Hello im looking for someone to analyse the case study i attached ,its related to information management system im not only looking for answers of questions i want to analyse all aspects of that in information management system i want analyse all case study

determining that Phase 2 and Phase 3 application re- leases were stable. transfer of essential knowledge for the entire project, DLI staff had approved IBM's representation of a loss of *project memory " Since the UCMS project's business system requirements without fully under- start, 638 different contractors and staff members standing what they were approving. IBM's software worked on the project. The majority of the project development and testing program for this project workforce spent less than one year on the project lacked rigor. This resulted in a higher number of and 75 percent spent less than 2 years, All of these software defects than industry norms, software code discontinuities and workforce churn most likely con- tributed to IBM's schedule delays and inability to pro- that was excessively complex (which makes testing vide an accurate picture of the state of the project. wo difficult), and late discovery of missing business Work on Pennsylvania's UC system contin- requirements. ued without IBM. In 2013, the Pennsylvania The vast majority of the software defects were Legislature passed Act 34, which created a Services serious, and 50 percent were not discovered until Infrastructure Improvement Fund (SIIF) as a tem- the User Acceptance test, very late in the system porary supplemental funding source to improve development cycle. Without thorough and complete UC services and systems. A total of $178.4 million testing throughout the development process, there was authorized and spent during calendar years is no way to know how many of the total defects re- 2013 through 2016. Even then the project stumbled. siding in software will be discovered as a system is Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene A. DePasquale being used. Carnegie Mellon also found that IBM had initiated an audit in January 2017 to determine how not performed a stress test to determine the perfor- the $178 million in SIIF funds were spent. The audi- mance limits of the UCMS system. tors found that DLI did not use proper accounting IBM's software development plan was supposed to methods to record specific SIIF expenditures, DLL use industry and company standards and practices, comingled unemployment compensation administra- but there was no ongoing discipline to execute these tive funds from all sources, including federal funds standards and practices during the project. DLI ac- for unemployment compensation administration and cepted Phase 2 prematurely for production in March interest on unemployment compensation tax money 2011 with known defects impacting system perfor- as well as outlays from SHE mance, including software defects, unresolved data On a more positive note, there were noticeable conversion issues, and problems with batch process- improvements and elficiencies from 2013 through ing operations. 2016 in services provided to UC claimants and in UC A project of this complexity and magnitude re- system infrastructure. For example, the percentage quires a high degree of continuity in knowledge of first payments paid promptly increased from 81.6 throughout the system development cycle, but this percent to 93.4 percent, However, DLI was unable to was never achieved. During requirements determi show how exactly the SIIF expenditures contributed nation, DLI didn't have enough user subject matter to these outcomes. experts to participate in joint application design When SIIF furiding was not reauthorized and (JAD; see Chapter 13) sessions with technical mem. supplemental funding ended in December 2016, DLI bets of the project team, Thirty-six JAD subcontract was forced to cut $57 5 million from its UC adminis- lots were prematurely removed from the project, trative budget for 2017, causing the immediate clo- leaving IBM with incomplete understanding of sure of three of the state's eight UC service centers in unemployment claims processing business require- December 2016 and the elimination of 521 positions. ments, System design and testing staff were not in- Customer service declined significantly with claim- cluded in the JAD process, running counter to sound ants not being able to get through on the phone lines business practice. Including them was essential to and delays in processing claims. ensure UC business requirements were defined in Despite earlier setbacks, DLI is determined to sufficient detail to be testable. DLI staff often ap- complete the modernization of its unemployment proved JAD requirements documents and Detailed compensation benefits delivery system, In June System Design documents under pressure to meet 2017, DLI signed a $35 million contract with Florida- short deadlines for approval. based Geographic Solutions to create a system that Incffective project management and constant enhances customer service, improves quality, is more changes in the contractor's workforce prevented operationally efficient, and is sustainable into thefuture. Geographic Solutions specializes in design- Sources: www.geographicsolutions.com, accessed January 3. ing, developing, and maintaining web-based systems 2018; www.cagdelivers.com, accessed January 3, 2018; Jan for the workforce development and unemployment Murphy, "Take Two: Labor & Industry Tries Again to Modernize Jobless Benefits Computer System, " Penn Live, June 23, 2017; insurance industries and has developed over 80 work- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor force systems for state and local agencies across the General, "Performance Audit Report: Pennsylvania Department United States. Geographic Solutions was scheduled to of Labor and Industry Service and Infrastructure Improvement Fund (SIIF)," April 2017; and Constance Bennett, Nanette begin work on the system on August 1, 2017 with a Brown, Julie Cohen, Dr. Betsy Clark, Jeff Davenport, Eric projected 18 to 24 months for completion. Ferguson, John Gross, Michael H. Mclendon, and