SLMS Phase 1 Lessons Learned

Summary:

Phase 1 of SLMS was the EMEA implementation of warranty. This was the first software replacement project between NMHG and Tavant.

Planned:

Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.

Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.

Cost: The phase 1 portion of the project would have a small $12.5k contingency for any out of scope items, licenses, or miscellaneous project items that may come up as part of the project.

Risk: Risk to the project includes the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, and unclear deadlines.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was believed to be high since EMEA has fewer change requests in the original scope. The Tavant warranty management system appeared to fit the EMEA model.

Actual:

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Risk: Risk to the project included the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, communication issues and unclear deadlines.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Lessons Learned - Bullet Point Quick List (What Didn’t Go Well)

Scope

         Perceived that Tavant was not fully aware of the complexity of the system. It would have been good to have a Tavant person “shadow” the warranty team to learn the processes

         Business knowledge

o   It is helpful to have a Project manager who knows the business in detail; otherwise, the business needs to provide the knowledge to the project as subject matter experts.

o   Steering committee/ decision makers should be fully involved and aware of the business needs and why.

         Communication of the system in full detail and no unknowns upfront.

o   Make no assumptions about the new system, ensure that the requirements of the new system are in writing

o   Assumed that Tavant was going to deliver what was asked

o   Hours of time spent reviewing scope documents and recordings to prove that an item was in scope

         Software demo and supplier customer visits

o   At least one person who knows and uses the system on the team.

o   Don’t just accept that the supplier has a software module. Ask who is using it and how it is being used.

         Originally told all reports could be done but now EMEA has to do some by themselves. (Sales Reports)

         It appears that we helped develop (work out bugs) with some of the Tavant existing system

o   Batch claim upload

o   Supplier recovery

         Upon delivery the system is much more rigid that we were lead to believe from the demos: things that are important aren’t configurable (hour meter readings)

         The directive to have a global warranty system caused too much focus on phase 2 during phase 1.

o   Phase 2 items appeared in phase 1 delivery

o   Took focus away from the current phase

Schedule

         Schedule and timing was dictated

         Schedule and timing were impossible to meet

         Project plan scheduled dates should be given prior to the project start date but were given over a month afterwards

         EMEA was never consulted when dates were changed without notice.

         Lack of scheduling per the business schedule.

         Short amount of time for UAT

         Limits testers to taking vacation or holiday and doesn’t allow much room for people’s life outside of work.

         More time was spent on testing Tavant’s testing scenarios and less on our own. Need more time for full testing of both.

         Short time between end of UAT and Go live:

o   Originally only 1 week to train dealers and NMHG employees with a finished product

o   Data Migration: Delay to migration on Tavant’s side. Data was not migrated in time for UAT. Partially NMHG but also Tavant’s fault for delay with no reason why.

         Lessons learned meeting was held too close to go live date

o   The team hadn’t gone through month end

o   Issues still to be corrected

o   Supplier recovery still to be enhanced

Cost

         Anything not listed in the original scope is conserved a “change request”.

         Unfair pricing of change requests and scheduling delays with no charges to Tavant when they delay.

o   Need a cost breakdown of the reason for the cost on all change requests

Communication

         Project management

o   Project manager unable to attend kickoff meeting and never set expectations

o   The team was new to a major project and needed to know their roles and responsibilities

o   Better preparation when using an outside supplier for a new system.

         Direct contact with the developers and the users/ creators: there should have been a full-time on sight Tavant project manager/lead

         Lack of response/ communication to requests from Tavant.

