The matter was referred to the steering committee, which recommended that the SP
put together a presentation giving the reasons for the upgrade. This was done and
the Client decided not to proceed with the project. The relationship between the Client
and the SP remained cordial. Since there was no "exit clause" the Client remained
with the older version of the software for the duration of the contract. It did, however,
buy a competitor product and slowly moved its business onto it. But what did the Client
actually think of the project?
Time was spent with the Client to find out what the thinking had been and where
things had gone wrong. The most obvious question was: "Why did you wait so long before
saying you were not happy with the upgrade".
The Client Project Manager used the analogy that he had been promised a car and
that is what was delivered. He said that the only difference was that he was expecting
a Ferrari and instead he got a Fiat UNO. He had been one of the signatories on the
project definition but probably had not understood all the detail. See Figure
4 for comments from the Client Project Manager and the User Technical Consultant.
Client Project Manager: "... the project was delivered
according to specification; overall all went well"
User Technical Consultant: "I agree. The project deliverables are not in dispute,
and we have always had the assurance that we will get what we have paid for. The problem
is not with the delivery, it is with the potential cost and benefit of implementing
Figure 4: The Client's post-project perspective
They seem to be saying that the project was fine but the product was not. This
may have been their opinion but the fact is they stopped the project because they
were not happy with what was to be produced.