Project Management Theories in the UKs Welfare System Project - Essay Example

Critical evaluation of project management theories in UK’s welfare system project By Instructor: Course: Date: Introduction This report shows the negative side of the new UK’s government welfare system projects. By examining a number of theories in project management, the project, does not comply with these theories. Their project has neither accountability nor transparency mechanisms in place. The Universal Credit Project Board has failed the UK’s people, and this report will provide recommendations on what to do. There are things that are wrong, and the government should accept its mistake. The project lacked financial management and leadership. These are important factors in project management (Barke, 2007, p. 67). These problems require the government to take responsibility and solve them. This report is going to highlight how the government was going to reduce the benefits as jobseeker’s allowance, employment allowance, and house benefit, into one single benefit. The UK’s government wanted to improve the welfare system. They laid down policies to implement this. The government had an ambition of stopping fraud by 2023 (Pensions, 2014, p. 23). The minister said this project would minimize the errors of costs usually experienced in departments. The project was to motivate people to seek up employment activities. This will see the standards of living of many citizens rise and reduce dependency on the government. This was a good project, but analysts say the lack of openness in the project raised eyebrows. There was the lack of direction in the project and weak management. The project came up quickly, and the government wanted to implement it immediately. This could bring many shortcomings. Experts advised the government to take things slow and take time to implement the policy (Institute, 2009, p. 87). The project was overambitious. They did not consider the value of money. Under the plans, single payment mechanism was to replace working tax credit, income support, child tax credit, house benefit, and jobseeker’s allowance. The disabled had no place in this project. They cannot get basic human wants because they have no source of income. This shows how the government was selfish in this bringing up this project. This project mainly targets the unemployed. The government should consider the world’s economy is at its worst, and the level of unemployment is on the rise. The project required technology to get a go ahead. The government did use the money wrongly, because they spent money on existing computer programs rather than developing new ones. The population of the people was not one of the issues the government wanted to solve. It would be too costly to implement it in the whole of UK. Experts say that the project was hiding the true number of the unemployed (Apm, 2014, p. 01). This raises the question on the accountability and transparency of the project developers. Main discussions This project had a manager. This is the minister of work and pensions. The coalition government said no project should cost more than 100 million pounds. The minister could consider this. The project required good programming because it involved use of IT. The minister did not look for the best programming. The government spent about 425 million pounds on the project and only enrolled 200 people. This was a waste of taxpayers’ money. The role of the minister here was to coordinate the project. He was supposed to manage and develop the project, considering all the pros and cons. He should have consulted with the project sponsor that is the government. Members of parliament from England said the country was not ready to undertake a project of that nature. The interfaces that were required to implement the project were not prepared. The 425 million pounds could help other projects in the UK. The minister had the responsibility of correctly calculating the budget before implementing the project (King, 2013, p. 6). He could also allocate its resources in an efficient manner. He failed in his responsibility. The minister was too ambitious. He was impatient as he hastened the steps preventing the project from finishing in its required time. He was supposed to recruit additional project staff, who would evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the project. This shows the project was doomed to fail. In his role as a manager, the minister could hire consultants who would advise him on the future implications of the project. He demonstrated poor management on this (Garland, 2012, p. 32). The project would be of help to the citizens, but the committee could roll up realistic projects. IT got over 75% of the 425 million intended for the project. There was the lack of detailed project planning. If a plan were drawn, the department could work according to this, and no overspending could occur. The government could act as the champion of the people in its role as the sponsor of the project (Morris, 1997, p. 25). The people thought this project was all about IT only. They had no information on the project. The governments duty was to let the people know the outcome of the project. The department of works had a problem in finding the correct computer programming to run the project. The governments task was to avail all resources needed by the department. It failed in this. The government was supposed to make commercial decisions on the project. A lot of money went to the project, and in the end was not a success. It was supposed to approve the budget correctly. The board lacked leadership, which was supposed to come from the government. Apart from the minister, the government had a role in leading the project board. It had the ultimate powers over the board and could cancel the project early. The project had an ambition to assist the citizens of the country. It could be of advantage if there were good project governance (Njiru, 2002, p. 76). The project board was to oversee the completion of the project. Their governance was important to prevent any loss from occurring. Their role was to communicate with other players involved in implementing the project (Vance, 2014, p. 87). The IT department could not have been overpaid. They could prioritize the needs of other people before financing the project. An important goal in this project was to make life easier for the people, but in the end, they would use the taxpayers’ money wrongly. The project required many changes. The experts in the field of finance, contributed positively, into the project management. This is the role of the board, which they failed. The supplier side of the project failed in its role. This is the IT department. They were supposed to provide the programming needed without too much money. The IT took advantage of poor planning of the board to benefit themselves. This shows a lack of work ethics. The department of finance in IT could have offered a financial expertise, and avoided draining the government a lot of money. A project like this cannot miss having the systems developer (Lester, 2014, p. 43). He is the one who reports if there will be problems in the future. The project development came in a hurry and made out of an overambitious thinking. The systems manager’s role is to provide technical strategy. He could guide the board on what to do. He failed in his role, in project planning. The board members were working out of selfish interests. Experts warn this project has no future if a new government takes office. Conclusions and Recommendations The universal credit was to help people who were looking for employment. It was to give work benefits to this people. The government’s policy is to fight fraud, and this was among the reasons for starting the project. The minister wants to see these fruits very quickly. The government is ambitious in the project. People could enjoy the benefits of the project if good management and transparency were involved. The government did not play its role. This report recommends the people to elect in a government that is ready to protect the rights of people. The government is supposed to ensure they use the people’s taxes in good projects. This report recommends the government to involve the public in formulating economy-building policies. Experts gave their opinion, but the project board did not hear them. The experts played their role well in providing useful information. The board was very selfish. It was very clear the disabled people in the community would suffer after the slashing of their disability allowance. If the board was ready to assist the people, it could have taken into consideration, the disabled people. This report recommends that, future board members to have necessary qualifications before assuming office. The government should introduce a vetting committee to ensure people who work in such boards are well aware of their roles. The government used money in implementing the project. A big percentage of this money went to the IT department. This shows there was the lack of financial knowledge. This report recommends involvement of financial advice in any government department, before implementations of projects. The minister in the works ministry was not competent to hold that office. His managerial qualities are questionable. He failed to guide the board on what to do. He lacks patience. He knows the project is for an ambitious government, with big plans to make its people happy. He could guide the government on what to do so that the project has a long-term advantage to the country. This report recommends the governments of countries to consider selecting well-trained ministers to run government ministries. Reference list Apm, 2014. Universal Credit suffered from poor project management. Universal Credit suffered from poor project management, p. 1. Barke, S., 2007. Brilliant Project Management: What the Best Project Managers Know, Say And Do. Los Angeles: Pearson Education. Garland, R., 2012. Project Governance: A Practical Guide to Effective Project Decision Making. Chicago: Kogan Page Publishers. Institute, P., 2009. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide. New York: Project Management Institute. King, A., 2013. Blunders of Our Governments. New York: Oneworld Publications. Lester, A., 2014. Project Management, Planning and Control: Managing Engineering, Construction and Manufacturing Projects to PMI, APM and BSI Standards. Chicago: Butterworth-Heinemann. Morris, P., 1997. The Management of Projects. New York: Thomas Telford. Njiru, C., 2002. Financing Infrastructure Projects. Atlanta: Thomas Telford. Pensions, D. f. W. a., 2014. Simplifying the welfare system and making sure work pays, London: Department for Work and Pensions press. Vance, D., 2014. Feral Information Systems Development: Managerial Implications. Chicago: IGI Global. Read More