GovERP Project: Stakeholder Engagement, Change Management, and Methodology Analysis

Question 1:

The engagement strategy used by GovERP emphasized senior officials and IT suppliers more than the regular department staff. The Shared Services Sub-Committee was responsible for the program, although it did not have the needed knowledge and hired outside advisors. Appendix A reveals that upward messaging was very rare in these organizations. Because not enough stakeholders were consulted at the start, there was disagreement between many agencies about what was supposed to happen.

Since there was no user involvement in the planning, the system failed to help the users, and they resisted its implementation. Those who were affected by the policy disagreed, lost their trust and felt ignored. The agencies wanted certain results, vendors had products to deliver, and users needed them to be functional, yet slowdowns were never fixed. GovERP never performed a stakeholder analysis, which meant they could not focus on what stakeholders wanted and the project was abandoned due to delays.

In the opinion of the Project Management Institute (PMI), properly analyzing stakeholders is vital to managing what they expect and acting on their concerns (PMI 2017). GovERP did not include end-users in the project’s early stages, which led to problems and disagreements, as it was hardly unexpected given that the end-users were still excluded in the following stages. Fragmented engagement in projects can result in unmet expectations, which happened in GovERP, where the top-down approach ignored diverse groups. Their approach wasn’t accidental; they designed it to put hierarchy ahead of cooperation, which ended up causing a lot of trouble. Focusing on important officials made initial choices move more smoothly, but this approach hindered productivity in the long run.

Also, Bourne (2016) points out that when oversight is not done correctly and governance is weak, it results in increased conflicts, as observed in the SSSC relying too much on consultants. It could introduce biases unsuited to government aims, causing advisors to end up running the government. Consultants help fill knowledge gaps, but GovERP’s dependence on them may have changed how important issues were seen, leading to a greater disconnect among stakeholders. Focusing on seniors made the helpful approach, but trying to implement it failed because it did not account for project complexity.

For targeted guidance, GovERP should design a stakeholder engagement plan focused on a stakeholder map, grouping people and organizations by their influence and interests. By hosting workshops, sending surveys and using feedback, people’s issues can be heard and trust in the company can be restored. It is crucial to involve end-users during the planning stage to ensure the system fits their needs, making them less likely to resist it. Adapting according to progress in engagement would maintain the usefulness of the strategies.

Unlike GovERP, which left departmental staff out of key decisions, the matrix approach includes them by gathering their views regularly, supporting PMI’s idea of involving everyone in planning (PMI, 2017). To use the SSSC’s strength and reduce weaknesses in governance, high-influence groups are closely supervised (Bourne 2016). Following the suggestions, the matrix helps fix the GovERP’s one-way flow and lack of attention to stakeholders by promoting trust and ensuring everyone is on board, preventing delays or abandonment (Kujala et al., 2022).

Question 2:

Problems in change management and GRP during the use of GovERP had a substantial impact on the control and delivery of the project. As the company’s cultural change initiatives were not strong enough, employees became used to this work and were not ready for the new system. Also, the training was not thorough, and the users could not learn well enough, which resulted in greater opposition and a drop in productivity. GRP reviews were not prompt, and their outcomes were not applied well, so they failed to help manage risks as they developed. The responses were delayed, and supervision was not always present, which meant that the problems grew, leading to more money being spent and missing the project’s deadlines. Mansaray (2019) believes that strong leadership and complete training are essential for effective change management, but neither was present at GovERP. In the same way, the Western Australian Government (2018) points out that gateway reviews should see results applied promptly, which was not the case for GovERP. Even though the GRP could have supervised the work, its failures in implementation displayed a gap between how the project was managed and governed, restricting its effect on the project’s outcome.

To address these problems, GovERP should develop targeted strategies within its change management framework. Careful training programs that match the system’s complexities should be focused on, so users have the right skills and are more likely to accept the system. Having executives involved is very important; they must lead the effort, provide the necessary resources, and ensure the transformation is clear to everyone. Minois (2023) points out that good communication is as important as the right skills to align stakeholders with objectives. Integrating training, leadership and communication helps GovERP solve the problem of user disengagement and improve workforce readiness. Mansaray (2019) reports that an effective change management strategy built on these pillars improves ERP implementation.

Plus, GovERP should make it easier for GRP activities to come together and be carried out, providing better project supervision. Reviews must be scheduled at key milestones, and their recommendations must be implemented promptly to preempt the escalation of risks, aligning with the findings of the Western Australian Government (2018) on the importance of timely action. Tracking systems should be set up to check GRP results and how change management is proceeding, so that strategies can be updated on the go. This combined approach makes sure that insights from reviews directly inform change initiatives, creating a feedback loop that improves governance effectiveness.

Question 3:

Scheduled reviews at main project stages help mitigate risks, and the Western Australian Government’s (2018) recommendation to act promptly must be followed. Regular monitoring should be set up to observe GRP results and change management advancements, so that changes in project strategy can be made promptly. The integrated method helps review and leads to changes, improving how the government works.

Changing demands from the government caused GovERP’s project to become unpredictable. When many groups, government agencies, vendors and employees are involved, their goals can slow progress. It became clear that GovERP lacked support from all groups because of the difficulty in being aligned. Risks from technology problems often occur when you connect older systems to current ERP systems. The project faced delays because of unexpected issues with integration, a well-known challenge in IT projects for the public sector. Managing finances in large-scale projects is tough, and that caused GovERP’s budget to grow by $341 million. Employees sometimes resist new cultural changes, as seen when staff in GovERP slowed down the process of accepting them.

The difficulties with implementing GovERP show where risk management might need improvement for future projects. A major lesson is that stakeholder risks can be underestimated. As the project did not initially engage users and client agencies, many resisted the solution, which stopped the project from being adopted. People did not participate as expected, and the project became less trustworthy, leading to its abandonment.  Since these unexpected problems stretched the project and made it more expensive, it became clear that better technical reviews could have helped close this gap early on.

