Organizational change

Failed organizational change: FBI’s Virtual Case File project

Managing information technology projects is viewed as one of continuing challenge for many organizations implementing such changes. Many IT projects developed are unsuccessful in terms of being delayed completion and a significant increase in budget. Some projects are canceled before completion. These are often characterized by over schedule, over budget and not meeting original specifications. FBI’s virtual case file project is one example of a failed organizational change. The FBI began developing the Virtual Case File; a case management software system in 2000 but ultimately abandoned the project in 2005. The failure of the project drew sharp criticism as the cost of the project was estimated to be over $170 million in taxpayer money (Eggen & Witte, 2006).

The drive to implement the project arose from the ineffectiveness of FBI’s aging technology infrastructure made up of a 12-year-old network system and 386-based personal computers. In 2000, the project was allocated approximately $379.8 million. The technology was soon divided into three parts and named Trilogy. The technology project was scheduled to last for three years and included an enterprise-wide upgrade of software and desktop hardware. It also involved the implementation of a more secure and modern network. Additionally, the Virtual Case File system would include an evidence management system, a case management system and a records management system that would put back the FBI’s outdated case management system which limited the organization’s ability to carry out its operations effectively (Goldstein, 2005).

The project upgrade was under the leadership of FBI Director Louis Freeh. The organization did not have a CIO, documentation of the existing systems, or a plan for modernizing it. The project was implemented with a purpose to leverage the efficiency of sharing data about cases in progress, particularly terrorist investigations. The intention was to get rid of the need for employees to scan hard-copy documents into computer files. A week before September 11th terrorist attacks, Louis Freeh was replaced by Robert Mueller was replaced as the director of the FBI. The attacks demonstrated the inadequacies of the FBI’s information systems. Due to intense congressional and public pressure, Mueller instructed that the line be put into overdrive for quicker completion of the project (Marchewka, 2014).

In 2002, a security expert with SAIC Matthew Patton declared FBI and SAIC to be incompetent to implement the project due to non-existent technical expertise and management practices. In 2005, Glenn A. Fine submitted an audit of the project describing factors that contributed to the failure of the project. Among the factors included lack of a strategic plan, overly ambitious schedules, and slowly evolving and poorly defined design requirements. The project also demonstrated the systematic failure of software engineering practices which included poor architectural decisions, repeated management turnover, repeated changes in specifications, personnel with little or no formal training in computer science, micromanagement of developers and flash cutover deployment (Israel, 2012). The organization lacked knowledge and skills adequate to deal with the change program. Specifically, it was short of management team members with good communication skills. The national research council noted the lack of a roadmap to ensure consistent and coherent technical and operational decisions. Despite assurances allocated towards the project, the project was eventually deemed unfit. In 2005, the project was ultimately scrapped, and the FBI started out again with an entirely new project. Today, the project is a fundamental cautionary experience for organizations implementing IT projects (Eggen & Witte, 2006).

Managing technological change appreciates the importance of improvising in response to unplanned events. Accordingly, a traditional model which is predominantly used in organizations is not stable enough. The traditional model no longer works in an environment characterized by turbulence, particularly during technology implementation. The authors proposed some changes associated with technology employment, rather than having an ongoing beginning and end. As managers cannot anticipate all the likely changes that may occur during the process, this alternative model recognizes three forms of change (Orlikowski, 1996).

The first type of change, the anticipated changes is intended and can be planned for. The second type, emergent changes come up in the event of the process. The last one, opportunity-based changes come up during the process in response to an event and opportunity or breakdown. The three changes build on each other iteratively over time. However, not all organizations are suited to the improvisational model. There are two necessary conditions for any organization adopting this model. There must be an alignment of the change model with technology, organization and resources committed to adapting the organization and the technology to changing events (Macredie & Sandom, 1999).

Improvisational model for change management

The traditional view of dealing with change involves planning in order to rationally harmonize activities within an organization to meet the problems of the future. One fundamental assumption is that any project can be broken down into its different components, and each component can be dealt with separately and sequentially. When adaptations are needed, they are made from the understanding of the existing environment. In recent years, project managers have challenged the traditional view due to the need to construe the environment from a different perspective. Improvisational model is a crafted strategy to deal with unpredicted external changes. Teams participating are characterized by shared values and responsibilities (Pankratz, & Basten, 2013).

