Question 2

Factors contributing to project failure are as follows:

 Divergence in the project approach:
There were contrasting viewpoint about the project approach used by Venso. The first
executive overhead by Casper, together with Venso, had signed of an integral system
approach contract while the new executive team viewed it as a modular project. As a result
they the new team did not prioritize direct communication with Venso. Instead they
surrendered Miller negotiate with subcontractor. This matter clearly slowed down the
implementation of the intelligent procurement system.
The methodology of project management was not clearly established and understood by all
parties. Some members were acting arbitrary, imposing new specifications and constantly
changing the constraints on one hand. Others could not stand any modification on
requirement on the other. The situation was confusing; nothing showed if they were whether
using the traditional Water flows or new agile approach.
 Late Identification of need business
The planning team failed to survey and identify the tenants need for e-commerce
technologies earlier. Therefore, they included them so late in the requirement; leaving to
Venso no enough time to develop the product. Additionally, that made it complex to
implementation as some of technologies involved in the intelligent procurement system was
supposed to be embedded from day one in the constriction plan.
This trouble brought them into adding new and removing previous specifications at critical
stage of the project. They also had to frequently alter the project scoop and budget in order to
conform to the new specification. Nevertheless Venso, overwhelmed and under pressure of
time, was not willing to consider such recurrent changes of requirement.
 Miscommunication
As the new executive team failed to understand how integral the procurement system was to
the entire project, they consequently refused to communicate with Miller; setting a chaotic
environment of confusion, misunderstanding and miscommunication among key team
member of the project.
The communication kept on worsening so the Harvest city Corporation even dared to go out
of the contract terms: Without Venso’s knowledge, he allowed an unexperienced third party
to tape into the sensor for setting its fire emergency.This arbitrary access to the system, might
have highly contributed to the Mid-November 2016 incident.
Furthermore, Venso’s complaints about the executive team were simply ignored.
Question 1
Who is mostly at fault?
John Casper’s most faults were to not be able to identify the need of an intelligent
procurement system in time and try to accommodate everything to fit in the timeline.

1|4
Mayor Andres Thompson’s major fault was to misuse human resources. Instead of hiring a
new CEO, he compensated the resignation of Casper by diving his responsibility in the
remained members, who was already overwhelmed by events.
Harvest Corporation’s was responsible of not take into account of Venso’s tea members
complaints by ignoring them. The worse mistake was to employ a vendor configure the one
of Venso’s product (the Sensor) without previously informing Venso.
As far as I am concerned, I find the Venso CEO Bill Miller the most at fault. Because he
should not have signed such a risky contract with such an unrealistic timeframe. He was
intimidated by John Casper’s persuasive speech, who in the end was now blaming him. He
was not that a proactive manager: He did not assessed risks before engaging whit Harvest
City. Instead he wait for the chaotic situation to start complaining.
Question 3.
Identification of the sequence of the problem
1. At the very beginning, in 2010, no Information technology architect part of the task
forceto assert all needs
2. In 2013, when the budget and the schedule were being elaborated, still no
specification about IT such as e-commerce was unnoticed.
3. Later in 2014, the management team of the Hotel at Harvest City started being aware
of the need for the hotel to provide a state-of-the-art hotel booking and property
management system. But still no one in Panning team was able to capture this
business need.
4. Only in June 2014, after spending considerable time in searching new sensor, Internet
of things, a vigilant manager could clearly notify the need and inspired the CEO
Casper of the requirement of an intelligent procurement system.
5. In November 2015, Miller reconsidered Venso’s position (influence by Casper) and
signed a risky $21 million contract to develop a “Best in class cloud- and IoT-based
procurement system”.
6. Venso agreed for irrevocable deadlines in the terms of the contract though knowing
the contract was not part of the original timeline. Miller’s awareness of risks did not
stop him from acceptingto implement the intelligent procurement system on a project
already constructed.
7. In mid-November 2016, the convention scheduled to hold first national conference
seven weeks the hotel was supposed to begin serving guest.
8. A month later, in December 2015, when Casper resigned due to illness; his
responsibilities were dispatched among the remaining team members instead of hiring
a new CEO
9. After Casper resignation, the new executive team failed to understand the Venso’s
project approach and miscommunicated.
10. In February2016, an operation team at the convention center requested a change to
intelligence system.
11. In March 2016, the catering vendor for the convention center, requested another
modification in the procurement system.

What could have been done differently?

2|4
To address different event-matters listed in question 2.i, following actions had to be
considered by the executive team:
 Human Resource: To assure continuity and effectiveness of project team member, a
new experiment CEO should have been hired on Casper had resigned due to illness
instead of overloading the remained members with his responsibilities.
 Communication:The executive team should have professionally react the Vencor’s
complains about themselves rather that ignoring then by atconsidered. They could at
least keep direct communication with Miller to as his project was key in the future
operational the convention Centre. This would help to discuss on what was going
worse and fixe problems. As the miscommunicationamong teams and stakeholders
involved is one of the main reasons why these problems oftenarise.
 Accountability: After the incident event of November 2016 an once the delay in
opening was definitely established, blaming each othercould not help in the process of
fixing the matter and/or developing new alternative. The best approach to
accountability would be the recognition of charred responsibility among all parties.
This would help them to well construct solution. Transparency and open
communication should have been promoted
Question 4
As far as each of party has got a responsibility in the delay of the Harvest centre’s opening,
Miller has to be confident that he can prove and demonstrate factors that brought to this
situation including flaws in the overall design as well as the unmethodical change request
approach.
He has right to request an independent investigation about all the events before, during, and
after the emblematic incident of November 2013. He can still demonstrate that Harvest
Centre did not respect the contract terms by approving an arbitrary access to the Venso’s
product that was still being finalised –and without at least previously inform him.
The evidence of an intentional lack of communication can be proved one of impotence
problem that established the situation of chaos. Instead of cancelling the contract that worth
$26 million, he can demonstrate that he was supposed to work in direct collaboration with the
main executive members of the harvest centre but the later almost “knocked him out”
The least faire option for Miller would be the acknowledgment of his part of responsibility
while pointing out others responsivities as well. In this the penalties will be equally divided
among all parties involved in the Venso contract.
Taking all argument into account, with regards to the above summary, Miller should also
deeply work with his company’s lawyers in order to implement and construct a good
response that the other parties cannot deny. He does stand a good chance of winning the case
either way because of the contract that he had signed with Harvest City Corporation.

3|4