Between The Lines | ||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||||||
 |
[ Login/Subscribe ] | |||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
||||
 |
||||||||||||
Features
Departments
Opinion
Executive
Resources
|
Home > Features > Case Studies
A fixed-fee agreement between a hospital and vendor on a software development and implementation project looked like a win-win situation, with both sides assuming some risk. What went wrong? First and foremost, the contract’s incentives created competing agendas, all but killing team chemistry.
The moment you consider starting a project, you are assessing the potential risks, both from a business and project prospective. Whether done formally or informally, the risk elements and how we deal with these risks are embedded in the decision making process throughout the rest of the project. In the following case study, the interested parties (client and vendor) believed they reviewed the risks, understood their effects, and mitigated the high impact risks; however, a fixed fee contract introduced contention in the development of team relationships, and was problematic for completion of the project.
A large metropolitan academic health center entered into a contract for a multi-million dollar new clinical information system, replacing its present electronic medical record (EMR) and clinical provider order entry (CPOE) system. The chosen vendor was the unanimous choice by a selection committee composed of many selection teams representing the stakeholders’ areas of the health center. The decision took into account a requirement of the vendor to develop several new features.
Please login/register to read the entire article.
| |||||||||||||||||
|
Privacy Policy Contact Us User Agreement