Why T-Card System Failed Essay

Why T-Card System Failed Essay

1 . LAUNCH The Projects under debate is T-Card and Myki Ticketing System for NSW and Victoria, the systems T-Card and Myki were initiated to completely automate this complex ticketing system throughout Sydney and Victoria Express. The aims of the devices were to associated with people lifestyle easier, less difficult and reduce the expense of maintenance which usually government happens to be spending. 1 MYKI Ticketing System Myki Ticketing System was likewise designed on the same RFID technology as T-Card but has to be implemented in Victoria which includes entirely several ticketing system then Sydney and therefore the systems were different in functionality. The state of hawaii govt. recognize the need of software of ticketing system and awarded AU$494 Million sensitive to Kamco Consortium in 2005 (Smartcard ticketing will take major advance, From the office of the premier- viewed in 24 sep 2009), the deadline from the system was 2007 as well as the budget was AU$494 , 000, 000 but in 3 years ago the Transport minister declared 1 year hold off and the price range was almost doubled that was very unsettling for the taxpayers nevertheless the minister explained the system is definitely the best system and it truly worth it. The system was first analyzed in Geelong bus network in 3 years ago and was successful, there was some software mistakes but the merchant successfully get over most of that and the evaluation was widened throughout Victoria and was almost 90% successful which in turn resulted in 04 2009 when ever entire bus services in Bendigo, Ballarat and Seymour were moved to Myki (New solution system starting next week The Courier, posted on 30/03/2009 viewed about 25 sep 09) and today Myki is in roll out process and setting up throughout Melbourne as well. a couple of T-Card Ticketing System T-Card Ticketing system signifies integrated contactless ticketing system using the RFID Technology. The ticketing system needs to replace Sydney buses, Ferries, City Railway and Monorail services. In addition, it includes all of the private sector bus, rail and ferries operators too. T-Card program was named off in 2008 after Minister of transport David Watkins released project being a failure, (Case Study) this individual said the PTTC (Public Transport Ticketing Corporation) is currently sure that ERG couldn’t complete the project and therefore left no additional choice pertaining to the taxpayers and the federal government. In this regards the Government recorded a case of AU$95 Mil on ERG and ERG filed an instance of AU$250 Million above the Government pertaining to illegally terminating the deal. 2 . CHALLENGES IDENTIFICATION The contract of T-Card which has been awarded to ERG in 2003 was one of the biggest agreements they have sucess, the others were London’s Oyster, Hong Kong’s Octopus, Singapore’s EZ-link, San Francisco’s TransLink and many more. ERG has a good background in providing this kind of system all across the world however this kind of smart card technology at that time was unproven and linking the complete buses, ferries, trams and railway systems together was not an easy task, additionally among all the other systems Sydney’s T-Card was unique due to its unique and complex service system and transport companies were included too. As you may know Scope, Time, Cost and Quality will be the main several pillars of project administration (Robert T Greenleaf, “The four support beams of task management” viewed on twenty nine sep 09) and mistake in these core functions affects directly on the critical route, which effects the whole job and chooses the task success or failure, additionally these all functions are thoroughly connected to one another and changes in one function will have an effect on others, making monitoring/controlling even more harder, hence these are incredibly critical features. ERG determined some serious blunders in the same respect, they didn’t identify the major key stake holders which in turn resulted in significantly less information about the currently implemented system and deficiency of involvement confirmed them the wrong manner and they couldn’t define the scope with the system obviously, which influenced the cost, top quality and period straightforwardly, and turn into out to be the reason for T-Card Failing. 2 . 1 ) IDENTIFYING IMPORTANT STAKE HOLDERS Initiating is among the most complex as well as the most important phase of any kind of project lifestyle cycle, mistakes in the starting phase generally results in inability, most of the work in this phase is based on knowledge and forecasts and the one responsible must have to have an considerable experience and a perspective to see a wide-ranging picture, even so some of the everything is very simple and predefined and committing mistake in those fraction is very rare nevertheless unfortunately ERG did that blunders. The major problem in the initiating procedure for T-Card program was discovering the key risk holders. As discussed previous in the intro, that the T-Card system was created to automate the government. as well as the exclusive service providers of bus, ferries and rail networks (Fare System blamed for T-Card end, Julian Bajkowski, posted on 10/06/2008 viewed on 25 sep 09) and for that reason those exclusive service providers were directly linked with the system making them one of the main stake owners but unfortunately neither govt. nor ERG group recognize them as being a stake slots, in-fact PTTC alleged there is no need to range from the Railcorp or any type of other private transport companies in agreement. According to Julian Bajkowski, article “Fare System blamed for T-Card End” published on 10/06/2008, he declared that “ERG Decided on bearing the chance of delay brought on by lack of involvement support and cooperation by RailCorp” which is completely unwanted, how a supplier can agree on such a form of term? 2 . 2 . RANGE OF THE SYSTEM WAS VAGUE Without knowing the complexity of the system ERG agreed on all of the conditions made by the PTTC. Sydney’s ticketing system was very complex because of its multifaceted fare program and ERG was completely focusing on the technical aspect of the system which averted them to start to see the bigger picture. Theoretically system is sound because same systems are extremely successful consist of parts of the earth but the opportunity of the program was not defined properly. To learn the complexity of the Sydney’s ticketing program we need to assess it while using rest of Sydney, according to Allan Miles in his content “Fix the Fares and you’ll resolve the ticket” (published about 30/08/07 looked at on twenty six sep 09) he says, you will wonder to know that entirely Australia, Sydney is the simply place where one can buy “train ticket”. It is worth noting that Sydney have more than 70 types of admission as beat Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin and Perth having only around 10-15 types of tickets (Metropolitan public transportation ticket arrangements around Quotes