The paper "Critical Analysis of Maximo Consolidation Project" is a good example of a management case study. In 2009, the Sydney water company came up with the Maximo consolidation project. Its main purpose was to consolidate and modernize customer management systems. According to the project’ s management team, Maximo consolidation project aimed at restoring Australia’ s current water management systems. However, the project failed. Halfway through the project, it had spent all its funds required to complete the project. Investigations on this project indicated various reasons; including inadequate planning that facilitated its failure. Additionally, the company failed to achieve its time budget plan, which indicates that it delayed completing its project.
According to strategic project planning, such cases should not occur since they indicate poor management skills. Critical analysis of the Maximo consolidation project enables development managers to identify, correct and learn from their mistakes. Project Stakeholder Analysis The Maximo Consolidation project aimed at improving the customer systems of the Sydney water company. This means that Sydney residents would benefit from the proposed project. They would able to receive their billings on time and the information placed in their bills would be more accurate.
Customers are also able to save the time used in acquiring data since they receive electronically sent data through various ways such as via the e-mail and mobile text messages. Furthermore, Sydney Water Company would benefit greatly from the project in various ways. For instance, the project would ensure that the data presented on an individual customer is accurate since it would have minimized loss of files. This would improve the company’ s analysis of its profits and losses. The Australian government also benefits from the project.
Accurate data of water usage means saving up more water while increasing the company profits, which earn the government more income. Therefore, the project weighed and balanced the competing demands from relevant stakeholders on the firm, thus arriving at some of its obligations. Facts Maximo Consolidation project received a tender from the Australian government in 2009 to modernize Sydney’ s customer management systems. These projects existed in different faces such as Sydney Water Information Management (SWIM) as phase 1, Field Resource Management (FRM) as phase 2 as well as Enterprise Portal Integration, Email System Replacement and Customer Business Intelligence.
It managed to complete these projects while failed in the rest. Conversely, it overspent its budget. Initially, the proposed budget was A$18.4 million (Charette 2009, 1). However, after the revision of the budget, the overall spending leapt to A$ 31.3 million while the delivery date extended from August 2009 to October 2010. Additionally, stage 1 project forecasted a total cost of A$55.3 million that differs from its original budget of A$21 million. Despite having completed the Field Resource Management, it still extended its delivery time by 4 months from the initially proposed date.
The only successful phase was Information Management, which met its planned budget and managed to maintain its delivery date. Critical Analysis Basing on the different angles of analysis, it is evident that the Maximo consolidation project managers did not observe correct planning strategies. This is because before writing the budget, they should discuss the relevant factors that are likely to affect the progress of the project. For instance, they should have consulted various companies in order to compare most of the materials, labor and other external factors before coming up with a budget.
According to the NSW report, the project needed an additional cost on top of the originally proposed budget. Additionally, the cost extended the original budget by 58% displaying their poor strategic management skills. This because a well-planned project should meet its proposed budget but if it fails, an additional 20% is reasonable. The bigger difference in the budget changes indicates the project managers’ precision in planning the project, which is low.