what went wrong

UAT schedules are not being followed

HR BP, IS, etc are unaware about JOI.

What went wrong?

Project Communications, Issue/Risk, Scheduling and Planning

Issues were not initially shared and published to all the members of the project team.

Calendar invites addressed to all but not everyone needs to be on that call.

BAU support team lacks end to end seamless coverage, like L1 issue tracking, analysis of issue is related to IGA solution or some process issue etc

Calendar invites with no clear agenda.

No proper data cut-over

All request/s are urgent

What went wrong?

Project Delivery and Implementation:

Cut over activities were not clearly discussed with the entire project team

The BAU support plan should have been finalized in advance

CR process should be simplified

Issues and Risks identified were not addressed to required personnel in position to address the same and it caused delay in their resolution

Several miscommunication was encountered as emotions where high due to pressure added the cultural differences which cause some escalations and misunderstanding

A few advisories related to JOI. The hiring managers are still reaching out to JWS HR teams for new hire credentials.

Some of delivery / technical stakeholders / resources should have attended Identity Givernance / IDN training required to fulfil their responsibilities

No initial check and balance on identity creation in sailpoint vs what was created in SF. Issues can be correlated and measured against actual Joiner, Mover, Leaver employees

Delays

Insufficient time budgeted for data cleanup

Maintenance window was not followed accordingly in terms of timeline but necessary to be done to make sure that the data is right

Unclear agenda

Incomplete scenarios on testing which led to addition of test cases constantly

Rushed sign-off

Capability of T1 to have available test data for New Hires.

Some requirements were not included in the design

No clear current business process as basis. These were only created and provided when several issues arised already.

Gaps on actual process that were discovered during the testing phase

manual intervention

Insufficient, missing or delayed technical information around APIs

Insufficient time for technical support

Requirements evolved over the project duration

Delay in sign off

What went wrong?

Requirements, design and solution:

There are requirements that were discussed and verbally confirmed to be available but were not included the solutions design.

Signed-off requirements did not reflect the real business requirements which resulted to several change requests and delays in the testing since all of these gaps were found and identified during the testing already.

Urgent need for test data. There might be a knowledge gap on how the business prepares the test data. To address this, the business shared the TAT and the steps to create one, so the requestors will have a full view on the test data creation process.

Bur was not placed to match on solution in n place

Complexity of the entire implementation was underestimated due to 1) SF transactions not being event-based and 2) existing set-up in AD and SAP needed refinement to be able to integrate

Some of the requirements was not captured and warrants change request , which was triggered due to process gap

It seemed that some are hesitant to openly share insights and opinions just to avoid heated discussions, which happened several times in the duration of the project.

There are scheduled calls with no clear agenda. Some calls take an hour but not productive.

Complexity of implementing the solution via SAP ONB

No accurate reference of actual start date of employee which can lead to confusion of employees and different interpretation of triggers of account activation

Signed-off FRD was not detailed enough to be able to configure the system completely

Requirements kept on changing, maybe all key stakeholders were not engaged during requirement gathering and sign off.

There are requests that are not specific, so the test data creator tend to rework/provide new data based on the specification.

What went wrong?

Proper project timeline was revised a handful of times

Instances where vendor have no answer to some questions during daily meeting.

Change of PMs, Technical delivery leads leading to difficulty of catching up with activities

Unavailability of testers given that testers are also part of the operation teams

More time required from some key users - needed to budget for more SME time

We understand the urgency but there are rushed requests that needs to be delivered ASAP by some leads.

No documentation on the on the implemented resolution

The additional request and process work flow not included in the BRD.

With the changes of roles in the middle of the project it greatly impacts the delivery of the project as different resource needs to be onboarded strategies requires to be aligned

Project Team:

Change of Project Manager on the vendor side

Immediate escalations when some can be handled by just reaching out directly to the person involved.

Change management process was not clear and laid down at the on-set.

There were raised concerns whether or not the config/version that passed the UAT was actually the one transported to production.

Given that this solution is mostly configuration-based, technical team should ensure to provide proof of this

Support was not ready in time for project transition. Same as as expected governance for the system

Issues from phase1a SIT/UAT execution took time to be resolved because there is no readily support for fixing the issues particularly with systems integrating with SailPoint.

Change process was a challenge in terms of getting a sign off

Issue Log took forever to close given that there was good analysis and categorization of Issues

No initial change management plan to users (cascades and trainings)

There was not enough time or avenue to properly review and digest each functional requirement on sign-off. This led to changes in the requirements and configuration until testing

Encountered several issues/errors during UAT Phase1a (gaps between Business' expectations vs. solution being tested) which resulted to UAT Phase1a suspension.

What went wrong?

There were revisions for the requirements along the way but were addressed through change process

What went wrong?

Project Team:

There are requirement discussions that the details were not taken down correctly resulting to an inaccurate list of requirements and repeated discussions.