Using the case study below, answer the following questions.

1. Critically evaluate the impact of the identified changes on project processes and development approach/life cycle.
2. Consider and propose a project change approach to deliver the envisioned future state, including a change model, integrated change control, and strategies that will engage and support the stakeholders, resulting in the sustainment of the change.

Case Study:

PIMS Project The Background The Department of Education, Training and Higher Education, which is responsible for education staff and curriculum also has a responsibility for the purchase, disposal and maintenance of school buildings, university buildings and associated houses for school principals and university chancellors. To date, these details have been managed and tracked using a proprietary database via MS Access and associated spreadsheets. With the growth of the asset portfolio, and an expectation by Parliament, that budget and expenditure can be reduced, a program has been raised to transfer all the asset data to a new application which will store the asset details, and track asset creation, maintenance and disposal. Due to the multiple modules to be delivered, the program was to be delivered in stages, building on previous modules, and training would be provided to all relevant stakeholders. Organisational Structure The Department operates under a regional structure. Corporate Head Office functions, including Finance, People and Culture and Information Technology remained at the Head Office location. Further functions relating to specific geographical areas were assigned to regional areas with a Regional Head Office and smaller regional hubs. Staff who supported the schools and higher education institutions were based in the regional hubs and the role of training and support of the new application fell to these staff members. The Project A contract Senior Program Manager was engaged to initiate and deliver the program on behalf of the department, beginning with requirements analysis and a procurement process incorporating request for tender, vendor selection and finally implementation and training in conjunction with the selected vendor. Project Managers were internal staff and worked with the Program Manager in identifying and developing the requirements and delivery approach. Prior to the selection of a preferred vendor and solution, the internal Project Managers meticulously worked with their assigned Business Analysts in understanding the requirements according to the regional stakeholders, while the Program Manager worked closely with Head Office stakeholders to understand their requirements. A solutions document was developed, incorporating the agreed requirements, and was closely managed by the Program Manager. Prior to the selection of the preferred vendor, Senior Department Management confirmed that little customisation would be required or allowed in the development of the solution, and more importantly, existing work processes would be adjusted to suit the needs and processes of the new solution. According to the Department Head, staff would need to learn to do things more efficiently as that was the benefit of the new solution. Each region, however, managed their schools and local assets according to their own customized set of processes, as well as their own versions of the Access database supplemented by their own version of spreadsheets. Staff preferred the spreadsheets so that they could adjust the content prior to emailing these to Head Office at the end of each monthly reporting period. Regional stakeholders were concerned that they would no longer have control over their assets and their reporting. As the development of the first module progressed, the solution document was regularly updated after consultation with the Program Manager and with strict version control. Training documentation was created in readiness for initial training of testing staff. Current processes and relevant scenarios were not available to the development team, the training team or the testing team. The development team developed the solution based fully on the solution document. The testing team developed test scripts based on the solution document and the training team developed training materials and scenarios, also based on the solution document. Gaps in understanding of how this solution would be applied in several scenarios were unable to be clarified, as the Program Manager was unavailable to answer this level of detail. The vendor Project Manager was concerned about the delivery timeframe and the number of amendments to the solution document, necessitating changes to the development activities and therefore impacting the development schedule. The Program Manager, on the other hand, continually reporting the status of development as being on track and that Phase 1 would be delivered on time, according to the initial schedule. The vendor Project Manager, on the other hand, reported a 3-month delay in development schedule, resulting in a 3-month delay in the finalization of test scripts and training materials. As the date for the release of the first module drew near, the stakeholders were waiting on clarification of the deliverables and how these would impact their work processes. The first training session resulted in significand dissatisfaction as stakeholders were shown and told how they would now carry out their work and update data in the new application. It was very different to the Access database, and they had no more access to their spreadsheets, as the reports that were generated, were generated as pdf. Once testing began, following the initial training, testing staff were instructed to specifically follow test scripts and not to deviate from these scripts. These staff were unhappy that they needed to learn new processes and complained that the new system was not satisfying their work requirements and causing them more work. A Project Health Check was undertaken by an external consultancy, in compliance with the project management methodology and governance requirements of the State government. The external auditor checked all the documentation and found it to be correct and up to date but was concerned when checking the documentation requested from and supplied by the vendor Project Manager, as this did not agree with the Department documentation. The audit, therefore, then moved to include interviews with staff, who began to voice their concerns and raise issues with the delivered solution. Key issues raised by these staff described the promises that were made relating to the new application and its simplicity, whereas they were now finding that they did not understand what to do when using the system and had to refer to the online documentation that was provided during the training. They had asked for manuals to be printed but were provided with links to the documentation that was attached to the new application module. The auditor also found that only the Head Office staff were trained, and the trainers from Head Office would take the training materials and develop these into materials that were acceptable to the regional staff. The trainers were dissatisfied with the style and layout of the provided materials and were very critical of the work that was required to change these to the formats that were required by the Regional Staff. In assessing the changes that were introduced by the new module, the training staff quickly identified that they have considerable underestimated the workload and the required time to prepare for the regional staff training and would need to delay this by 6 months. As the auditor, you can see that several key steps have been missed. You have compared the documentation from the two project teams and have concluded that the vendor team is more accurate in their estimates of delivery timeframes. However, you are equally concerned about the stakeholder and especially the regional training concerns. You are considering the outcomes of your audit and have begun your findings and recommendations document.