In addition, GovERP failed to keep risks under review because they were rarely reassessed throughout the project. Besides, the lack of thorough contingency plans exposed GovERP to major troubles like exceeding the budget and having new requirements. GovERP did not manage risks well due to the absence of proper and adaptable processes for this type of project. Aloini et al. (2007) point out that identifying risks systematically is essential for the success of an ERP project, which GovERP did not do, leading to significant problems. If the weakness had been identified sooner, many concerns might have been handled earlier. According to Turyahikayo (2018), complicated procedures in the public sector can stop risk management from running efficiently and make it harder to address growing risks in GovERP. While bureaucracy supports supervision, it can also make the organization less flexible, which GovERP failed to prevent.

For public sector ERP projects going forward, it is wise to anticipate risks ahead of time, get all stakeholders involved in finding risks and put solid strategies in place for those risks that matter most. Stakeholder engagement and planning for technological aspects can be improved by studying what was learned from GovERP.

Question 4:

In the GovERP project, the team used the waterfall model, so they had to finish requirements, design, implementation and testing before moving on to the following stages (Petersen et al. 2019).

The waterfall approach in GovERP allowed the government to stay in line with its regulations because of its careful planning and thorough documentation (PMI 2017). However, its rigid guidelines stopped it from responding to changes in government policies, a usual dilemma in such projects. The problem with being inflexible and having to wait for feedback and spend a lot of time on planning in the beginning led to delays and cost overruns, as issues that were spotted late needed major rework (Flyvbjerg 2009).

Unlike traditional approaches, the agile strategy is built around iteration and can easily handle changes, with stakeholder cooperation being a priority.

Table 2: Agile Methodology - Pros & Cons

With agile, GovERP could have responded to its evolving requirements by making many improvements and quickly delivering functional parts, which satisfied stakeholders (APM 2016). Still, successful use of this method requires disciplined, organized teams, which can clash with the government’s bureaucracy. Success in public projects depends on having fixed budgets and deadlines, but the chance of scope creep and unexpected timelines could jeopardize that.

As GovERP depended on the waterfall model, its structure was always predictable, yet it became too inflexible for the changing environment. Waterfall works well when the requirements do not change, but GovERP faces regular scope changes resulting from changes in the government and stakeholders, which cause delays and extra expenses. The iterative nature of Agile, by contrast, allows it to adjust to new requirements, which is valuable for complicated ERP projects (APM 2016). Even so, its lack of thorough documentation and how it is decentralized can make it hard for a government to ensure good governance and accountability. By using the waterfall model and agile flexibility at the same time, these tensions in government projects can be handled better (Eyieyien et al. 2024). It seems that if GovERP had followed a hybrid model, there would not have been scope creep, issues with stakeholders or delays.

This recommendation is justified by other research as well. Abdallah Lalmi et al. (2023) studied the construction industry using a combined research method. It became clear that the hybrid approach helped project outcomes by allowing teams to organize activities with waterfall at first and then refine what they produced with agile. Their study shows that combining different approaches suits GovERP, as it must be strongly governed and prepared for future changes.

For the case of GovERP, the hybrid process will start with waterfall for setting the objectives, establishing rules and securing initial permission from regulators. As soon as the foundation is complete, the team will apply agile to development and deployment, giving regular updates and modifying the product based on what government officials and users advise. Following a phased process means the project can stick to its main priorities and deal with sudden problems easily.

References

Aloini D, Dulmin R and Mininno V (2007) ‘Risk management in ERP project introduction: Review of the literature’, Information & Management, 44(6):547–567, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.05.004.

APM (2016) Agile project management, apm.org.uk, https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/find-a-resource/agile-project-management/.

Bourne L (2016) Stakeholder relationship management, 1st edn, Routledge, doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315610573.

Eyieyien OG, Idemudia C, Paul PO and Ijomah TI (2024) ‘Advancements in project management methodologies: Integrating agile and waterfall approaches for optimal outcomes’, Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(7):2216–2231, doi:https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i7.1312.

Flyvbjerg B (2009) ‘Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built--and what we can do about it’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3):344–367, doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grp024.

Kujala J, Sachs S, Leinonen H, Heikkinen A and Laude D (2022) ‘Stakeholder Engagement: Past, Present, and Future’, Business & Society, 61(5):1136–1196, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503211066595.

Lalmi A, Fernandes G and Boudemagh SS (2023) ‘A Hybrid Project Management Model for Construction Projects’, Routledge eBooks57–70, doi:https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003204046-5.

Mansaray HE (2019) ‘The Role of Leadership Style in Organisational Change management: a Literature Review’, Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1):18–31, doi:https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jhrm.20190701.13.

Minois N (2023) The Importance of Communication in Project Management, Institute of Project Management, https://instituteprojectmanagement.com/blog/the-crucial-role-of-communication-in-project-management/.

Petersen K, Wohlin C and Baca D (2019) ‘The Waterfall Model in Large-Scale Development’, in Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Blekinge Institute of Technology, doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02152-7_29.

PMI (2017) Guide to the project management body of knowledge, 6th edn, Project Management Institute.

Turyahikayo E (2018) ‘Bureaucratic Rigidity, Risk Aversion and Knowledge Generation and Utilization in the Public Sector: Reality or Illusion?’, Management and organizational studies, 5(3):9, doi:https://doi.org/10.5430/mos.v5n3p9.

Western Australian Government (2018) GatewayTM WA Lessons Learned Gateway Lessons Learned Review, https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/2023-08/gateway-review-lessons-learned-report.pdf, accessed 29 May 2025.