QUESTIONS

1. Is there anything in the case that indicates the maturity level of project manage- ment at the agency around 19851986?

2. What are the major problems in the case?

The Automated Evaluation Project "No deal!" said the union. The current method of evaluating government employ- ces at this agency is terrible, and if a change doesn't occur, we'll be in court seck- ing damages." In 1984, a government agency approved and initiated an ambitious project. part of which was to develop an updated, automated evaluation system for the 50,000 employees located throughout the United States. The existing evalua- tion system was antiquated. Although forms were used for employee evaluation. standardization was still lacking. Not all promotions were based on performance. Often they were based on time in grade, the personal whims of management, or friendships. Some divisions seemed to promote employees faster than others. The success or failure of a project could also seriously impact performance opportuni- ties. Some type of standardization was essential In June 1985, a project manager was finally assigned and brought on board. The assignment of the project manager was based on rank and availability at that time rather than the requirements of the project. Team members often possessed a much better understanding of the project than did the project manager. The project manager, together with his team, quickly developed an action plan. The action plan did not contain a work breakdown structure but did contain a statement of work which called out high-level deliverables that would be essen- tial for structured analyses, design, and programming. The statement of work and deliverables were more in compliance with agency requirements for structured 251 The Automated Evaluation Project 253 To help maintain morale, the project manager decided to perform as much of the work as possible in-house, even though the project lacked critical resources and was already more than one year late. The project office took what was devel- oped thus far and tried to redefine the requirements. With the support of senior management at the agency, the original statement of work was thrown away and a new statement of work was prepared. "It was like starting over right from the beginning." remarked one of the employees. We never looked back at what was accomplished thus far. It was a whole new pro- ject!" With the support of the agency's personnel office, the new requirements were finally completed in February of 1987. The union, furious over the schedule slippage, refused to communicate with the project office and senior management. The union's contention was that an "illegal" evaluation system was in place, and the current system could not prop- erly validate performance review requirements. The union initiated a lawsuit against the agency seeking damages in excess of $21 million In November 1986, procurement went out for bids for both hardware and a database management system. The procurement process continued until June 1987, when it was canceled by another government agency responsible for pro- curement. No reason was ever provided for the cancellation Seeking alternatives, the following decisions were made: 1. Use rented equipment to perform the programming. 2. Purchase a database management system from ITEKO Corporation, pro- vided that some customization could be accomplished. The new data- base management system was scheduled to be released to the general public in about two months. The database management system was actually in the final stages of develop- ment. ITEKO Corporation promised the agency that a fully operational version, with the necessary customization, could be provided quickly. Difficulties arose with the use of the ITEKO package. After hiring a consultant from ITEKO, it was found that the ITEKO package was a beta rather than a production version. Despite these setbacks, personnel kept programming on the leased equipment with the hope of eventually purchasing a Micronet Hardware System. ITEKO convinced the agency that the Micronet hardware system was the best system available to support the database management system. The Micronet hardware was then added to the agency's equipment contract but later disallowed on Sep- tember 29, 1987, because it was not standard agency equipment On October 10, 1987, the project office decided to outsource some of the work using a small/minority business procurement strategy for hardware to sup- port the ITEKO package. The final award was made in November 1987, subject to