         JIRA

o   Started using JIRA too late in the project

o   Lack of understanding of terminology in JIRA

o   JIRA logging issues becoming resolved by Tavant but not allowing NMHG to test until the release date.

o   Perceived that Tavant has corrected the issue when it hasn’t been verified until a later time by NMHG which makes NMHG look slow when in fact it cannot be tested.

o   Priorities are changed on the tickets without consulting with the author

         Tavant was often in agreement (said “yes”) of verbal requirements but the delivered was not what was stated

         Cultural barriers, time zone issues, and language barriers (including terminology) contributed to misunderstandings

         Email overload from JIRA, project manager, and Tavant

         Too many unproductive meetings

         Change requests in scope were not communicated to the integration and data migration teams leaving gaps

         Had to repeat requirements over and over because there was no system for formal communication/ logging of issues & requirements.

Quality

         It was a huge loss to the project that the Tavant scoping resource was not the resource used for implementation. (Hours, days, months wasted because of this)

         The response time after go live is not according to Tavant’s SLA

         JIRA should have been there from the start.

         Original thought was that SLMS would replace multiple systems, but now user will still have to use them all. Not an improvement as originally thought.

         Requests for demos were never performed (NCR, supplier recovery) making it very hard to test the system.

         Requirements (quick write-up or screen shots) of change requests and issues were not shared resulting in quite a bit of rework.

         Functionality and routing requirements were missed because the internal team members were not always honest stating that they had read the requirements, tested, or performed sanity testing when they really had not.

         Test scenarios given by the software supplier are not sufficient for testing our own business processes. We must have and take the time to create our own test plans.

         Items that were working in UAT are not working in production

         Security (separation of duties) was not fully implemented

         Reporting

o   The reporting resource was not qualified and did not have proper communication skills.

o   Reports were not delivered as promised

o   Reports were of poor technical quality

o   Table for reports were set up only with the report in mind. No thought was given to future use of the data

o   Extracts within the Tavant system do not have flexibility to add important fields that are basic to warranty systems (ex. hour meter).

o   Report scope documents signed off but the actual report in Cognos is not the same

o   Lack of clarification on how reports would be in Cognos (Report headers missing; only tab reports not multiple as shown in the same scope reports.

Lessons Learned - Bullet Point Quick List (What Did Go Well)

         Dealer benefits are realized in the system

         Historically IT software projects in the company have not been on time or in budget. This project was in budget and roughly on time

         Project sponsor involvement was constant throughout the project.

         People who knew what they were doing (subject matter experts) were involved in the project

         Tavant attitude and response was positive

         Deliverables and non-delivered items were clearly communicated to the dealers

         Commitments made to the dealers were kept.

         ATMS’s and Niall Spraggs did a great job training the dealers.

         Putting a resource with project experience in the warranty department was a great help.

o   Fresh viewpoint

o   Project viewpoint

         Integrations were tested well and are working

         Delivery reports were made mandatory in the system which highlighted a lack of audit in this area

         The whole warranty team managed to maintain claim processing and vendor recovery levels while testing and working on the project.

         The hard lessons learned in this first phase will improve the following project phases.

         One of the first global projects that was Europe lead (Europe pilot).

Phase 1 of SLMS was the EMEA implementation of warranty. This was the first software replacement project between NMHG and Tavant.

Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.

Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.

Cost: The phase 1 portion of the project would have a small $12.5k contingency for any out of scope items, licenses, or miscellaneous project items that may come up as part of the project.

Risk: Risk to the project includes the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, and unclear deadlines.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was believed to be high since EMEA has fewer change requests in the original scope. The Tavant warranty management system appeared to fit the EMEA model.

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Risk: Risk to the project included the following: missed in scope items, NMHG IT resourcing conflicts, offshore programming, communication issues and unclear deadlines.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

         Perceived that Tavant was not fully aware of the complexity of the system. It would have been good to have a Tavant person “shadow” the warranty team to learn the processes

o   It is helpful to have a Project manager who knows the business in detail; otherwise, the business needs to provide the knowledge to the project as subject matter experts.

o   Steering committee/ decision makers should be fully involved and aware of the business needs and why.

o   Make no assumptions about the new system, ensure that the requirements of the new system are in writing

o   Hours of time spent reviewing scope documents and recordings to prove that an item was in scope

o   Don’t just accept that the supplier has a software module. Ask who is using it and how it is being used.

