will it cost? Can it be carved into smaller, more manageable sub-projects? Degree of definition: Is this project well-defined? Are the inputs, outputs and data requirements clear? How much do we have to build ourselves? Can we buy some of the necessary software off-the- shelf? To what extent can structure be imposed on this project? Technology Familiarity:Are the necessary hardware, software and network tools new to us? If so, can we hire? people who have the necessary expertise? How about the vendor(s) involved? Do they have a successful track record with these technologies? Organizational Readiness: Do we have previous experience with similarly complex projects? Do we have strong IS leadership? Senior management backing? A partnership with internal audit? Are the members of the team motivated? Can they be trained in the necessary technical and team skills? How important or necessary is this project? The above questions can help auditors or managers identify the risks associated with a particular project, and possible measures to reduce or control those risks. Use this framework to think about the current case. What risks did they face? What measures could they have put in place before implementing the system and throughout the system deployment?

Payroll systems flunk first exams Rushed software installations and inadequate end-user training are being fingered as the use of major payroll snafus at public schools in Philadelphia and Orlando -- and observers said corporate users who plan to install new payroll systems can learn some important lessons from the problems. In Philadelphia, a new $26 million computer system is, among other things, issuing paychecks to dead and retired teachers but withholding money from workers who are very much alive. The Orlando schools have had similar problems with a $10.8 million system, resulting in missing or incorrect paychecks and the inability to pay teachers for extra jobs such as coaching sports. In both cities, the problems are being blamed more on implementation issues than on shortcomings in the payroll applications that are being used -- SAPAG's R/3 in Orlando and Fairfax, Va.-based American Management Systems Inc.'s (AMS) Advantage software system in Philadelphia. School officials in the two cities said faulty data entry and missing data are causing many of the headaches. We have no problems getting paychecks to all employees when the information has been properly inputted into the system," said Herb Schectman, acting finance director for the Philadelphia schools. The AMS software "is working exactly as it should," he said. But in the rush to get the system up and running in time for the start of school, payroll information and other data for many new teachers either wasn't entered or was plagued by errors, Schectman added. Loretta Crea, a senior secretary who tracks payroll data at the city's Edward W. Bok Technical High School, said three days of new system training -- which users were called back from summer vacation to attend -- weren't very helpful. "Most of our questions were unanswered rather than answered. They told us they just didn't have the answers," Crea said. Joe Mittiga, a spokesman for the Orlando schools, said not enough testing was done there to ensure that all of the payroll data needed from its 15-year-old mainframe system would get converted over to R/3. Also, payroll clerks who used to fill out paper time sheets now enter data directly into the SAPsystem. Mittiga said that has resulted in data-quality problems, due partly to changes made to the new system after workers were trained. Corporate users face the same issues when they put in payroll applications, said Lyle Smith, director of global compensation and project manager for a new corporate human resources system at PPGIndustries Inc. in Pittsburgh. "Alot of companies get into trouble when they try to shortcut (things). They go live before they know if they've worked out all the kinks," said Smith. PPG is in the final stages of rolling out its new system, which is now handling payroll for 31,000 employees at 38 plants. Smith said the $7.5 billion maker of glass and other products runs Oracle's software and its old mainframe system in parallel for eight weeks at each plant to make sure nothing goes awry. It also centralized data entry on hirings, promotions and other personnel changes because of fears that it couldn't get human resources workers in the plants trained in time. "We may send that back out later, but there was just the possibility of too many errors," Smith said. Big payroll systems are inherently complex, said Jim Holincheck, an analyst at Giga Information Group Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. "And it's so visible when you screw up," he added. "That's the problem." In Philadelphia, which has 30,000 school employees, hundreds of teachers and other workers on the job since September have yet to receive their first paycheck, according to Barbara Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. About 1,000 of Orlando's 20,000 employees didn't get paychecks at first, though Mittiga said that was reduced to just one in the latest payroll run.

Robert Salvucci, head of SAP's public sector and education unit, said some changes are being made to R/3 to help fix the problems in Orlando. For example, SAP is creating new reports that are supposed to help catch data-entry errors. Required: A. How would you characterize the system conversion to a computerized payroll system in (1) terms of size? (2) degree of definition? (3) technology familiarity? (4) organizational readiness? B. Based on the principles laid out in chapters 5 and the systems development life cycle lecture, discuss 3 specific steps that the public school officials should have taken (but apparently did not) in converting to the computerized payroll systems. clearly explain why each step would have improved the system development/acquisition/implementation process. C. What exposures in the payroll systems resulted? What control measures should the public school systems have taken to prevent, detect, or correct the payroll system applications' problems (not the development of the payroll system) that they experienced? D. Identify controls that should have been in place to prevent, detect or correct the payroll systems application problems (not the development of the payroll system)