Two weeks after the initial meetings, Stacey Porter, a DMA consultant, arrived at the MSCC offices to install the first version of the telemarketing module and to provide training on the constituents, territory management, and committees modules. This training served as the staff's first look at the software. The territory managers, however, were not impressed with the layout or content of the software, as it often forced them to work through more than twenty screens to perform relatively simple tasks. As a result, Lassiter demanded a significant rewrite of the territory management module, and by March 2010, similar delays were a part of the PAC, accounting, meetings, and legislative modules as well. With the scheduled conversion to the DMA software quickly approaching and delays becoming the norm, Gramen and Wallingford decided to continue running the old system until the staff was completely comfortable with the new system. Within three months, however, even though the DMA software was still not fully operational, the MSCC abandoned this directive as it had simply become too expensive to pay the consulting fees to keep UNITRAK operational. As implementation pushed into late July, DMA began encountering substantial problems converting the membership database from UNITRAK into the DMA custom software package. As progress ground to a halt on the software installation, Lassiter summoned Gramen and Porter into his office. During this meeting, the working relationship between the MSCC and DMA began to deteriorate further as Gramen warned Porter, "I think we've been pretty patient with you so far, but that is about to change. I've heard of far less serious situations ending up in court before. And I know you understand that this all falls on you." The Start of Additional Problems Further complicating this relationship had been a series of billing issues. In the process of installing the system, DMA ran into a myriad of problems with solutions in one area often leading to problems in other areas. By the middle of July 2010, no less than five MSCC staff members were in regular contact with DMA identifying problems and requesting assistance. As a result, DMA had quickly used up the development hours specified in the contract, and it had subsequently started billing the MSCC for the work beyond the free hours guaranteed. As the problems worsened, Lassiter became increasingly involved in the daily implementation problems. Feeling as if he was the only one who could right the ship, Lassiter went to Wallingford and argued that he should be given the responsibility of overseeing the entire project. Wallingford gladly consented to Lassiter's request. Immediately, Lassiter arranged a conference call between himself, Gramen, and Porter to address the many outstanding items past completion date. In the call Lassiter emphasized, We are in our eleventh month, and we still cannot use your software to close our books each month. This is completely unacceptable. You could at least provide the system documentation you promised so that we can reduce our own learning curve. It's no wonder that you cannot get the more complicated modules complete, though. I've been making simple requests and for some reason you can't meet them. And one more thing, we were promised the source code when our negotiations began, and now I've been told by one of your team members that this will cost us $20,000. What type of dishonest organization are you running? This is completely unacceptable and my patience is thinning. If this situation doesn't improve... The exchanges between DMA and MSCC continued to become increasingly strained, and disagreements on what items were and were not promised as part of the system ipstallation became a key point of contention. Given the nature of this relationship, Lassiter ordered that all DMA billings were to be carefully reviewed by Gramen for inappropriate charges. Furthermore, Lassiter asked for the opportunity to review the DMA contract. There first appeared to be a glimmer of hope, as the contract specified that roughly half the cost of the software system had been due as a down payment with the balance due upon Gramen signing acceptance certificates after the satisfactory installation of each individual module. After meeting with Gramen, however, Lassiter learned that although none of the acceptance certificates had been signed, the full system had nonetheless been paid for in full. Lassiter could not believe that they had given up one of the most important pieces of leverage that the MSCC had. Lassiter quickly decided it was time to go back to Wallingford for his input. "Jack, we have two problems," Lassiter said. "First, it goes without saying that there are serious problems with the software and with DMA's capacity to support and deliver it. Just as important, however, is that Gramen does not seem to have the requisite ability to maintain and support the hardware platform and is really of little value in terms of overseeing or solving problems with the software implementation. As a result, we are completely dependent on DMA for this project's success or failure. I think it's time we go in a different direction." Wallingford replied, "I agree