Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditShare on Google BookmarksShare on Digg

Computers, Processes and Management (CPM)
Applying People and Technology to Business

HomeAbout UsServicesOur TeamConsultCase StudiesSpeakers

Architecture Driven Recovery  




Key Benefits  

Detailed mapping of contracted points to current position and action.
Details specification of gaps within the contract against what was required to deliver
An outline architecture of how the individual projects : document management, mobile, Website, payments engine, campaign management, data warehouse, etc  fitted together, current status and earned value.
Risks, Assumptions issues and Dependencies for each of the project.
Identification of which projects to continue with and those that may have to be re-scoped.
Identification of issues with the programme approach, technology selection and overall architecture.

Improvements to governance and assurance controls.

The Solution

An architecture review was taken based on factual information provided by both sides to get a clear understanding of fact versus perception. This was augmented by interviewing key stakeholder for all parties: Client, primary contractor, vendors, suppliers and union.

A due diligence report was presented that outlined the current challenges, based on contracted and non-contracted pieces of work, obligations on each party and areas that had still to be scoped sized and resourced.

Softer perceptions and issues were clarified and turned into tangible risks and concerns.

This resulted in the production of a structured and detailed set of projects, risks, and issues, as well as a prioritised set of work for short-term, medium-term, and long-term actionable deliverables..  

The Challenge

To reduce costs and grow revenue margin this organisation embarked on a major digital transformation bringing front and back office operations together. Some 13 months into the programme with over 200 dedicated personnel in the team, no new innovation had been deployed and a culture of blame and “change by contract” had broken out between suppliers, vendors and the programme leadership.

A number of points/perceptions had led to board level concerns: that the solution proposed didn’t meet what the business sought, the solution was not “future proof” that the solution approach didn’t consider the rate of absorption that the organisation could take, and that the solution wasn’t complete.

All of this was leading towards a tense situation where commercial and legal expertise may be called upon.