Queensland Health Implementation Project †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Queensland Health Implementation Project. Answer: Introduction The Accounting Information System is described as a computer based system which helps to collect, evaluate, store and process the organizations accounting and financial information (Islam et al. 2017). The Queensland Health Department is the chosen company which is being review in this report. The purpose of this report is to analyse the information given in the Queensland Health study and Payroll System implementation failure. The report focuses on COBIT and COSO frameworks to analyse its implementation in Payroll System project in Queensland Health study. The first two phases, planning and systems analysis, of system development life cycle are discussed in this report with reference to the Queensland Health study. The outline of the report is literature review of COBIT and COSO frameworks, their application towards the case study and analysis of situation using SDLC. The report at the end includes summary of finding and recommendations. Literature Review: COBIT Framework According to Mangalaraj, Singh and Taneja 2014, COBIT framework is a comprehensive framework for Information Technology governance. The COBIT framework assists enterprises to achieve their goals and objectives for the governance and management of IT enterprise. This framework helps enterprise to create optimal values from Information Technology enterprise. The optimal values achieved through maintaining a balance between resource use and, realized benefits and optimized risk levels. The COBIT 5 framework provides five category procedures in two different domains, management and control, for achieving successful business process (Mutiara, Prasetyo and Widya 2017). The frameworks has also been selected in finance and banking sectors. This can be illustrated through a case study on COBIT 5 framework use in banking and insurance sector. The case study results show significant differences of adoption of COBIT frameworks in banks and finances (Vugec, Spremi? and Bach 2017). The maturity le vels of COBIT and business opportunities were increased in the selected banks and finances. Hence, the COBIT 5 framework should be implemented for the successful running of the Queensland Health Payroll system. The COBIT 5 framework provides end-to-end business approach of the Information Technology enterprise governance. COSO Framework According to Alavi 2017, the failures of big companies were due to the formation of COSO in 1985. The COSO was then revamped to provide final outcome that includes risk assessment, controlling environment and activities information, and monitoring and communication. The COSO framework benefits the organizations internal control framework where they get better understanding of direct, reciprocal and indirect associations. This association is among the information and communications dimensions (accuracy, openness and feedback flow) (Rae, Sands and Subramaniam 2017). The COSO framework works effectively if a company has effective communication environment. However, there are criticism related to COSO that it is too much focused on financial report of an organization. The COSO framework is maintained in a feasible level of safety and security (Magruder 2015). This is because of realization that all the COSO components cannot be satisfactorily implemented at any framework level as expecte d by the organization. Hence, COSO framework 2013 should be implemented in the Queensland Health payroll system. This version of framework helps to identify the gaps present in the organizations program. Frameworks Implementation in the Queensland Health Project The development of the Shared Services Initiative (SSI) by Queensland Government has been found that it was earlier developed to LATTICE by informing the Queensland Health department. However, the LATTICE system was considered to be unsupported. Hence, Queensland Health initiated the Shared Services Initiative in order to minimize the risks associate to the unsupported system (Bartens et al. 2015). Therefore, in the mean time, IBM and CorPpTech revamped and restored their prior systems with SAP finance, HR and the WorkBrain solutions. Thus, the WorkBrain system was inclined to procedure the transport and timesheets to the organizations SAP system. The notification was sent the department that the standardization of the project, Finance and Payroll System was made necessary for all the departments of the Government (Huygh et al. 2018). This resulted in the formation of a special unit of Government named CorpTech to manage all the implementation of Finance and Payroll system project. C onsequently the payroll and finance systems project implementation in Queensland Health included three necessary key groups of stakeholders (Cohen, Krishnamoorthy and Wright 2017). This stakeholders team include staff members, IBM and CorpTech. The staff members are the necessary stakeholders which are responsible for the internal control of the department. The IBM stakeholders are considered as the primary consultant of the Queensland Health implementation project (Boyle et al. 2015). However, IBM was not responsible for the implementation of Queensland Health project in the remaining Queensland Health departments because of financial planning. CorpTech stakeholder was responsible for organizing or running the roles and responsibilities of IBM working. The CorpTech was responsible for managing the overall project of Queensland Health including IBMs working process also. Therefore, from above it can be said that the Queensland Health was responsible for the implementation of the frameworks, and managing and control within the Payroll project of Queensland Health (Larson and Herz 