with you. I trust your judgment in these matters. But before we go any farther, there is something I want to tell you. I am planning on retiring at the end of the year. This week the Executive Committee will appoint a search committee and begin accepting resumes from interested parties. I really would like you to consider applying for this position." Lassiter was speechless, but by this point he no longer had any desire to stay with the MSCC. In his mind, he had taken the marketing effort at the MSCC about as far as he could-especially given the information system's limitations. Lassiter had already received a lucrative offer to be the chief operating officer of a local investment management company and was ready to accept it. Lassiter was not alone, however, as Ed Wilson had just had a final interview with a new government policy think tank. But, while Lassiter did not throw his name into consideration, Wilson did because his final outside interview had not gone well. Nevertheless, the search committee was acutely aware that Wilson would just be a temporary fix as he was nearing retirement; Lassiter was their preference. As a result, after reviewing the other available candidates again, two search committee members contacted Lassiter and urged him to apply. After two lengthy meetings - in which the two members intimated that they would not take no for an answer-Lassiter relented and agreed to have his name offered for the presidency. At the August 2010 meeting two weeks later, the Board of Directors ratified that selection. A Lack of Progress The search for a President had not slowed down the MSCC's problems, however. In late August 2010, Lassiter gave Porter an updated list of problems with the software-as compiled by the MSCC staff-and asked her to estimate the time to address these tasks in hours. Three weeks later DMA sent back the time estimates and a series of work orders with cost estimates. DMA indicated in that correspondence that it would initiate the work when the orders were signed and returned by the MSCC. Lassiter refused to sign the work orders and informed DMA that he considered the work to be part of the initial installation and that DMA was in breach of contract. On October 1, 2010, Lassiter officially took over as President, and shortly thereafter, Ed Wilson announced he would retire on December 1. Instead of replacing him, Lassiter decided to disperse his duties among existing staff members. Knowing that he had to shed some of his IS development responsibilities and realizing that he could no longer afford to leave Gramen as the sole person responsible for the MSCC's information systems, Lassiter began looking for a candidate with a strong information systems and financial management background to oversee the MSCC's information systems and to serve as chief financial officer. In the interim he had Gramen report directly tc him while temporarily retaining the role of overseer of the ever-tenuous relationship with DMA. Meanwhile, DMA seemed to be creating as many problems as it fixed. Confidence in the new software was dwindling, and paper systems began to proliferate as some modules were not installed and others were completely nonoperational. Because of the slow response time, the staff often had to work evenings and weekends to complete simple tasks, which further diminished morale. In addition, the integrity and dependability of the membership database had become increasingly suspect as a result of the data conversion problems and the general unreliability of the system. At the end of October, Rankin and Porter from DMA spent a full day in meetings with the MSCC's staff and senior management. Each division outlined its problems and frustrations with the software system. By the final meeting that day, Lassiter was livid: "We have to bring the initial installation to an end! It is time for your company to deliver the system that we contracted for. I am tired of missed deadlines, unreturned phone calls, and partial solutions." "I understand your frustration, Mr. Lassiter," Rankin said. "But I want to reiterate our desire to keep you as a customer. We will redouble our efforts to finish the installation, and I will personally send a letter to you outlining the dates for completion of the outstanding problems." Two days later, Gramen and Porter held a conference call to once again discuss the discrepancies between the promised and actual delivery dates. Per Lassiter's instructions, they also requested and received a listing of DMA's clients. Lassiter instructed Gramen to conduct a phone survey of these businesses to determine their level of satisfaction with DMA. To Lassiter's dismay, this phone survey revealed that there was overwhelming dissatisfaction with DMA's products and services. The Lake Erie and Great Lakes Chambers of Commerce were already in litigation with DMA due to contract nonperformance, and many of DMA's other clients were calling for a multiparty lawsuit. On November 4, Lassiter sent Rankin another letter outlining the items still unfinished and demanding a speedy resolution to these problems. In response, Rankin instructed Porter to phone Lassiter with a pointed message. "Mr. Lassiter," Porter