Saying the problem lies with the set of the client, the implementation vendor, and software vendor is kinda obvious--- who else is there?
What might be more meaningful is to understand just where and how did each party contribute to creating a project that would turn into high profile fiasco? But we don't have the details or the facts of the case.
We don't know whether the client (the LA School District) had realistic expectations of the project. We don't know whether or to what extent Deloitte really had the C-team (as quoted in the LA Times article) and why. (Was it the only way they afford to bid low?) We don't know to what degree the people who called for the IT initiative understood the core essentials about initiatives such as this.
And SAP? Was their involvement passive (hi, I'd like to buy 100 seats, how much will it cost me), or were they an active player in decisions for this project?
All we can do is speculate based on experience in other situations, with other players.
Discussion on:
Message 2 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
