NHS National Programme for IT failed project

If you were devising/updating scope statement for the NHS initiative, how would you reiterate the following for ensuring a more successful change initiative this time around: (a) project objective: (b) project deliverables: (c) project constraints: (d) project requirements: (e) product acceptance criteria?

1- The respond should answer the above question to address the NHS failed IT project and as respond to the below discussion.
3- The respond should be 200 – 300 words
4- With Harvard reference

Attempting to centralize efforts on a large scale at first would appear to be well-received whereby one not only could access vital information but also update it in real-time. Under the support of The Labour Party, its infamous project known as ‘Connecting for Health’ would not be the case. When reporting on the feasibility of this ambitious initiative, Sampson (2012) had asserted that communication problems were principal root causes, causing delay or failure in its deliverables previously agreed upon.

To resuscitate this political change initiative once again would require multi-way negotiating the project scope amongst its stakeholders, including its end users, medical practitioners. Upon closing the project, ‘Connecting for Health,’ its users had been presented with expensive systems with little input on how it would facilitate their jobs. By subscribing to the influential formula known as S.A.R.I.E., future project managers can salvage the project scope by articulating and analyzing its current situation, seeing a problem as an opportunity (Larson & Larson, 2012):


*Define Situation: Failed to equip NHS and provide orientation to its end users

*Analyze the situation: Did previous contractors such as BT and Computer Science Corporation fail to provide deliverables specified in the contracts? Was this the root cause of failing to equip NHS?

*Propose Recommendations: Did previous PMs follow up with alternatives when its end users experienced difficulties managing/updating the centralized database?

*Plan Implementation: Were previous feasibility studies conducted for determining the budget, resources, and time?

*Evaluate: Were post-metrics previously devised for gauging performances as well as deliverables as it had been reported that its end users were frustrated with the centralized database?

With this in mind, it becomes evident that the previous project manager(s) had not scoped the project well as ‘Connecting for Health’ was ill-defined from the start. It had failed to consider various stakeholder perspectives (as in the case of its end users, the medical staff). A call of action would imply gathering previous documentation such a PID within one’s control (internal) as well as dependencies (external under another project manager) for restructuring a more viable WBS whereby deliverables appear.

Wysocki (2020) will remind future PMs that devising the business case for reviving this initiative requires identifying limitations as well as parameters for clarifying issues early while avoiding being contentious at a later stage, as in the case of confusion experienced by many health care practitioners. Moreover, efforts would ensure contractors provide ongoing orientation for accessing and managing detailed centralized medical records of patients. By doing understanding what failed, future project managers of ‘Connecting for Health’ are better able to match needs to implementation when re-positioning the feasibility of the project as well as what the deliverables would look like as agreed upon earlier.

NHS National Programme for IT failed project