         Originally told all reports could be done but now EMEA has to do some by themselves. (Sales Reports)

         It appears that we helped develop (work out bugs) with some of the Tavant existing system

         Upon delivery the system is much more rigid that we were lead to believe from the demos: things that are important aren’t configurable (hour meter readings)

         The directive to have a global warranty system caused too much focus on phase 2 during phase 1.

         Project plan scheduled dates should be given prior to the project start date but were given over a month afterwards

         Limits testers to taking vacation or holiday and doesn’t allow much room for people’s life outside of work.

         More time was spent on testing Tavant’s testing scenarios and less on our own. Need more time for full testing of both.

o   Originally only 1 week to train dealers and NMHG employees with a finished product

o   Data Migration: Delay to migration on Tavant’s side. Data was not migrated in time for UAT. Partially NMHG but also Tavant’s fault for delay with no reason why.

         Unfair pricing of change requests and scheduling delays with no charges to Tavant when they delay.

o   The team was new to a major project and needed to know their roles and responsibilities

         Direct contact with the developers and the users/ creators: there should have been a full-time on sight Tavant project manager/lead

o   JIRA logging issues becoming resolved by Tavant but not allowing NMHG to test until the release date.

o   Perceived that Tavant has corrected the issue when it hasn’t been verified until a later time by NMHG which makes NMHG look slow when in fact it cannot be tested.

         Tavant was often in agreement (said “yes”) of verbal requirements but the delivered was not what was stated

         Cultural barriers, time zone issues, and language barriers (including terminology) contributed to misunderstandings

         Change requests in scope were not communicated to the integration and data migration teams leaving gaps

         Had to repeat requirements over and over because there was no system for formal communication/ logging of issues & requirements.

         It was a huge loss to the project that the Tavant scoping resource was not the resource used for implementation. (Hours, days, months wasted because of this)

         Original thought was that SLMS would replace multiple systems, but now user will still have to use them all. Not an improvement as originally thought.

         Requests for demos were never performed (NCR, supplier recovery) making it very hard to test the system.

         Requirements (quick write-up or screen shots) of change requests and issues were not shared resulting in quite a bit of rework.

         Functionality and routing requirements were missed because the internal team members were not always honest stating that they had read the requirements, tested, or performed sanity testing when they really had not.

         Test scenarios given by the software supplier are not sufficient for testing our own business processes. We must have and take the time to create our own test plans.

o   The reporting resource was not qualified and did not have proper communication skills.

o   Table for reports were set up only with the report in mind. No thought was given to future use of the data

o   Extracts within the Tavant system do not have flexibility to add important fields that are basic to warranty systems (ex. hour meter).

o   Lack of clarification on how reports would be in Cognos (Report headers missing; only tab reports not multiple as shown in the same scope reports.

         Historically IT software projects in the company have not been on time or in budget. This project was in budget and roughly on time

         People who knew what they were doing (subject matter experts) were involved in the project

         Delivery reports were made mandatory in the system which highlighted a lack of audit in this area

         The whole warranty team managed to maintain claim processing and vendor recovery levels while testing and working on the project.

Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.

Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

         Functionality and routing requirements were missed because the internal team members were not always honest stating that they had read the requirements, tested, or performed sanity testing when they really had not.

Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.

Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Scope: Scoping for phase 1 would include Americas warranty in order to ensure a global process. Scoping would begin in mid-July with America’s warranty. Scoping for EMEA would begin the end of July and continue for three weeks. Master data would be migrated from NOMS, SAP, SRM, EPO, NEMIS, and EMEA warranty into SLMS. Integration would be set up between these systems for data updates. Integration scoping would begin in July with NMHG IT.

Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Schedule: Programming based on the approved scope and requirements traceability matrix would begin in September and would commence through January. Unit testing by the users would begin mid-February through mid-March. Integration testing would begin mid-January through the end of February. User acceptance testing would occur mid-March through mid-April. Go live would be April 21, 2013. Weekly meetings would be held between the Tavant project manager and the NMHG project manager to discuss project status. A weekly report would be reviewed in that meeting.

