Your government agency just signed the contract to purchase and implement a shiny new commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software to replace your aging legacy software. The project plan and schedule are set; the vendor is ready to begin configuration and customization tasks; and your team is eager to start the implementation process.
You are, in a word, optimistic. But here comes the next phase of the project—the gap analysis, in which your project team and the vendor’s project team test the new software to see how well it fulfills your requirements. Spending sufficient time and energy on the gap analysis increases the likelihood the resulting software is configured to support the desired workflows and processes of the agency, while taking advantage of the software’s features and benefits. Yet this phase can be stressful because it will identify some gaps between what you want and what the software can provide.
While some of the gaps may be resolved by simple adjustments to software configuration, others may not—and can result in major issues impacting project scope, schedule, and/or cost. How do you resolve these major gaps?
Multiple Methods. Don’t let your optimism die on the vine. There are, in fact, multiple ways to address major gaps to keep you on schedule and on budget. They include:
Documenting a change request through a formal change control process. This will likely result in the vendor documenting the results of the new project scope. This, in turn, may impact the project’s schedule and cost. It promotes best practice by formally documenting approved changes to project scope, including any impact on schedule and cost. However, the change request process may take longer than you may originally anticipate, as it includes:
|•||Documenting the proposed change|
|•||Scoping the change, including the impact on cost and schedule|
|•||Review of the proposed scope change with the project team and vendor|
|•||Final approval of the change before the vendor can begin work|
Collaborating with the vendor on a solution that fits within the confines of the selected software. With no actual customization required, this may result in a functionality compromise, and may also involve compromise by the project team and the vendor. However, it does not require a formal process to document and approve a change in scope, schedule or cost, since there are no impacts on these triple constraints.
Collaborating with the vendor and internal project stakeholders to redefine business processes. This may or may not result in a change request. It also promotes best practice, as the business processes become more efficient, and are supported by the selected software product without customization. This will require a focus on organizational change management, since the resulting processes are not reflective of the “way things are done today.”
Accepting the gap—and doing nothing. If the gap has little or no impact on business process efficiency or effectiveness, this method is likely the least impactful on the project, as there are no changes to scope, schedule, or cost. However, the concept of “doing nothing” to address the gap may have the same organizational change ramifications as the previous point.
Of course, there are other methods for addressing major software gaps. If you are interested in learning more, email me. The BerryDunn team brings experience in facilitating discussions with agencies and their vendors to discuss gaps, their root causes, and possible solutions. We leverage a combination of project management discipline, organizational change management qualifications, and deep expertise to help clients increase the success likelihood for COTS software implementations—while maintaining their vital relationships with vendors.