Gregory Such, In 2015, DLI had hired Chicago-based CSG "Independent Assessment of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Modernization System Program Government Solutions for $6.1 million to assist (UCMS)," Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering with planning for and monitoring this project, CSG Institute, July 2013. specializes in planning, managing, and supporting complex projects that modernize the information CASE STUDY QUESTIONS technology and business processes of large govern- ment programs. CSG analyzed existing systems 14-13 Assess the importance of the Unemployment and workflows, developed the project strategy and Compensation Modernization System project technology roadmap, and gathered business and for the state of Pennsylvania, technical requirements to develop an RFP. CSG also 14-14 Why was unemployment compensation mod- established a full-service Project Management Office ernization a risky project in Pennsylvania? to monitor project progress, and is providing techni- Identify the key risk factors. cal oversight, UC subject matter expertise, require- 14-15 Classify and describe the problems encoun ments management, and testing support throughout tered by the UCMS projects. What manage- ment, organization, and technology factors the system modernization. Once the new system has were responsible for these problems? been fully implemented, cost savings from benefit modernization are estimated to range from 5 to 10 14-16 What could have been done to mitigate the risks of these projects? percent of total UC administrative costs.Pennsylvania's Unemployment Compensation Modernization System: Unfinished Business CASE STUDY T he Pennsylvania Department of Labor and there was responsibility on both sides for system Industry (DLI) is responsible for the admin. performance and service delivery, How did all of this istration and operation of the state's unam- happen? ployment compensation program, which provides Phase 1 of UCMS ( wage records) was implemented temporary Income to replace lost wages for quall- In May 2008. Phase 2, which included the employer fied workers DLI employs over 500 people and tax portion of the system, went live in March 2011 has approximately 200 offices statewide to serve but required additional work, which took years to fix. Pennsylvania's 6.4 million workers and nearly Phase 3 for benefit claims processing, payment, and 300,000 employers. Unemployment compensation appeals continued to lag behind with problems and (UC) claims are usually filed online or by telephone ultimately never went live. of mailed to a UC service center In 2012, DLI enlisted the Carnegie Mellon DLI had a legacy mainframe system for processing Software Engineering Insitute to conduct an inde- unemployment benefits that was over 40 years old. pendent assessment of the UCMS. The study was However it became increasingly expensive to main- completed in July 2013, and recommended continu- tain and difficult to modify, with limited functional. ing work on remaining Phase 2 problems, but stop- ity for case management and integrating newer tools ping work on Phase 3. Many of the problems it iden- and technologies to enhance productivity. Lified for Phase 3 could not be solved. In June 2006, DLI awarded IBM a fixed price con- The Carnegie Mellon study found many flaws in tract totaling $109.9 million for the Unemployment the systems development process. IBM had extensive Compensation Modernization System (UGMS), which systems experience and technology knowledge but would replace the antiquated mainframe system its proposal underestimated the project's scope and The initial contract with IBM called for more modern complexity, DLI lacked sufficient staffing and expert- and efficient technology and business processes for ence for effective oversight and management of the (I) maintaining wage records, (2) processing em- contract and project. There was no formal delegation player taxes, and (3) claims processing payment, of roles and responsibilities for managing the project. and appeals, to be completed by February 2010. IBM No one at DLI was held accountable. DLI essentially won the UCMS contract after a three-year bidding relied on the contractor to self-manage. process, claiming to be the only vendor with the type UCMS was considered a large-scale software proj- of proprietary databases capable of supporting a to- ect due to its complexity, large number of informa- willy integrated computer system tion requirements and business rules, and it's cost. However, this project experienced significant DLI's solicitation for vendor proposals for UCMS delays and cost overruns, ultimately costing nearly exhibited ambiguity in communicating all of these $180 million, with much of the system never com- requirements, and also neglected to define and de- pleted when the contract expired in September 2013, scribe quantitative and qualitative performance mea- By that time, the project was 45 months behind sures and metrics for the proposed system schedule and $60 million over budget. Pennsylvania A large-scale software-intensive system such as taxpayers had paid IBM nearly $170 million for what UCMS requires a rigorous and disciplined testing was supposed to be a comprehensive, integrated, and strategy, but this was not implemented. IBM de- modern system that it never got. IBM's contract was cided to use DLI users to help develop test scripts. not renewed. In March 2017, Pennsylvania sued IBM They provided the business expertise, but IBM did for breach of contract, fraudulent and negligent mis- not use IT test experts on its end. User acceptance representation, and charging taxpayers for services testing was initiated before completing system tests it did not provide. IBM said Pennsylvania's claims for Phase 2 and Phase 3, Rigorous testing came too had no merit and that it would fight the lawsuit, A spokesman for the company laid some of the blame late in the project. DLI did not specify a minimum of metrics for UCMS system performance so that for the project's problems on the state, saying that there were no identifiable criteria and evidence for