A very sad, but very unsurprising, story appeared in yesterday's Los Angeles Times about the LA Unified School District (LAUSD) payroll system fiasco that I have been blogging about for the past several months. The story shows how the system was in trouble from the start, tells of the warnings of trouble along the way, and how the warnings were ignored anyway until it was too late.
"In the weeks leading up to the launch of a new payroll system, Los Angeles Unified School District officials had plenty of warning that the $95-million technology project would have serious problems."
"Critical hardware had failed numerous times. Flawed data collected over decades proved difficult to clean up and input into the new system. Payroll clerks complained that training had fallen far short -- more than 60 schools didn't have a single staff member who'd received any training."
"Still, consultants hired to implement the system urged the district to proceed as scheduled in early January 2007. Three days before the system was to begin, they urged the district in a report to 'Go! Proceed . . . and go-live on January 1!' "
The story goes on to say that LAUSD officials admitted that they were too inexperienced - I say incompetent - to understand the issues, risks, and problems popping up all around them.
"Supt. David L. Brewer oversaw the district's clumsy recovery effort. It has taken a year to stabilize the system. The ordeal has weakened the superintendent, opening him to criticism that he has been ineffective."
" 'We were not ready to go live with this system, but we didn't have the internal expertise to know that,' Brewer said in a recent interview."
The LAUSD chief operating officer responsible for pushing through the payroll system also admitted that "he knows little about computer systems."
Helping matter along, the original payroll data was not cleansed before it was put into the new system, so the new system used inaccurate information. "The dirty data had produced bogus employee rosters. How, clerks wondered, do you cut a paycheck for a person the computer system says does not exist?"
The contractor responsible for the payroll, however, maintains that "throughout the project we not only did our part, but we in fact went above and beyond." I am sure, therefore, that they are going to use the project as a proud customer reference site in their future proposals.
All one can say is, sad, sad, sad, and another software project to add to the case study pile of what not to do - not that anyone will read it.