viewed upon 29 sep 09) and none of those have distinct tickets for trains, chartering and ferries, most of the systems works on distance travelled or perhaps time structured ticketing in Sydney it is divided into areas and specific zones, time, age, profession, type of transport and much more other types (T-Card can be Dead viewed on 31 sep 09) moreover instead of making deals system less complicated for the modern system the NSW govt. included much more other benefits in the seat tickets like advantages for partners, group travel around, family admission, international students/visitors or resident and so on which can be very hard to determine separately. All of the above defined complexities in the ticketing system the actual system appears little unrealistic but it’s not all, the worst component is posted by Julian Bajkowski in the article Fare System blamed for T-Card end, he says that the Government argues that though ERG is automating the legacy system to get RailCorp, still there is no necessity to provide these people the complete information on their musical legacy system. Beside such sophisticated and exclusive fare program now the vendor will not be in a position to get the full details of the live program which is presently in place!!! And so it is extremely hard for ERG or any various other vendor to automate a process which is unidentified to these people. 2 . several. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS As we have talked about earlier that ERG was developing a large amount of other systems with Sydney’s T-Card and almost all the other systems happen to be in place at the moment and working very proficiently but sadly the only program which failed was the Sydney’s T-Card and one of the explanation which lead it to failure was at Nov 2007 (Case Research page 8), as the device was incredibly complex and the technology utilized was unproven at that time and therefore ERG required to put into practice the system steadily in the next 1 . 5 years which was incredibly sound and low risk substitute, but the Government. denied without the specific explanation and that really shows the cooperation and relationship between your vendor plus the Government. Suzanne Tindal says in her article “T-Card is deceased, T-Card Tag II Approaching this year” at ZDNet, that AU$95 Million was thrown into the project, out of which AU$18 Million utilized for the purchasing of kit for chartering and railroad stations. Fit that without the test, without the proven program, without even near to the success how they can purchase products for the whole point out. 3. TIPS 3. 1 . Tracking System As we have discussed that the most important aspects of any kind of project will be scope, period, cost and quality, I will ensure that these aspects continue to be under control as well as the finest approach to control these kinds of triple constraints is to place a proper traffic monitoring system about regularly basis and the proper way to do that is to have an earned value management in place which will must be supported by the transform management. This tracking program will certainly gauge the variance between the projected expense and the real cost and also the projected schedule and the actual schedule and can point out the hurdles in the manner. Moreover in case you know something is wrong in that case it’s easy to identify and eliminate instead of sitting unaware of upcoming risks. Following methods will definitely support us to the task 3. 2 . Scope Management One of the major problems was scope creep, in the T-Card system the system restrictions were not identified properly and therefore the system scope was increasing over the time, I will build a requirement standards document which will work as a contract between the PTTC and ERG that what system will be capable of doing and what not. 3. 3. Correct involvement of stake holders We will include all the personal transport companies with the PTTC throughout the project lifecycle; it is going to surely produce a sense of ownership most notable toward the machine and will eventually help us building a relationship with the consumer and then client will not consider us a great outsider and may share the info required. 3. 4. Streamlining the Cost System Sydney’s currently put ticketing product is very older and complicated but as it is working and making money from it the government consider it’s very good, and never thought of changing how they are working which unfortunately making the upkeep cost of the device very high, but if they make useful changes in the system operations the transportation will definitely cost less in the currently priced at. We will make a pitch for PTTC for simplification in the fare system which will demonstrate them that changes will not decrease the earnings but actually will reduce the routine service cost and finally raise the profits. The PTTC ignore the option of changing the ticketing procedure in 2007 because they will thought that it could reduce the revenue they are earning which is not the case and if they will come to know that they are certainly not losing the truth is they will generate more, were sure that they will simplify their particular system. several. 5. Making use of the readymade program Instead of making a completely new program, I will intensely analyze the systems at the moment working across the world and will consider the one corresponding the most, it will not only provide us with an idea what do we have to develop but it may also give a good idea to the customer that what kind of system they are going to get. It will eventually buy all of us some time and reduce the risk of failure, mainly because it’s very much easy to customize a method already created instead of setting up a new a single. 3. six. Implementing Gradually Instead of implementing the whole system over night with which I designed very quickly, We would prefer to implement it slowly over a specific period of time, that can certainly support us to find the problems inside the system and offer a best program before it goes to average person. This technique is going to absolutely function because it will permit us to develop functionalities independently and then select those functionalities into the program over time. 5. REFERENCES Example Kathy Schwalbe, “Information Program Project Management” Julian Bajkowski, “Fare Program blamed for T-Card end”, published about 10/06/2008 looked at on 25 Sep 2009 from http://www.misaustralia.com/viewer.aspx?EDP://20080610000020766784 Metropolitan public transport solution arrangements around Australia looked at on up to 29 Sep 2009 from http://www.ecotransit.org.au/ets/node/123 New ticketed system beginning next week The Courier, posted on 30/03/2009 viewed about 25 sep 09 coming from http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/local/news/general/new-ticket-system-starting-next-week/1473745.aspx?src=rss Robert K Greenleaf, “The several pillars of project management” viewed about 29 Sep 09 coming from http://www.abrachan.org/abrachanorg/html/pillars_of_pm.pdf

Related Essays