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Scope: Scoping began as scheduled. EMEA warranty scoping included several change requests needed for go-live. Americas warranty scoping included a large number of change requests that would be programmed for phase 2. Many of the change requests were de-scoped and the system was accepted as it functions. During scoping, EMEA warranty assumed that Tavant was creating a custom system for them. During scoping, Americas warranty assumed that there would be no loss of functionality between the N W O custom warranty system and the Tavant system. Some of the change requests were labeled as “Nice to Have” when they should have been “Must Have.”

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Cost: Hidden costs that were not considered during the writing of the PAR were software licenses and domain SSL certificates. Cost for the salary of the NMHG project manager and IT resources was not included in the PAR. Normally any full-time project resources are added as cost to the PAR. SAP XI resources were constrained so a resource was purchased for two months allowing the project to stay on schedule. Because COGNOS licenses were already available, the EMEA warranty group did not have to purchase those licenses. The released COGNOS money was used for additional change requests. Change requests were managed well in order to keep the cost within the funds available for phase 1.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Quality: The quality of the phase 1 project was not to the expectations of the EMEA warranty team. This was due to several factors. The first was the expectation that the Tavant system would be a custom system written for NMHG. The second was that the requirements were not presented clearly enough for the stakeholders to understand. Also, demo comments were ignored. Anther quality factor was that testing time was lost due to the data load delay. EMEA warranty would not test with demo data and lost the opportunity to identify system processing bugs. Another factor in quality was the presence of America’s scope items that should have been configured out of the EMEA business unit. All of these items together resulted in 361 issues and change requests for user acceptance testing. Although Tavant announced they were locking the code, the code was not locked. There were releases to UAT right up to the week before go live. The late releases contributed to production response time issues. Production issues are centered on da

Schedule: Phase 1 deep-dive scoping began on time. The project dates were not given prior to the project starting. At the first project status report given August 23, 2012, a few of the dates were given. The project manager asked that Tavant give the full project plan so that the NMHG project plan could be completed. Tavant gave a high level plan with estimated dates on September 6, 2012 and the full project plan was given a week later. Since NMHG IT worked two months with no deadline dates, they did not deliver data migration or integration programming on time. The two months slippage of delivering the project dates resulting in Tavant giving NMHG seven weeks slippage. The new go-live date was May 13th

2013. Because data loading took more time than Tavant planned, the integration testing did not occur until during user acceptance testing. The users did not perform a full demo test prior to user acceptance testing. The issues that were found during demos were not documented or addressed by Tavant. The large number of issues found during user acceptance and integration testing required that the project go live date be pushed out to June 25th

2013. Dealers were brought onto the system July 1, 2013.

Things that went well

Good Team coordination

Better usage of JIRA in terms of tracking and closing issues

Dev to Dev integration testing helped in completing the UAT integrations smoothly.

Demos and EQA was useful, however this can be improved in Phase II

Tavant team was flexible in supporting NMHG needs by putting extra hours

Coordination between Tavant and NMHG on data migration issues/resolutions was

good

Having direct calls with NMHG business on integration discussions helped

Tavant felt having offshore resource for UAT support at onsite helped

Areas of ImprovementNMHG business understanding on JIRA workflow would have helped in smooth release and issue

management (ex: issues marked as fixed in JIRA were verified in UAT, however issues with verified status

were supposed to be tested)

Requirements provided by NMHG were not complete, after implementation and demo/release, we

received new set of requirements for the same issue (ex: NMHGSLMS-15 and NMHGSLMS-159)

Everytime new set of data provided by NMHG with fixes, the fixes for old issues that were corrected by

NMHG reoccured. For ex, the issues reported during UAT were not corrected when data was sent during

dry run/PROD. Same issues reported during UAT reoccured.

