"City Card"
(A Crisis Project Case)

Annotation

The following study analyzes an example of a multi-expertise oriented project dealing with system integration and implementation of new technologies in Public Transportation. This project was successfully completed under Crisis Management conditions.

PROBLEM:

The project was part of a long-term global solution to public transport operation coverage in a bigger city (with a population of approximately 164,000.) The immediate task was to introduce a chip card system that would replace the existing paper ticket model and bring more user-friendliness to the passengers. The goal was to help expand the number of users of the public transportation system.

One of the long-term tasks was to extend the use of the chip card in the future beyond the original realm of transportation and transform it into a multi-application “City Card.” This new generation card could be used in communication with local authorities (including electronic signature,) to run employee time card systems, catering and reservation schemes and also to make payments.

The utmost sensitive aspect of the project was the insurmountable finality of the deadline for the introduction of the card system, which was based on the commitment made by local political representation. Even the slightest delay could have had a serious impact on many levels of community politics. On the other hand, the advantage for the implementation team was the fact that the project could serve as a cutting-edge reference for the key subcontractors who could thus be pressured to provide superior co-operation.

Default conditions:

The project was originally entrusted to a multinational consulting firm. At the moment we took the project over (3,5 months prior to the implementation deadline) it was in the state of “absolute, but still feasible madness”. Any successor had to face the following issues:

poor quality of agreements already signed with subcontractors, which set unfavorable conditions for our client, especially:
the client was contractually responsible for “system integration,” but at the time of contract negotiations he clearly lacked any necessary expertise to do so;
the project was relying on the combination of new and uncommon technical solutions (both HW and SW); in addition, their smooth communication with the internal SAP system was not verified;
insufficient guarantees of required development, testing, production and implementation capacity on the part of key subcontractors;
questionable and/or distorted communication between the key subcontractors; their only minimum motivation based on the terms of contracts;
problematic communication between the client and the subcontractors ensuing in part from the client’s initial weak bargaining position;
low level of experience on the part of the client’s employees in the domain of large projects, Project/Crisis Management, work under severe time constraint and team-work;
employees entirely unprepared to work with new technologies;
lack of any advertising and PR campaign for the public, total ignoring of internal PR, etc.

SOLUTION:

The important advantage was that our prior co-operation with this client yielded in our hands detailed information about all its key personnel reaching all the way down to the “shop-floor” level. Aware of “political sensitivity” of the matter we were able to take the following steps:

Project was awarded the highest priority and the team in charge was granted virtually “absolute” powers;
Internal crisis team was set up comprising 14 members of our choice; its operation was based on principles of fully “autocratic” management and well-defined communication channels:
Subsequent course of action was defined as follows:
- detailed “Strengths & Weaknesses” analysis;
- “Work Breakdown Structure” /WBS/, key “milestones”, Critical Success Factors (CSF), Quality Assurance Steps (QAS), Timely Warning System (TWS);
- subprojects: internal and public testing, installation of scanning equipment in the vehicles, SW/HW implementation, Wi-Fi transmissions, staff training etc.;
- powers/responsibilities of the team members, financial incentives;
- communication with top management, stakeholders, general public and subcontractors;
Separate negotiations with individual subcontractors led to creation of a joint management team responsible for:
- overturning the initial weak bargaining position of the client due to poorly drafted contracts; express definition of direct responsibilities;
- description of the current status of technical solutions and production capabilities; co-ordination of development, testing and implementation stages including their continuity;
- definition of the mandatory “milestones”, CFS, QAS and TWS signals as well as outright communication channels on individual implementation levels;
- reaching agreement on possible deadline cuts (including e.g. an option of on-site testing at client’s premises, weekend and night shifts for the workers, etc.) and related cost issues;
- determination of the follow-up procedures (e.g. service agreement, availability of spare parts, PR of the project, etc.)

The work progress was subject to continuous and detailed monitoring. Additional steps were determined based on ongoing communication and regular meetings of the working teams. They included:

internal testing, installation and implementation works;
advertising and PR campaign with extensive experimental testing for the public;
prevention and/or solution of critical situations, communication and capacity “bottlenecks”; troubleshooting of problems related to the links with SAP and other SW applications;
commitment to future development of the system and expansion of its application etc.

The kick-off time for the whole project was set for 1 January, 2005, at 5:00 a.m. It created quite a thrilling atmosphere as the finishing works fell directly on the New Year’s Eve - many people were working overnight. However, after the official launch, the following tasks had yet to be completed:

detailed evaluation of the team work;
quality evaluation of the subcontractors;
completion of the “white” and “black” books of the project;
outline of the subsequent steps (i.e. monitoring and maintenance plans, options and frequency of upgrades, direction of future development of the system and its applicability, evaluation of customer satisfaction, etc.);
compensation of the team members and their subordinates.

RESULTS:

The project was completed and its operation began on schedule. During its first 14 months approximately 137,000 passengers had actively used the City Card within the city public transportation system. The remaining alternative ways of application have also been increasingly gaining support. The card is used especially for the reservation and catering purposes, but likewise as an “electronic purse” – to make payments within the city limits.

The other positive aspects of the project include:

composition of an experienced internal team capable of performing under the Project/Crisis Management conditions;
improved professional and management skills of its members;
creation of the pool of experienced subcontractors;
opportunity to further expand the spectrum of the City Card application including its penetration among the general public;
boosting up the client’s reputation in relation to the political representation of the city as well as the lay and professional community.