Homework answers / question archive / Project evaluation Report Report Length: 2000 words (reference list included in word count) Case study: VIEW In 2015, the Department of Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) initiated a project to reform Victoria’s fine system and procure a new information technology (IT) system called the Victorian Infringements Enforcement Warrant (VIEW) system to address inadequacies in its first attempt to develop an infringement management and enforcement system since 2007 (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office/VAGO2016, p

Project evaluation Report Report Length: 2000 words (reference list included in word count) Case study: VIEW In 2015, the Department of Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) initiated a project to reform Victoria’s fine system and procure a new information technology (IT) system called the Victorian Infringements Enforcement Warrant (VIEW) system to address inadequacies in its first attempt to develop an infringement management and enforcement system since 2007 (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office/VAGO2016, p

Project Management

Share With

---

Project evaluation Report

Report Length: 2000 words (reference list included in word count)

Case study: VIEW

In 2015, the Department of Department of Justice and Community Safety (DJCS) initiated a project to reform Victoria’s fine system and procure a new information technology (IT) system called the Victorian Infringements Enforcement Warrant (VIEW) system to address inadequacies in its first attempt to develop an infringement management and enforcement system since 2007 (Victorian Auditor-General’s Office/VAGO2016, p.10; VAGO 2021, p. 2).

The design of the VIEW system aimed to support the Fines Victoria’s policies and goals by drawing together records from multiple agencies throughout the state so that all the infringements could be centrally managed (VAGO 2021, p. 21). In mid-2018, the Victorian Government IT Dashboard reported the project’s states as ‘red’ and the Victorian Auditor-General’s Annual Financial Report mentioned that ‘DJCS has had difficulty since the introduction of VIEW in recording fines income accurately due to VIEW’s lack of functionality’ (VAGO 2021, p. 27; Hendry 2021).

VIEW Timeline

11. 2015 DJCS decides to reform Victoria’s fine system and initiates the VIEW project (VAGO 2021, p. 2)
12. 2015 A gateway review notes that ‘the business case lacks details and analysis expected of a complex IT acquisition’ (VAGO 2021, p. 37).
13. 2016 In July, the steering committee with the assistance of an IT advisor selects a vendor to deliver the VIEW system at a budget of $46 million (VAGO 2021, p. 22, 47)
14. 2017 In April, the DJCS’s project manager released funds to the vendor before it had passed full user acceptance testing (UAT) which was scheduled for November 2017, which was indicated as poor contract management and project governance (VAGO 2021, p. 62)
15. 2017 In May, DJCS closed off the customisation risk in its risk register and said there was limited opportunity to customise (VAGO 2021, p. 10)
16. 2017 In November, the vendor enters into a contract variation—Deed 1, after DJCS and the vendor realised they would not deliver the required functionality within the set timeline (VAGO 2021, p. 62)
17. 2017 In December, VIEW launches with only 5 per cent functionality (VAGO 2021, p. 22) whereas DJCS oversighted VIEW to deliver 90 per cent of its functionality at launch (VAGO 2021, p. 2) as a result of poor contract management
18. 2018 In February, the gateway review raises concerns over the IT advisor’s lack of independence and involvement in choosing the vendor, which violated the principles of good governance (VAGO 2021, p. 10, 59)
19. 2018 In August, the vendor enters into a second contract variation—Deed 2, in which DJCS agreed to settle a compensation claim that vendor had lodged (VAGO 2021, p. 62)
20. 2019 In September, DJCS escalated VIEW’s risks of implementation failure to its corporate risk register which was nearly two years after the delivery deadline (VAGO 2021, p. 33)
21. 2021 As of January, DJCS has spent over $125 million developing and improving VIEW, which substantially exceeded the original budget stated in the business case (VAGO 2021, p. 27)

References

Hendry, J 2021, 'Significant Failures' Marred Victoria's Fines IT System Upgrade: Auditor, IT News, 5 May, Melbourne, viewed 1 July 2022, <https://www.itnews.com.au/news/significant-failures-marred-victorias-fines-it-system-upgrade-auditor-564174 Links to an external site.>.

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), 2016, Digital Dashboard: Status Review of ICT Projects and Initiatives – Phase 2, Victorian Auditor General, Melbourne, viewed 1 July 2022, <https://vgls.sdp.sirsidynix.net.au/client/search/asset/1292356 Links to an external site.>.

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO), 2021, Implementing a New Infringements Management System, Victorian Auditor General, Melbourne, viewed 1 July 2022, <https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/20210505-Infringements-report.pdf Links to an external site.>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer the following four questions and use relevant references/citations to justify your key points. You should cite at least 4 different references in each answer.  We would like you to demonstrate independent research into project management concepts. Thus, the references provided in the summary case study and the course text are not included in the minimum 4 references required for each answer. You may cite them (you should cite Hendry/VAGO when you refer to the case), but your answers should focus on critical analysis of project management concepts, practice and evidence based solutions that respond to the question rather than a detailed description of issues evident in the case.  Cite project management journal articles and relevant project management texts. You may and should refer to PMBOK and/or PRINCE2 texts - ensure you cite sources to show off your research. Avoid citing websites and do not cite blogs.

 

Avoid over reliance on quotations in your answer. You are encouraged to paraphrase sources wherever possible and do compare and contrast sources to demonstrate critical analysis of the issues.

Some of the answers are matters of opinion and you will need to study the literature for ways to approach them. To support your answer, you can refer to high quality references including project management books, PMBOK, peer reviewed journal articles and authenticated sources. Avoid citing blogs or websites. 

 

Do not restate the question or the content of the case study summary above in your response. Do not copy and paste recommendations from the audit reports in your answers. Number your answers clearly and use your word count to demonstrate critical analysis of the issues with reference to relevant project management literature.

 

 

 

1. A poorly planned business case at the outset raised issues at later stages of the VIEW project. Critically evaluate the project planning evident in the case highlighting the benefits that effective project planning can provide.
2. The vendor entered into two contract variations with DJCS revising the original budget and timeline of the VIEW project. Critically evaluate the budget and timeline estimations of the VIEW project. How could the estimations be improved?
3. Critique the project governance activities of the VIEW project. Make recommendations as to how project governance could be improved.
4. Critique the risk management practices evident in the VIEW project. Discuss how risk management could be improved highlighting what went wrong in the VIEW project.