The Harvest City case study describes the implementation of a cloud- and IoT-based intelligent

procurement system at the new Harvest City convention complex. We will learn about the
events, decisions, and actions required to implement the procurement system and reflect on the
challenges of IT-enabled change initiatives.

Some key factors that lead to the failure of the project are:
•Venso did not carry out due diligence before taking on a project of such massive scale, letting
its relationship with Casper factor in the decision. The challenges as well as the risks pertaining
to the project were not addressed. Venso failed to evaluate the risk and uncertainty of this
massive project. Harvest City Corporation failed to evaluate the complexities of this intelligent
systems installation and contingencies in case of failure.
•After Casper’s resignation, instead of hiring a new CEO his responsibilities were divided
amongst the executives of the team. This led to miscommunication and subsequently the
relationship between the two parties further worsened.
•Venso had experience integrating big data and analytic techniques, but only with small and
mid-sized projects. This was the first time they were taking on a project with an expansive
scope, tight schedule and involving many stakeholders. Venso should have conducted some
research on similar projects before signing the deal or they should have consulted a
consultant/expert who was well versed with handling such projects.
Background image
•Venso should have performed the necessary tests before the system went live at the first
event at the Convention Center.
•Venso’s project managers’ complaints pertaining to unsafe working conditions as well as
demands for changes in the procurement system were ignored by Harvest City Corporation.
Another reason for the failure of the project was the inconsistent communication
between stakeholders. Implementing such a mass project requires involvement and
constant communication between stakeholders. Casper who was the CEO of the
Harvest Corporation persuaded Miller to accept the contract without involving the
executive team. Miller’s communication with Harvest City Corporation worsened as
they could come to an agreement on implementing changes to the project. Also, the
Harvest City Corporation hired a vendor intruded into the system which had been
installed by Venso team without informing them.
Given that Venso was the company which had negotiated the contract and
implemented the system, any changes made to the system must have first be
communicated to them.

Who do you feel is most at fault (Mayor Andrew Thompson, Venso CEO Bill
Miller, Harvest City)
Personally, I think that Casper was the major fault. This is because first, After
Harvest City planners sent Request for Proposal (RFP) to the ten Companies,
Venso had declined to bid due to the intricacies of the proposed system. Two
companies submitted their bid for the project but Casper never accepted their bid.
Instead, Casper took matters at his own hands without including the executives to
persuade Miller to design the system. This show his level of unprofessionalism
because the declining to bid showed that Venso was not ready to accept the project
and the two companies which had submitted their bid might have had the capability
to develop a system that suits Harvest City Corporation

Conclusion:
After the incident, Bill Miller, the ceo of venso, proposed that the company would cover the
redesigning cost and pay $5000 PER DAY IF THE SYSTEM IS NOT AVAILABLE WITHIN 6 MONTHS.
Venso also has the right to reject the installation of the stand alone procurement system.

As a result, the city mayor Andrew Thompson agreed with Venso proposal and that the City will
hire a CIO and cover the cost of the building design improvements and as well as no penalty for
the first 6 months
5 months later, the hotel at harvest city and the convention center reopened, 8 months late
according to initial plan and paid $10 million over budget. 6 months later, the convention
center was fully in service