|
|
To print: Select File and then Print from your browser's menu
-------------------------------------------------------------- This story was printed from ZDNet Australia. --------------------------------------------------------------
|
Auditor-general slams AU University's software project By Patrick Gray, 0 March 03, 2003 URL: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/Auditor-general-slams-AU-University-s-software-project/0,139023166,120272526,00.htm
The Victorian Auditor-General's Office has slammed RMIT University's management over their bungled Academic Management System (AMS) IT project, identifying "fundamental failures" in project management structures. The AMS, which "went live" in October 2001, was supposed to streamline processes by consolidating all of RMIT's student management activities, but instead cost the university more than AU$47 million, a figure equal to 3.7 times the original budget, according to the report. The problems arose from poor project management and governance, documentation failures, and the need to modify the key proprietary component of the PeopleSoft system selected for the AMS. Individual issues in the report read like an administrative nightmare. RMIT's general ledger had to be updated manually using "...estimated revenue figures because reliable actual data was not available", and quite often RMIT staff had to revert to manual processes just to get the job done. As of June 2002 tuition calculations were not performed for 5,000 students. The system was so problematic that RMIT International, the subsidiary responsible for managing international students, actually reverted back to the old system shortly after the implementation of the AMS. The auditors' report, which was released on Friday, blames the project problems on poor communication, ineffective change management, and the lack of "a clearly defined governance structure". The report outlines a documentation meltdown, and says the AMS project culture was "viewed as one of blame" internally. "In undertaking the audits, we had to place significant reliance on the representations made by key project personnel, due to the absence of key documentation on processes and governance arrangements," it said. Furthermore, the report says, the lack of documentation demonstrates an inadequate project governance, a lack of a "structured approach or suitable project methodology", as well as referring to "a lack of essential rigour [and] a lack of effective risk management".
Copyright © 2009 CBS Interactive, a CBS Company. All Rights Reserved. |