2017). Their responsibility also includes training to the existing staff and defining business requirements. The responsibility of CorpTech was to examine the full implementation of the project in all the Queensland Health Government departments including management of IBMs work. The IBMs responsibility was to handle the incorporation of the implementation of the project including analysis of SAP finance and HR, and WorkBrain solutions. Analysis: System Development Life Cycle The system development life cycle is referred to a six step procedure which involves planning phase, analysis phase, design phase, examining phase, organizing phase and maintenance phase (Khan, Parveen and Sadiq 2014). These six phases are the major components to create a software system, hardware system or a combination of software and hardware system. The below discussions only focuses on the first two phases of the system development life cycle and they are Planning phase, and System analysis and requirement phase. These two stages have been evaluated to examine the Queensland Health implementation project of Finance and Payroll Systems. Planning Stage The planning phase of system development life cycle is evaluated in this section with reference to Queensland Health project failure of Payroll system. The project failure was calculated as 300% over the budget limit and it was delayed by 18 months that means it was behind the defined schedule (Valacich, George and Hoffer 2014). It has also been found that the workers including staff, nurses and doctor were incorrectly paid or not paid. The projects total cost was $ 1.25 billion AUD which includes cost of implementing, managing, maintain and stabilizing of Queensland Health system project (Mustaquim and Nystrm 2015). The multiple reasons for the Payroll system failure included strikes in industries, health minister resignation and loss of existing member due to new employees. The Queensland also incorporated the enquiry form in Australian Government to know the exact reasons for the disastrous failure of the project. The Queensland Health also arranged an enquiry for the security of future projects in the Information Technology field (Fang et al. 2015). The enquiry resulted in the issues that were the reason of the failure of Queensland Health project. The issues were related to Governance and project management. System Analysis and Requirement Stage The system analysis is the second phase in System Development Life Cycle which is evaluated in this section with reference to Queensland Health implementation project failure. The Queensland Government is composed of three types of firms. They are Government departments and agencies, general statutory body and Government owned corporations (Wasson 2015). The Queensland Health provides services in healthcare regarding medical, dental and services to old-age people across Queensland. Queensland Health provides facilities and service to about 40,000 people and has 85,000 staff (Bano and Zowghi 2015). The large number of employees and their vast skill sets resulted in the occurring of complexities in the payment process to the employees. The current structure of payroll system shows that the organization needs to follow about 24,000 calculation combinations related to payroll system (Bano and Zowghi 2015). The payment to the staff of Queensland Health was done through unequal payroll sys tem implementation named LATTICE and ESP engine. These systems worked efficiently for six years. However to accommodate additional structures such as incentives and award, the payroll system needed some modifications. The LATTICE system in 2005 became unsupported and hence there was requirement to replace the system with new payroll system in Queensland Health department (Modi, Singh and Chauhan 2017). The payroll system project was implemented through Queensland Health staff, IBM and CorpTech. The project failure was the reason due to inefficiency of these three stakeholders management. Summary of Findings The summaries of findings for Queensland Health implementation Payroll system failure are given below in the following paragraph. The main reason of the failure of Queensland Health implementation project was due to the unsupported LATTICE system used for paying the employees of Queensland Health. The IBM and CorpTech were the stakeholders however they were not effective to provide benefit to the implementation of the new payroll system. This was the major blow to the Queensland Health which contributed to the failure of the new payroll system. The COBIT 5 and COSO 2013 frameworks are the major frameworks to analyse and manage risk controls for the implementation of the new payroll system. This is explained in the prior section. They should be implemented in the Queensland Health for effective evaluation of the new payroll system. The further investigation of the project failure through analyzing two phases, Planning and System analysis, of System Development Life Cycle are done. The investigation through these two stages shows that there were gaps in the implementation of the new payroll system. The gaps were related to the Queensland Health internal and external operations. Their inappropriate systems and inefficient contribution from the stakeholders contributed to the payroll system failure. Therefore, for future projects they should opt for COBIT and COSO frameworks to establish a more functioned and improved implementation of project. Recommendations The above discussions shows that there are some gaps which needs to be filled for the effective implementation of the project, payroll system, in Queensland Health department. The recommendations for the Queensland Health department are given below in the following points. Analysis of the project requirements- The projects