The blame cannot be put on one person. ABC Corp, the ICM vendor and the consultant all own some of the responsibility for the issue.
The entire situation could have been avoided if the requirements had been better designed. Requirements could have been better designed if the compensation plans had been completed with enough details. The vendor would probably have done a better job at scoping out the work initially or in certain situations may even have not submitted a proposal.
What can we take away from this story?
- Requirements cannot be fully defined unless the compensation plans are finalized. Requirements may be inaccurate or incomplete unless compensation plans show sufficient details and examples.
- An ICM solution cannot be selected unless the requirements are fully defined.
- Not all ICM solutions can handle very complex compensation plans (no matter what the vendor’s rep says). Some solutions are better suited for certain situations.
- Good requirements are the foundation for any IT project, mess up the requirements and the entire project will be shaky.
- Using an experienced consultant to help out with the requirements design, RFP writing and solution selection could be a good idea to select the ideal solution.
- Consultants and vendors alike cannot “always” guess client’s intentions.
- Mentioning or emailing a requirement is not enough, this requirement must find its way to the requirement document to ensure it is met by the implementation and properly tested.