>It seems “very strange” that the IT department was bypassed, and “very unusual” that payments were not based on measurable deliverables, says John Halamka, the

>It seems “very strange” that the IT department was bypassed, and “very unusual” that payments were not based on measurable deliverables, says John Halamka, the chief information officer at Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center in Boston. He also notes that payments seem to have been made from donations that had not yet been received. ... But inside the University of Texas, the project was apparently seen as one that missed deadlines and didn’t deliver. The audit notes that the focus of the project was changed several times, first focusing on one type of leukemia, then another, then lung cancer. The initial plan was to test out the product out in pilots at two other hospitals. That never happened. MD Anderson changed the software it uses for managing electronic medical records, switching to a system made by Epic Systems of Madison, Wis. It has blamed this new system for a $405 million drop in its net income. According to the audit report, the Watson product doesn’t work with the new Epic System, and must be revamped in order to be re-tested. The information in the MD-Anderson/Watson product is also now out of date. --- 1. Requirements changes kill projects. 2. Key stakeholders not being on board kill projects. 3. Big system changes kill projects. --- IBM has issues for sure, but I wouldn't expect a favorable outcome for anyone given these headwinds. Caveat, we don't know how many of these issues were exacerbated/caused by IBM.