said, "I just wanted to let you know that DMA has already incurred $250,000 of expenses it has not charged you in an attempt to meet your concerns. Nevertheless, DMA has decided to discontinue programming support for the MSCC until the Chamber pays its outstanding invoices." "In that case," Lassiter responded, "I guess we'll see you in court," at which point the phone conversation ended abruptly. Enter Sage Niele On December 1, 2010, Ed Wilson stepped downalthough he was retained as a part-time consultant and given the title of the political action committee's Executive Director-and Sage Niele arrived as Vice President of Operations and Chief Financial Officer. Niele held an MBA from the Wharton School of Business and had previously performed systems manager responsibilities for a large pharmaceutical company in the Midsouth area. More recently, she had operated her own information systems and financial consulting business. With two small children at home, she had decided to pursue something less rigorous and time-consuming than running her own business, but it soon became clear to hr that this position might not fit that billing. A few days into her position, Lassiter met with Niele in his office: Sage, it's good to have you on board. I need you to begin a planning and assessment process to determine the deficiencies of the current information system, along with the MSCC's needs, and the alternatives that exist in the event the MSCC needs to scrap the DMA system and start over. From this day forward, you are to be the exclusive contact person between the MSCC and DMA. I have begun the process of finding a suitable, top-notch replacement for Gramen, which will help you in your cause. I'll give him two months to find a new job, but we have to let him go. That next week, Lassiter, Niele, and Gramen met with an attorney specializing in computer software contracts who had also been a past Chairman and current Executive Committee member of the MSCC. Lassiter outlined the situation for her, but her assessment was far worse than Lassiter had imagined. "The way I see this contract," she began, "The MSCC has few, if any remedies. I wish you had contacted me earlier-before the contract was signed. The absence of performance standards leaves you with only one real remedy, avoidance of payment. Because you have already made full payment, you have given tacit acceptance of the software system. From speaking with Leon earlier, I understand that your goal is to either receive reimbursement and the source code from DMA-so you can hire a consultant to make the software usable-or to get your money back and buy another system. These outcomes are unlikely. In my opinion, you need to tone down your demeanor with DMA and try to get as much additional progress out of them as possible until you decide what to do. If DMA does get serious about cutting off their support, pay what you think you owe and we'll go after them for specific performance." Taking that advice to heart, several additional pieces of correspondence were internally generated and sent to DMA with a more temperate tenor. Meanwhile, Niele continued to send DMA payments for only those items the MSCC deemed to be billable. Each time she crossed her fingers that DMA would not pull the plug. With the help of the MSCC librarian, Niele identified a list of eight software packages that would run on an HP hardware platform, that were designed for use in a trade association environment, and that appeared to be worthy of further investigation. At the same time, she began interviewing MSCC staff members to prepare an inventory of the current system deficiencies as well as the needs for the future. An outgrowth of this effort was the creation of an ad hoc information systems committee that she used to help flatten her learning curve about the MSCC and its current information systems. Furthermore, Niele also spoke with Lassiter and key board members to determine their vision for the operational future of the MSCC. And Niele arranged for six CEOs from the Executive Committee to have their IS managers or other key IS staff members serve on a steering committee to assist her in evaluating systems alternatives. Not only did that give her additional points of view, but she hoped this would make it easier to sell her final recommendation to the Executive Committee. Unfortunately, Niele also knew that her assessment of the current situation and the alternatives she had identified to date would not be attractive to the Executive Committee. On a legal pad in her office, she wrote down the problems as she saw them: (1) The modules will likely never become operational, (2) DMA is unwilling to commit the resources necessary to finish the job, (3) the DMA relationship is still deteriorating quickly, (4) any costs already itemized are likely sunk due to poor contracting, (5) it will be expensive to start over from scratch, and (6) it is equally expensive to do nothing. Now the big question was, where to go from here? As the microwave sounded to signal that her popcorn was ready, Sage wondered which problems she would be putting to an end through her recommendations and which problems she would start by making additional changes