This is the second in a series of three articles addressing how to prevent and resolve software implementation disputes. In our first article, using a hypothetical case study, we considered techniques for avoiding and resolving disputes without litigation. A medical center (GoodHealth) discovered during acceptance testing that the software (ChartX) performed too slowly and produced inaccurate data. GoodHealth requested information from the developer (SoftwareCo) concerning internal performance testing but none was forthcoming, leading GoodHealth to believe that the software had not been adequately tested before release and that representations in SoftwareCo’s sales brochures regarding ChartX’s capabilities were false. SoftwareCo disputed the assertion but offered no meaningful support for its position.

As to the inaccurate cost data, SoftwareCo claimed that GoodHealth’s failure to timely provide accurate information concerning GoodHealth’s other IT systems caused integration problems. But when GoodHealth proposed a system for documenting information requests and responses, SoftwareCo refused to use the system unless GoodHealth agreed to pay significant additional administrative fees.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]