Traditional planning anticipates a long time horizon in a steady environment. A manager is involved in forecasting and benchmarking. The more information that a manager gathers about the variables involved, the better they can predict the future. However, the real environment is not stable. The speed of change has amplified, and the amount of available valuable information has become easier to obtain. However, the quantity of information makes it harder to grasp and synthesize into a logical whole. Hence, the environment changes continuously, and forecasts have become inaccurate in predict the future. Similarly, as soon as trends are recognized and future forecasted, the managers act to reduce the effects of potential changes. Therefore, the environment becomes chaotic rather than steady. The improvisational model works according to existing conditions of not only the environment but also the available resources. Improvisation is not possible unless a manager masters the basic traditional skills. In the real world, individuals do what is essential at the moment to move towards the desired directions (Crossan et al., 2005).

What probably happens more often is that humans act and then tries to make sense of it according to the structure in mind. Individuals codify unplanned changes. Traditional changes were rooted in Lewin’s three-stage change model. The change model involved unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. The model no longer seems to work as there is no constancy to regain in an environment characterized by uncertainty, mostly in dealing with technology that is customizable and open-ended such as IT systems. Therefore, the single sustainable competitive advantage is to learn faster and act faster given that raw information may be widely available (Orlikowski & Hoffman, 1997).

The model developed by Orlikowski and Hofman treats change as a continuous process, not as a planned event. The model is predominantly suitable in situations where the executed change is open-ended and customizable. As a result, it is impossible to create a blueprint for the change process. In preparing for the future, there are three types of changes namely emergent, anticipated and opportunity-based. An example of anticipated change in many organizations is the move from one automated system to another with limited time for preparation and implementation. Based on common experiences with new systems, an emergent change may common during certain time periods (Orlikowski & Hoffman, 1997).

Application of Improvisational model for change management to FBI’s Virtual Case File failed project.

The final goal of FBI’s project was not met. By looking at the problems of the project, it is possible to employ an improvisational model of management to the case. One of the problems experienced during the early phases of the project was overly ambitious goals. At the beginning, the objective was to develop with a web-based interface. However, the goal was readjusted to a total overhaul of the system in light of September 11th attack. When objectives are set for a project, managers should constantly keep an eye on the time and resources available. The inexperience of project manager also made it difficult to provide a good estimate of the resources required to complete the project (Alfonsi, 2005).

The first initiative would be to get services and opinion from individuals with previous experience on similar projects. This would have enabled appropriate planning and setting of realistic goals. Another step to making goals more achievable would be to look at what was already available on the market. For the project, a complete new e-mail-like system was developed while an off-the-shelf software package was already available and in use. There was no sense reinventing the wheel if it would not improve the project. In fact, the successor to this project extensively utilized the off-the-shelf software. By employing existing solutions, the overly ambitious goals would be within reach. A continuous review of requirements would also have been done to allow minimal trips back to rework the design. Additionally, the schedule planning process would be at a nuts and bolts level of detail and have room for reposition. Building a detailed plan would allow the project to be carried out with the available resources.

The project was also characterized by unclear requirements at the start of the realization phase. There lacked a blue print starting VCF; no such blueprint was available: the FBI did not or a clear description of the existing systems. To trounce the lack of clear requirements, time would have been set aside to gather the essential functionality for the system. Coming up with a detailed requirements document would mean meeting with experts and employees to thoroughly record the existing and future processes used in the organization. Creating a communication plan would also enhance effective communication throughout the project life. To solve the leadership problem, a project leader with necessary knowledge would be appointed at the beginning of the project. In order to bring the project to a successful completion, it would involve starting with a proper project initiation involving defining the requirements, tasks and setting the deadlines. In this was a result, everyone would have a clear picture in mind.

References

Alfonsi, B. (2005). FBI's virtual case file living in limbo. Security & Privacy, IEEE, 3(2), 7.

Crossan, M., Cunha, M. P. E., Vera, D., & Cunha, J. (2005). Time and organizational improvisation. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 129-145.

Eggen, D., & Witte, G. (2006). The FBI’s upgrade that wasn’t. The Washington Post, 18.

Goldstein, H. (2005). Who killed the virtual case file?[case management software]. Spectrum, IEEE, 42(9), 24-35.

Israel, J. (2012). FBI case management system. Computer, (7), 73-80.

Macredie, R. D., & Sandom, C. (1999). IT-enabled change: evaluating an improvisational perspective. European Journal of Information Systems, 8(4), 247-259.

Marchewka, J. T. (2014). The FBI virtual case file: study. Communications of the IIMA, 10(2), 1.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). The Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information systems research, 7(1), 63-92.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at Melda Research in custom research paper services if you need a similar paper you can place your order for a custom research paper from research paper company.

"Janet Peter is the Managing Director of a globally competitive essay writing company.