Quality/Validation checks should be done from NMHG before data is sent to Tavant. Quality of data sent

by NMHG needs to be improved to have the smooth data migration process.

Availability of NMHG business during the course of PROD release would have helped in smooth rollout.

Due to unavailability of NMHG business, NMHG data migration team could not provide data fixes on

time.

Closure of Phase I delta data migration needs to be time bound. Phase I data migration is still incomplete

(ex: SLMSPROD-6, SLMSPROD-37)

It looks like NMHG used Legacy system even after SLMS go-live, Tavant had to work on migrating delta

records (SLMSPROD-153), that impacted other deliverables.

Issue descriptions provided by NMHG in JIRA could have been more descriptive and elaborative to

mimimize back and forth communcations on the issues.

After closing JIRA issues, same issue was reopened with new scope that is not related to closed issue.

At times there were frustrations shown that didn't work in the interest of the project, these should have

been taken up at management level rather than developer level.

Area Lesson Remediation Schedule Impact

Communication Although NMHG was told that Tavant software

contained certain functionality, the functionality was

not working.

o Batch claim upload and supplier recovery

Don’t just accept that the supplier has a software module. Ask who is using

it and how it is being used. Ingersoll Rand uses supplier recovery.

L

Communication Lack of response/ communication to requests from

Tavant

All requests should be in JIRA. Tavant will create JIRA dashboard to show

average response time to requests. Project management will escalate any

high priority issues that haven't been addressed

M

Communication Tavant was often in agreement (said “yes”) of verbal

requirements but the delivered was not what was

stated

The team in all geographical locations should take training in verbal and

communications skills. Get it in writing and record it.

M

Communication Cultural barriers, time zone issues, and language

barriers (including terminology) contributed to

misunderstandings

Task members should be on site during critical phases of the project. The

team in all geographical locations should take training in verbal and

communications skills

M

Communication Email overload from JIRA, project manager, and Tavant Review "Email Quick Wins". Specific subject matter. Bullet point lists. Pick

up the phone and call.

L

Communication Too many unproductive meetings Meetings should have a clear agenda and stick to the agenda. Sometimes

we invite stakeholders to meetings just in case they are affected.

L

Communication Change requests in scope were not communicated to

the integration and data migration teams leaving gaps

Weekly meetings with data migration and integration teams M

Communication Had to repeat requirements over and over because

there was no system for formal communication/

logging of issues & requirements.

Tavant told us up front that they would ask multiple times in order to better

understand the requirements. However, JIRA has been implemented in

order to keep track of issues and requirements. Get the full requirements in

writing as to how the solution will be delivered. Screen shots to show the

user experience are necessary.

L

Communication Training/Requests for demos were never performed

(NCR, supplier recovery) making it very hard to test the

system.

Up front we should identify who needs the training so that no one is left

out. We need to allow the users to test in the system as early as possible for

training.

M

Communication At times there were frustrations shown that didn't

work in the interest of the project, these should have

been taken up at management level rather than

developer level.

At all times we should communicate in a professional manner. H

Data Everytime new set of data provided by NMHG with

fixes, the fixes for old issues that were corrected by

NMHG reoccured. For ex, the issues reported during

UAT were not corrected when data was sent during

dry run/PROD. Same issues reported during UAT

reoccured.

Need to understand what we are sending and why we are sending it. Data

cleanup should occur with the first data load resulting in fewer errors in

remaining loads

H

Data Quality/Validation checks should be done from NMHG

before data is sent to Tavant. Quality of data sent by

NMHG needs to be improved to have the smooth data

migration process.

Data cleanup should occur with the first data load resulting in fewer errors

in remaining loads

H

Data Closure of Phase I delta data migration needs to be

time bound. Phase I data migration is still incomplete

(ex: SLMSPROD-6, SLMSPROD-37)

Set a due date and meet the date. H

Data It looks like NMHG used Legacy system even after

SLMS go-live, Tavant had to work on migrating delta

records (SLMSPROD-153), that impacted other

deliverables.

