schedule,” Watkins explains.^1 She developed the project
plans, determined what each phase would cost, managed
the budget, involved the necessary technical people at the
right time, and worked through Shaw to make sure that the
proper client people were available when needed to be
interviewed or make decisions.
“I felt like I was ultimately responsible for the suc-
cess of the project,” Watkins reports, “because if things fell
apart I would be the one that would take the blame, both
from IS management and client management. Therefore
my major concern was to look ahead and foresee problems
and make sure that they were solved before they impacted
the success of the project.”
“That is what I look for in a project manager,” Ted
Anderson asserts. “Most of the day-to-day work just hap-
pens if you have good people, but the crucial thing is to
anticipate potential problems so that you are preventing
them rather than just reacting.”
Watkins also tried to make her clients aware of what
was possible with computer technology so that they would
not simply automate what they had been doing. “I tried to
help them think about why they were doing things instead
of just how they were doing them,” Watkins says. “Because
I was not an expert in accounts payable, I could ask the
dumb question that might lead to a new perspective.”
Another important part of Watkins’ job was commu-
nication. “I tried to make sure that the client managers
knew what was going on at all times and that they knew all
the options when there were decisions to be made. I trusted
them to make the right decisions if they had the informa-
tion they needed.” Anderson found that to be a refreshing
change from his past experience. “Previously IS has not
told its customers any more than it had to. But Linda was
very open and we felt that we could trust her.”
That trust was very important to Watkins, for her
ultimate responsibility was to ensure that everyone worked
together effectively on the project. She devoted a lot of effort
to selecting technical people who had good communications
skills and could interact positively with her clients.
IS Management
Henry Carter, IS supervisor of disbursements systems, was
Watkins’ supervisor. He was responsible for integrating all
projects in the disbursements area and for allocating IS
people to these projects. His role included advising and
coaching the project directors, reviewing their project
plans, and making sure that they got the technical assis-
tance they needed from the IS organization.
Carter had been responsible for maintenance of the
Disbursement Department’s systems for many years. When
the new development projects were initiated, Carter became
responsible for them also, but he had little experience with
systems development and was of little help to Watkins.
Carter reported to Clark Mason, IS manager of finan-
cial systems, who was aware of some of Carter’s limitations
but who valued him for his knowledge of the existing
systems. To compensate for Carter’s weaknesses, Mason
had tried to get the best available project managers, and he
told them to come directly to him when they had strategic
questions or problems with client relationships.Steering Group
The steering group was chaired by Anderson and included
three accounts payable supervisors whose areas were
affected by the project, Shaw, and the manager of the dis-
bursements systems group, Tom Hill. Watkins and Carter
were ex officio members of this group. The role of the
steering group was to approve budgets, determine the
business direction of the project, and make any necessary
decisions.
The steering group met on alternate Wednesdays at
3:30 p.m. The agenda and a project status report, such as
the one prepared for the steering group meeting on October
6, 1993 (see Exhibit 3), were distributed at least 24 hours
before each meeting. Under the “Recap Hours/Dollars”
section, the “Original” column refers to the original plan,
and the “Forecast” column gives the current estimated
hours and cost. The “Variance” column is the original plan
minus the current estimate, whereas the “Actual-to-Date”
column shows the hours and cost incurred up to October 5.
A major function of the steering group was to deal with
problems and issues. Problems require immediate atten-
tion, and issues are potential problems that will move up to
the problem category if they are not dealt with.
At the start of each steering group meeting, Anderson
would ask whether or not everyone had made themselves
available when they were needed, and if not he would talk to
them afterward. According to Watkins, “Ted was very vocal
with his opinions, but he was not autocratic. When there were
differences of opinion within the steering group, he would
subtly hint at the direction he wanted to go, but it was still up
to the interested parties to work out their own resolution of
the problem. On the other hand, if he thought the project was
getting off the track, he would put his foot down hard!”
Shaw was knowledgeable about the political climate,
and he and Watkins would meet to plan the steering group
meetings. They would discuss the issues that might come
up and decide who would present them and how. If there
were significant decisions to be made, Watkins and Shaw
would discuss them with Anderson ahead of time to see436 Part III • Acquiring Information Systems
(^1) The interviews for this case were conducted while Watkins was
recovering from her accident, a few months after the events described.