Executive Summary Water Regional Police services (WRPS) is a police force that was initially comprised of 10 police agencies. The WRPS was involved in the construction of the Common Information Management Systems Project (CIMS) but as time went by; its number dwindled from 10 to seven agencies due to various constraints encountered by three agencies that left. In addition, the project had already commenced, but had encountered unresolved hitches along the way. Disputes arose between the project managers that represented the WRPS and officials of Integrated Technologies Group (ITG), the principle contractors of the project. Chief Larry Gravill a manager of the police force is in a dilemma of whether to dispatch a major payment installment to the ITG or sought for other alternatives with the aim of attaining smooth completion of the project in jeopardy. Current Situation The CIMS is a four years and counting project whose idea was brought about by the need for WRPS to integrate its systems among police services and improve its resource in order to improve community service (Movold and Compeau 3). Initially, the WPRS comprised of 10 agencies that were committed to the project but currently, the 10 member police agencies have been reduced to seven. The CIMS project is an expansion of the existing information system of the police that includes the Police Regionalized Information Data Entry System (PRIDE) (Movold and Compeau 3). The disputes arising in the CIMS project have put the project in jeopardy as the project had stopped and upon resuming, the disputes reignited forcing these disputes to be resolved at the level of the police chiefs (Movold and Compeau 8). Problems: The problems of the CIMS project range from the interpretation of the requirements to the sending of the Functional Design Specifications (FDS) in adobe format instead of usual Ms Word format. It is stated that there was a moment when the project team and the vendor disagreed on over 200 issues. This was considered demoralizing by the project team as the ITG is said to have implemented an earlier project (PRIDE) that entailed the same implementation details. On the other hand, the ITG claims that on changing some of the issues in favor of the project team, they will be incurring extra costs. Some of these changes include changing of the wording that is hard coded in the systems of ITG (Movold and Compeau 8). These disputes were not addressed hence resulting to break down of communication that lasted for several months. The issues were later addressed in a meeting of project teams, regional chiefs and the vendor. All of the stated problems arose due to the following. First, poor structuring of the Functional Design Specification (FDS): The FDS should have been specific in details of the kind of implementation standards expected from the vendor. It has been stated that from the moment the project team and the vendor started reviewing the FDS, problems started arising to a figure of over 200 disputes (Movold and Compeau 6, 7). This is not expected if the WRPS had specifically stated their specific requirements and not relying on assumptions of previous dealings with ITG. Second, lack of inclusion of dates in the milestones: by inclusion of dates in the milestones, th