One menu item was missed and was immediately turned off. Phase 2 there

are programming changes that will not allow the dealer to enter any claims

except Fleet claims. After Fleet go live remove the menu and put back the

inquiry section.

M

JIRA o Started using JIRA too late in the project

o Lack of understanding of terminology in JIRA

o JIRA logging issues becoming resolved by Tavant but

not allowing NMHG to test until the release date.

o Perceived that Tavant has corrected the issue when it

hasn’t been verified until a later time by NMHG which

makes NMHG look slow when in fact it cannot be

tested.

o Priorities are changed on the tickets without

consulting with the author

Provide JIRA clarification to NMHG team. Most of these are a

misunderstanding of how JIRA is used by Tavant. Tavant marks issues as

fixed so that they may be tested by the Tavant interal QA personnel.

L

JIRA NMHG business understanding on JIRA workflow would

have helped in smooth release and issue management

(ex: issues marked as fixed in JIRA were verified in UAT,

however issues with verified status were supposed to

be tested)

JIRA training for those who need it. New issues should have a new JIRA. L

JIRA Issue descriptions provided by NMHG in JIRA could

have been more descriptive and elaborative to

mimimize back and forth communcations on the

issues.

All issues should have a fully written description and a written and signed

off resolution. Good problem definition. Mini training and measure how we

are approving.

M

JIRA After closing JIRA issues, same issue was reopened with

new scope that is not related to closed issue.

New issues should have a new JIRA. L

JIRA Some tickets closed when they shouldn't be Only the author should close the tickets L

Project The team members who made the decision on

purchasing the software were not SME's.

In the US, the people who used the system were included in the analysis of

the software. At least one person who knows and uses the system on the

team from each business unit should have been included in EMEA.

L

Project It was a major setback to the project to lose Rohit

Lohan as the project coordinator. Hours were spent

reviewing recordings and notes to prove what was

already in scope

Key project team members should not be removed from the project. H

Project The team and SME's were new to a major project and

needed to know their roles and responsibilities

Provide proper project training to project members who have not been

involved in large projects.

H

Project Need better preparation when using an outside

supplier for a new system.

Set expectations. Better training for dealing with outsourcing partners and

purchased software providers.

L

Project Direct contact with the developers and the users/

creators: there should have been a full-time on sight

Tavant project manager/lead

Agree. Demand it for future projects. H

Quality Items that were working in UAT are not working in

production. Items in production are broken in the next

UAT.

Regression testing. More thorough testing of the production environment

prior to use

L

Schedule Project deadlines were given two months after the

project had already started. This put our internal teams

behind from the beginning. Schedule and timing was

dictated, too late, and impossible to meet

Don't start until you know where you are going and how you are going to

get there. Set the schedule and review it.

H

Schedule Project dates were changed without consulting those

who were affected (EMEA warranty for testing, IT for

testing)

Make sure that the discussion occurs with the project lead, project team

and IT

H

Schedule The business schedule and holiday time was not

included in project scheduling

Consolidated project plan M

Schedule Short time between end of UAT and Go live didn't leave

much time for dealer training

Dealer training has been planned in P2 with enough time H

Schedule Lessons learned meeting was held too close to go live

date

o The team hadn’t gone through month end

o Issues still to be corrected

o Supplier recovery still to be enhanced

Lessons learned was held early so that we could remember what happened.

Additional items may be added. Also, this will help with the phase 2 and 3

projects

L

Schedule Availability of NMHG business during the course of

PROD release would have helped in smooth rollout.

Due to unavailability of NMHG business, NMHG data

migration team could not provide data fixes on time.

Moving the schedule results in people not being available. The schedule

should be set and followed. Business availability should be obtained in

advance for planning.

M

Schedule Too ambitious at getting the other phases complete.

Too focused on the schedule.

