IT projects fail to deliver big bang

3 comments

Agree with both comments that it's not just that IT projects are generally 'failed' projects but it's the governance frameworks adopted and practiced. The Governance SIG guides are excellent publications that act not only as guides but also reminders as to the importance of getting the governance frameworks right for major project programmes. Both the Universal Credit and BBC projects are examples of where Governance has been overlooked and key stakeholders have weilded far too much power and influence over key aspects of scope and delivery; leading to project failure and compromises. Good project Managment is based upon good governance for any project.

This post continues the tradition of pretending IT projects are different, which is dangerous, and advocating a different IT methodology as a saviour which is focusing on the symptoms not the root cause of the problem.All types of project fail for 3 basic reasons:1. Bad management of the overall project (as distinct from bad project management the best PM in the world cannot overcome incompetent executive management)2. A risk (identified or not) that occurs and derails the project (frequently incorrectly referred to as a black swan)3. The projects deliverables are no longer required because the world has changed. Bad management includes over optimistic / unachievable estimates, poor scope definition, allowing bad project management practices and a host of other factors that generally indicate poor or non-existent governance.  The solution is not another methodology; it is improving governance and accountability.Some risks are manageable (revert to point 1) others are unavoidable if they occur (eg, the current floods in the SW) or genuine black swans, unforeseeable. Good management can minimise the damage but the project environment is risky and there is always a consequential risk of failure.When the world changes this is really just another risk. Good management closes the project or reframes it quickly, bad management pretends the world has not really changed and keeps wasting money.Agile is a useful product development strategy provided the project is properly planned, focused and managed (as is program management) if not they are simply another way of wasting the same amount of money in a number of smaller increments.The thing agile advocates frequently forget is the overall vision and architecture of a major development being undertaken incrementally are probably more important then in a holistic development, particularly when it comes to scope definition and control (ie, doing exactly the right amount of work not too much and not too little).  For more on Agile management see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P109_Thoughts_on_Agile.pdf Universal Credit used Agile and failed - and no amount of 'Agility' would have saved the West Coast Rail Franchise project.  

Thanks Brian.  These are important lessons and as Winston Churchill poignantly once said "It is better to learn from the misfortune of others than your own"It is indeed a depressing day for our Association and our vision of a world in which all projects succeed.  The response of the senior management and governors of the BBC to the NAO's scathing report about the mismanagement of the infamous three major estates projects:(NAO, 2010,  http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-bbcs-management-of-three-major-estate-projects/)indicated that hard lessons had been learnt and that future projects and programmes would be managed very differently.  In the case of the Major Estate Projects the NAO reported failings (many significant) against all of the eleven OGC Gatweway Lessons.The BBC has some outstanding project managers.  We all get it wrong from time to time but how can one organisation fail again and so spectacularly, in such a relatively short timespan?Jim