This case study analysis examines how John Parker overhauled the IT project management framework at AG Edwards beginning in Fall 2001. The paper reviews the initial conditions — including a nearly 50% project failure rate, cost overruns averaging 54%, and a dangerous misalignment between IT and business priorities — and traces the technical and social changes Parker implemented. By combining existing PMI and ITIL frameworks with stronger leadership, a flexible organizational structure, and a collaborative change-management style, Parker helped reduce late or over-budget projects to 12% and more than doubled net profit by 2006. The analysis covers both technical and social dimensions of the transformation.
The paper uses comparative case analysis — presenting baseline metrics (2002) alongside outcome metrics (2006) — to build a cause-and-effect argument. By anchoring claims in quantitative data (failure rates, IT costs, net profit), the student demonstrates how to support qualitative leadership arguments with measurable evidence, a technique common in business and management case studies.
The paper follows a straightforward problem-solution-outcome structure: it opens with context and the stakes involved, presents the initial failures, then describes the resolved final state. Two analytical sections follow — one on technical factors and one on social/leadership factors — ensuring both dimensions of the transformation receive dedicated treatment. This mirrors the standard case study report format taught at the undergraduate business level.
This case study centers on John Parker and how he had to revolutionize the project management framework and improve performance at AG Edwards beginning in Fall 2001. Parker was made aware of the dire nature of the situation from the outset: a mission-critical system upgrade was about to commence, and failure could deliver a potentially fatal blow to the company. As the case study makes clear, failure was not an option. Parker discovered that while project management frameworks were already in place, what was absent was coherent, cohesive, and effective leadership — and that is what he set out to change.
Leadership was a significant problem with IT projects at AG Edwards. Projects were managed using the PMI and ITIL frameworks, yet nearly half of all projects were delivered late. The average time and cost overrun for those projects was 54% each, and some projects were so badly mismanaged that they had to be scrapped entirely, representing a straight loss to the business. In 2002, IT costs totaled nearly $300 million while net profit stood at only $71 million. New systems were being developed in isolation from the rest of the business, and the consequences became evident once those systems were deployed.
Project failure rates were dramatically reduced under Parker's revised approach. By 2006, net IT costs had fallen to $241 million — despite continued investments in new systems — while net profit more than doubled to $186 million. The IT management team built on their existing project management skills by incorporating the strong leadership foundation that had previously been missing. The proportion of projects that were late or over budget dropped from nearly half to approximately 12%, meaning 88% of projects were delivered on time and within budget.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.