Don't start phase 2 and 3 until phase 1 is complete. Have separate parallel

teams

H

Scope The Tavant scope was initially at a high level. When the

detailed scoping occurred, there was no "shadowing"

the warranty team in order to understand the business

processes.

Tavant offered a person to work in the department. However, we are talking

about business analysis, not working in the department. Shadowing is

learning the processs.

H

Scope EMEA warranty understood that they were getting a

custom system with everything they currently have

plus the new items they wanted. However, they did not

make sure that what they wanted was in writing in the

scope documents

Pay someone up front to collect the scope at a detail level. If you want it,

get it in writing. Don't assume

H

Scope We were lead to believe that the system is highly

configurable. However, things we needed to be

configurable are not. Again a miss in getting things in

writing and understanding what terminilogy really

means

Configurable does not mean flexible. Learn what is configurable. M

Scope Original thought was that SLMS would replace multiple

systems, but now user will still have to use them all.

Not an improvement as originally thought.

This is temporary. L

Scope Tavant was not fully aware of the complexity of the

EMEA system.

This gets back to detailed scoping. It is possible that in the hand off from

Rohit to Srini some things were missed and had to be repeated

H

Scope We did not properly follow up by reading meeting

minutes and BRD's to ensure that what was asked for

or spoken about in a requirements meeting was

accurately documented

Agree. We will focus to do this for the future. H

Scope The effort to keep the system as global as possible

slowed down the start of phase 1. Also, some phase 2

items ended up in the programming and configuration

of phase 1.

Global processes should be agreed to ahead of time. The benefit of this

outweighs the risk.

L

Scope Anything not listed in the original scope is considered a

“change request”. Perceived unfair pricing of change

requests and scheduling delays with no charges to

Tavant when they delay.

Provide effort (high, medium, low) as part of the reason for the cost on all

change requests

L

Scope Requirements (quick write-up or screen shots) of

change requests and issues were not shared resulting

in quite a bit of rework.

The BRD for these has to be done. Applies to JIRA as well. Problem definition

should be clear as well as the resolution. Status of resolutions in JIRA should

be clear. Also go through JIRA for process improvements on the status

H

Scope Functionality and routing requirements were missed

because the internal team members were not always

honest stating that they had read the requirements,

tested, or performed sanity testing when they really

had not.

Follow the UAT checklist provided by Tavant. H

Scope Security (separation of duties) was not fully

implemented. Tavant is built on Single Signon but our

internal security team would not allow this. Tavant had

to scramble to give screens. Password protocol is

missing.

NMHG level decision that caused this issue. It should have been sent back to

infrastructure.

L

Scope Requirements provided by NMHG were not complete,

after implementation and demo/release, we received

new set of requirements for the same issue (ex:

NMHGSLMS-15 and NMHGSLMS-159)

All requirements should be documented in writing and signed off. H

Scope Changes in the BRD were communicated to IT too late

to react.

For phase 2 and 3 communicate changes to all groups who could be

impacted

M

Testing Short amount of time for UAT

• Limits testers to taking vacation or holiday and

doesn’t allow much room for people’s life outside of

work.

• More time was spent on testing Tavant’s testing

scenarios and less on our own. Need more time for full

testing of both.

EMEA didn't have real data during UAT. Phase 2 and 3 will have more time

for UAT than was scheduled for P1. Need to look at the schedule and

determine if it is enough.

H

Testing Test scenarios given by the software supplier are not

sufficient for testing our own business processes. We

must have and take the time to create our own test

plans.

Project lead should take the time to create test plans and test cases outside

of what is provided by Tavant

H

Schedule There needs to be a review gate after each demo Add review gate to the project plan L

Testing Missed testing scenarios that showed up issues after

production go live

Project lead should take the time to create test plans and test cases outside

of what is provided by Tavant

H

Scope Tequilla was not included in scoping meetings for

Americas Warranty

IT SME's should be included because they know the inner workings of the

system

L