should be analyzed before working upon it and the requirements should be planned and gathered. These will help to avoid any future complications. Time consideration- Time is an important factor which is needed for the correct and accurate implementation of any project. Queensland Health department should focus on time management for future researches. Experienced In-charge for the project- Queensland Health should appoint experienced and skilled In-charge for the whole process of implementation of a project. This is because the In-charge will be solely responsible for the project complexities. There will be no need to administer individual people or group for the process of project implementation in future. Choosing the right stakeholder/partner- Queensland Health should choose correct stakeholders for the implementation process of the project because they are the primary stakeholders who will be responsible for giving support. They should be chosen wisely and with proper research. Sharing of good and bad new- Queensland Health should share good and bad news with the people related to the project implementation to avoid any confusions and complications. Conclusion Therefore, the above discussions conclude that to implement a new project or any type of project within Queensland, they require accurate frameworks, and maintenance and controls. There is a need of this accuracy to implement the project accurately and these are the major factors for Queensland Health to take into account. The frameworks and controls should be implemented to overcome the complexities of the implementation process within the Government department such as Queensland Health. This is necessary to avoid any conflict and any type of confusion. The discussions show that improper and inappropriate implementation of the project resulted in incorrect payment of staff. These should be avoided at highest priority because staffs are the most important asset of Queensland Health department. Therefore, for future researches, Queensland Health needs to take the discussed points into account for any future complications. References Alavi, H., 2017. Risk Management Techniques and their Application to Documentary Discrepancy in Letter of Credit Transaction.European Journal of Economic Studies, (6), pp.4-17. Bano, M. and Zowghi, D., 2015. A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success.Information and Software Technology,58, pp.148-169. Bartens, Y., De Haes, S., Lamoen, Y., Schulte, F. and Voss, S., 2015, January. On the way to a minimum baseline in IT governance: using expert views for selective implementation of COBIT 5. InSystem Sciences (HICSS), 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on(pp. 4554-4563). IEEE. Boyle, J.F., Gramling, A.A., Hermanson, D.R. and Hermanson, H.M., 2015. Audit committee material weaknesses in smaller reporting companies: still struggling.Journal of Forensic Investigative Accounting,7(1), pp.110-121. Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G. and Wright, A., 2017. Enterprise risk management and the financial reporting process: The experiences of audit committee members, CFOs, and external auditors.Contemporary Accounting Research,34(2), pp.1178-1209. Fang, L.L., Valverde-Prez, B., Damgaard, A., Plsz, B.G. and Rygaard, M., 2015. Life Cycle Assessment as Decision Support Tool for Development of a Ressource Recovery Technology. In9th IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment (Watermatex 2015). Huygh, T., De Haes, S., Joshi, A. and Van Grembergen, W., 2018. Answering Key Global IT Management Concerns Through IT Governance and Management Processes: A COBIT 5 View. Islam, K., CH, A.R., Bilal, A.R. and Ilyas, M.U.H.A.M.M.A.D., 2017. Accounting Information Systems: Traditions and Future Directions (By Using AIS in Traditional Organizations).The Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce,22(2), pp.1-13. Khan, M.A., Parveen, A. and Sadiq, M., 2014, February. A method for the selection of software development life cycle models using analytic hierarchy process. InIssues and Challenges in Intelligent Computing Techniques (ICICT), 2014 International Conference on(pp. 534-540). IEEE. Larson, R.K. and Herz, P.J., 2017. Research in Accounting Regulation. Magruder, J.S., Lewis, S.X., Burks, E.J. and Smolinski, C., 2015. Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)-Who Is Running Organizations?.Journal of Accounting and Finance,15(1), p.55. Mangalaraj, G., Singh, A. and Taneja, A., 2014. IT governance frameworks and COBIT-a literature review. Modi, H.S., Singh, N.K. and Chauhan, H.P., 2017. Comprehensive Analysis of Software Development Life Cycle Models. Mustaquim, M.M. and Nystrm, T., 2015, June. A system development life cycle for persuasive design for sustainability. InInternational Conference on Persuasive Technology(pp. 217-228). Springer, Cham. Mutiara, A.B., Prasetyo, E. and Widya, C., 2017. Analyzing COBIT 5 IT Audit Framework Implementation using AHP Methodology.JOIV: International Journal on Informatics Visualization,1(2), pp.33-39. Rae, K., Sands, J. and Subramaniam, N., 2017. Associations among the five components within COSO internal control-integrated framework as the underpinning of quality corporate governance.Australasian Accounting Business Finance Journal,11(1), p.28. Rogers, M., 2017. IT Governance Framework Proposal. Valacich, J., George, J. and Hoffer, J., 2014.Essentials of systems analysis and design. Prentice Hall Press. Vugec, D.S., Spremi?, M. and Bach, M.P., 2017. IT GOVERNANCE ADOPTION IN BANKING AND INSURANCE SECTOR: LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY OF COBIT USE.International Journal for Quality Research,11(3). Wasson, C.S., 2015.System engineering analysis, design, and development: Concepts, principles, and practices. John Wiley Sons.