This paper examines the business records automation project undertaken by InsureTech, an online insurance subsidiary of Frontier Mutual Life Insurance Limited. The case study analyzes critical project management failures, including the absence of a defined completion deadline, inadequate stakeholder communication, poor progress monitoring, and the misalignment of responsibilities. Drawing on established project management principles, the paper evaluates how Project Manager Employee 3's lack of experience and the Finance Director's insufficient oversight contributed to a flawed implementation. Particular attention is given to the exclusion of Director National Sales Employee 4 from key planning decisions and the consequences this had for the program's launch.
The paper demonstrates applied case study analysis: it takes a real organizational scenario and maps it against a theoretical framework (the four responsibilities of a project manager) to identify specific gaps. This technique — using theory as a diagnostic lens — is a core skill in business and management writing.
The paper opens with a background summary of the InsureTech project, then introduces project management theory before applying it critically to the case. It identifies failures in planning, communication, and scheduling, and closes by examining the consequences of excluding a key stakeholder from implementation decisions. The argument flows from context → theory → diagnosis → consequence, which is a clear and logical structure for a management case study.
This case study examines a Business Records Automation Project undertaken by InsureTech, an online insurance subsidiary of the larger organization Frontier Mutual Life Insurance Limited (Frontier). Prior to the project, Sales Associates reported daily business results to the InsureTech Head Office using a manual form. This system was prone to errors and misreporting and was not capable of meeting the projected operational requirements of 50 dispersed sales areas across the country.
The company's CEO (Employee 1) asked the Finance Director (Employee 2) to lead an automation initiative to address these shortcomings. Employee 2, in turn, assigned the project to Employee 3, a young, enthusiastic, and competent finance professional who, however, had no prior experience managing a data automation project.
According to established project management principles, a project is a series of work tasks with a definite beginning and end that leads to a specific outcome. That outcome may take the form of a new product, the implementation of new technology, or changes in work processes designed to enhance an organization's product line. A clearly defined target completion date allows the project manager to coordinate the various components of the project and ensure timely delivery.
Bruce and Langdon (2000) describe four core responsibilities required of a project manager:
1. Planning the project in detail.
2. Organizing the project team and securing their participation.
3. Communicating the project's status to all parties involved.
4. Managing overall progress and formally closing the project.
It is apparent that Employee 3 fell short in several of these areas, a situation compounded by insufficient direction and oversight from Employee 2.
The key stakeholders in this project were the Regional Sales Managers, Director of National Sales (Employee 4), Finance Director (Employee 2), and CEO (Employee 1). From the outset, Employee 3 should have brought all of these individuals on board. A straightforward initial step would have been a brief email to all stakeholders introducing the project, outlining its objectives, and inviting their input and suggestions.
Employee 3 should also have involved Employee 4 early in the process — specifically in identifying and resolving bottlenecks once the automation program became functional. Employee 4 was receptive to the concept of automation; however, it appears that he only learned the operational details of the program at the final pre-launch meeting. By that point, there was no opportunity to meaningfully address his concerns. Employee 4 recorded his reservations formally at that meeting, yet the scheduled launch date — decided jointly by Employee 3, Employee 2, and Employee 1 — went ahead without resolving the issues he had raised and without his meaningful involvement in the decision.
This exclusion had further consequences. Despite having little involvement in the implementation of the new system and limited knowledge of its full capabilities, Employee 4 was designated as the primary resource person for all staff queries about the program. Only questions that Employee 4 could not answer were to be escalated further. This placed an unfair burden on a stakeholder who had never been adequately integrated into the project's development.
This case illustrates how the absence of fundamental project management practices — defined deadlines, regular progress reviews, and inclusive stakeholder engagement — can undermine even a well-intentioned automation initiative. Employee 2's failure to set a clear target date and monitor progress, combined with Employee 3's limited project management experience, created conditions in which critical issues were identified too late to be effectively resolved.
You’re 58% 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.