The FBI started to set up a project to build a new Virtual Case File system
(VCF). This VCF project was to be let as one massive contract at a total cost of $379m. It was planned as a classic waterfall project - with a grand design being drawn up before work would start on the development of a monolithic system. Testing would be carried out at the end, and the whole system would go live at once - a classic big-bang implementation approach. Science
Applications International
Corporation (SAIC)
The 9/11 attacks increased political pressure for better homeland security and data sharing between
6
agencies.
Responding to this pressure, the FBI made promises to bring forward deployment of the new VCF case management system by 6 months - to December 2002. Then they received an additional $78m of funding and promised to chop off another 6 months from the schedule.
The classic symptoms of waterfall project failure started to reveal themselves. Project plans were found to be unrealistic, and the oversight of project spend was inadequate.
It became obvious that the project would not meet its accelerated deadlines. A commitment to using unproven thin client technology had been made - and the design for a web-like access to a centralised database was deeply flawed - BUT: up-front contracts with suppliers bound the project to this technology and the testing that could have revealed these flaws came too late to allow a change of direction.
After a year of development, it became evident that a total re-write of the software was required.
Even with the additional $78m of funds, the project missed its milestones. Audit reports took a traditional view of what was wrong: more discipline was required - more detail and planning needed.
Work continued, and each year the deadline was put back by another 12 months. Every year a new project executive was appointed, but eventually the project was cancelled in 2005.
Of course, the need for better integration and co-ordination of FBI intelligence remained - it was obvious that a new project had to be set up, and lessons needed to be learned. Many reports were written analysing the failure of the VCF project.
Unfortunately, they applied a waterfall perspective in analysing why this, first attempt at a replacement system had failed. Their comments pursued the line of thought that if more detail had been planned upfront, with a more strict set of waterfall processes, then failure would not have occurred.
Examples of their conclusions listed many possible reasons for the failure:“(The project had) poorly defined design requirements, a lack of mature management processes, high management turnover, poor oversight, the lack of a mature
7
Enterprise Architecture … a lack of specific completion milestones, review points, and no penalties (for suppliers) if milestones were not met. However, one factor that these reports did not consider was whether more upfront planning, design and top-down control could fix a broken waterfall model.
Anyway, in 2005, with the FBI still relying on its increasingly outdated old case management system and complicated manual procedures, plans were drawn up for a second project - to be called "Sentinel".

Officer at the time explains that: