# data[].attributes.body
1) As I see it, it definetely is a failure, since they could not accomplish the time expected, they had even more trouble that what Austin had before try to implement this new system, it turned much more costy (this made Austin loose millon of dolars) and the users were highly dissatisfied

3)They were both responsible for what happend. Of course IMB much more than Austin because it was its responsaility to make it work, that was they contracted for. But Austin should have made stricter contracts and being more clear about the penaulties for not achieving the goal of the project

# data[].attributes.body
Q1 : Yes , the project is a failure.

-          The old billing system did not integrate with smart meters and newer technologies. It was also impossible to add new customer assistance options like the abilty to choose the time of the month the customer prefers to pay the bill .

-          The new billing system (make with IBM) doesn’t work properly because :

o   It is not operational the day of the deadline (2011)

o   The software bugs have led to error in thousands of bills : over 65.000 customers didn’t receive a Bill, another 35.000 receive inacurate bills

o   The department was in danger of being overrun because they had to deal with cutomers individually to correct the error of the software

Q3 : The company was responsible for the problems countered by Austin Energy’s billing project to a sever degree because :

-          They had a delay to finish the system and even after going live it was not fully operational

-          The numerous system errors Austin company from billing apartment residents for water wich, balancing its books and filling audit report

-          Austin Energy loose money because of the non-operational billing system

-          The band image of Austin company was negatively impacted by the bad quality of the software

Austin was also at fault because :

-          Lack of project management between IBM and Austin team, the roles of the responsability of each step and team should have been better defined

-          Not a good management of scope, cost, time, risk and quality

-          Not good monitoring of the progess of the project

# data[].attributes.body
1) It is a failure because it couldn't be managed within the triple constraint.
- Cost: initial budget was way overcome.
-Time: there were several delays
-Scope: the amount of problems mad it impossible to keep the original scope.
3) IBM is the main responsible because they had a very poor performance delivering the service. Although, Austin Energy had too much of a "laissez faire" approach with IBM. Had they monitor the progress of the project more before it went live, many problems would have probably been saved.

# data[].attributes.body
1) I believe that the project, even though it in the end had a positive outcome, is a failure in itself. I think it is due to a lack of comprehensive organization of the porject, from both sides. As we always say, communication is a key between the parts involved. But the fact that the project couldn't be delivered on time and with all the flaws it encountered, makes it a true failure for the project organizers.

3) One of the main problems was the problems were the software bugs. These caused huge problems due to the fact that Austin couldn't bill people their water, couldn't balance its books, etc and all this because of the delay in the delivery of the adequate project. The problem is the huge loss of money and time, and all because of IBM's fault. They also launched the software to the public even though it wasn't well finished. That is both part's fault.

# data[].attributes.body
1) No, Austin Energy is not a failure itself. It has been providing renewable energy to the people of Austin and money to the local goverment for decades. It's only issue is that, recently (2011) their billing system has become obsolete.
3) Yes, IBM was indeed responsible for the problems encountered within this upgrade. Not only they haven't provided a reliable solution for all the errors the system has, even the communication with the firm was scarce and uneasy.
The only point in wich Austin Energy may be to blame is perhaps with some of it's politics about vendor performance in this contract.

# data[].attributes.body
failure? Yes:
- not in time
-lost a lot of money
-work was done "badly"
- lost client

responsibilities:

IBM:
- system done in a wrong way, which led to errors in thousands of bills (65000 didn't received their bill, 35000 received an inaccurate bill) cost money to Austin
- repeated mistakes as it tried to implement system, which cost 37h of delay for ex. = lack of professionalism

Austin:
- customer service I danger after complaints, had to plan it
- easy to complain but did they prepared the project well? by comparing different business plans o different companies for this project, why did they automatically asked to IBM? blind trust?

-