The London Disaster - LAS Case StudyDescription of the Case SituationThis case describes the process by which the London Ambulance Service attempted, over the 20 recent years, to implement a new expedition based on IT. system. There were several phases and parts of the project, and when we look back today, the period is characterized by chaos and problems. From the early 1980s, LAS realized that its manual system needed to change due to inefficiency and too high a level of human resources. dependency and management issues of the national three-minute activation standard. The proposal was a computer-aided dispatch system with a computer map display and an automatic vehicle location system. The project and development began in 1987, but after three and a half years the project ended with time and cost overruns. After a review of the first draft, LAS began searching for a working dispatch system, but none met LAS's requirements. They had to develop a new system and decided to choose one that would go even further than the first attempt at human independence. With the intention of doing better than the first time, the plans for the new software were developed with the aim of saving costs and above all time, which made it possible to define the broad outlines of the choice of contractor. In March 1991, Apricot was chosen as the prime contractor for hardware, while System Options was in charge of software development. There were early signs that Apricon and System Options in this project were facing a greater challenge than ever before, and LAS failed to consider references to both a lack of technical skills and ability to meet deadlines. This date and January 8, when the system was to be completed, LAS experienced internal problems of budget and staff reduction and restructuring, which led to a lack of stability and less satisfactory working conditions . Employees were not involved in the development process and no training or education was provided. At the same time, they understood that the system was not working as expected and that they would not set deadlines. Based on this, they had to establish a new schedule and divide the remaining work and necessary implementation processes into three phases. This breakdown of the implementation structure and rush of implementation led to immediate software errors, equipment failures, and other problems. Yet they didn't prioritize software testing and the backup system wasn't wiped..