Overcoming IT Project Complexity with Business Simplicity

Albert Einstein said:

“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler”. 

However, all too often, organizations seem to ignore these sagely words preferring to “complicate everything as much as possible, and no less so”.

Why is it then when so many industries strive to adopt simplification measures (or a "Simplify and Repeat" process) to create consistent quality outcomes that deliver "stakeholder delight", eliminate superfluous handling, reduce costs, and minimize wastage, when at the same time the IT industry consistently does precisely the opposite?

Meaning that layers of unnecessary complexity applied through methodologies, frameworks and processes that promise to ensure project success rarely ever do so. On top of this, although IT project failure is a consistent outcome, it is obviously not the outcome we seek but it continues to happen consistently.

There are several opinions as to what exactly defines complexity. Roger Sessions focuses on the unnecessary overcomplexity of architecture, or technical aspects.  

Peter Kretzman on the other hand, identifies complexity as more cultural and sociological in that people want too much functionality. There is poor implementation (technical debt) and a lack of leadership. 

More recently, John Zachman has responded to organizations' objections about costs, the time and complexity of adopting EA frameworks for the purpose to which they are not intended.  

These definitions of complexity provide insights as to how organizations are changing their mindset from cumbersome, costly and complex solutions to looking for a more cost efficient, simplified and fresh solution to delivering up corporate information.

In my opinion we have facilitated this complexity by over-specialization of every aspect of IT planning and delivery. Don't misinterpret me. There is a time and a place for specialization but it cannot take precedence over the business planning process for IT projects.  If specialization has crept in, you can bet dollars to donuts that business has crept out and have wiped their hands of any involvement.

Have you ever taken a long hard look at how complex the process of planning and delivering an IT project has become? I am not talking about the complexity of IT systems themselves, rather about the exclusive frameworks, processes and methodologies required for the supposed successful delivery of IT projects that we have allowed to morph from smart simplicity into corporate complexity (or perhaps a better word that I came across the other day is Dumbplexity).

“Dumbplexity” sums up how organizations habitually add unnecessary and dumb complexity when in actual fact what they really need is “Smart Simplicity”. And in the IT industry we have Dumbplexified what were and still should be relatively simple processes.

Unfortunately corporations and government tend to follow suit with a blind belief that complexity is a guaranteed recipe for IT project success. But with this additional and unnecessary complexity comes communication and collaboration issues, poor visibility, no accountability and over-inflated costs (which to most organizations is also another measure for success). But nothing could be further from the truth.

As a key decision maker, CEO, Business Owner etc, you are probably frustrated by the number of people required to pass around pieces of information regarding their views on the facts and accurate status of your IT project. And more than likely, you're up to your eyeballs looking at extravagant Gantt Charts with overdue tasks.  Coupled with the complexity of the above mentioned processes, your time spent filtering through the many versions of the truth still cannot guarantee the successful delivery of your IT project.

In this day and age of cloaking simplicity with complexity, it possibly takes an Enterprise Architect, Information Architect, Business Analyst, Project Manager and an “Information Sanitizer” to provide you with the information you’ve waited days (or weeks) for. And it still may only be the information that they want you to hear.
Unnecessary complexity results in delayed information which in today’s environment does not support a nimble, agile or timely decision making process. Complicated processes and frameworks that underpin IT delivery are unlikely to be a guarantee for success, and they also certainly have little chance of putting you and your colleagues on the same page.  Particularly when everyone is singing from a different Hymn book and speaking in jargon related to their own particular specialization.

Another key issue for CEO’s and business enterprises when there are various IT specialists is that it also fosters a culture of "Kingdoms", Silo’s and disparate entities that pride themselves on sole proprietary and exclusivity of information that is not readily shared or made accessible to business. When in actual fact business are the people that absolutely need it, and it is them that need it in plain business English not in some jargon that they cannot understand.

How do you cure “Dumblexity”? By applying “Simplicity”. See the process for what it is and remove the additional layers that have made the process unnecessarily complex.

The three key pillars for IT project success that you need in place are:
•    Visibility across your organization upwards, downwards, right and left;
•    Accountability for quality information and decisions, and empowerment;
•    Collaboration with the appropriate people, parties and layers of your organization.

When you have these pillars in place you can remove the majority of unnecessary complexity that strangles successful IT project delivery as well as your business's profits. You will have your finger back on the corporate pulse, timely access to accurate information, open communication, bi-directional feedback and one organization pulling together to achieve the vision – IT project success, instead of “Us and Them”.

If you are serious about the success of your organization and your IT project outcomes,  ensure that you take measures to mitigate against dressing simplicity up as complexity, "Prima Dona’s" masquerading as "Self appointed experts" and jargon that business executives cannot understand and therefore feel that they don't need to be involved because it belongs in  IT's domain. 




Kind regards
Sarah Jane Runge

 PS. Do you need to put the "B" back into the business planning for your IT Projects? Then take advantage of our complimentary 30 day free trial to our Profiling-Pro cloud solution at www.profiling-pro.com. 

PPS. Or register here to attend our upcoming Seminar:

"The Path to IT Project Success through Business Information Architecture Genius!"

Bridging the IT and Business Terminology Chasm.

With CIO’s becoming more business oriented and CFO’s becoming more IT savvy, where does this leave the CEO and how should they change or adapt to fit into the IT planning puzzle.

How can your technical teams adapt and change to help bring your business and CEO into IT pre-implementation planning discussions?

I attended a Prince2 User Group meeting in New Zealand late last year where presenters and attendees discussed typical issues that they encounter when communicating IT project planning needs to business or non-technical executives.

One example given was in:

‘Discerning what “Tolerances” to factor into a project’.

Business people not versed in Prince2 terminology didn’t grasp the significance and implications of “Tolerances” leaving IT hanging without a satisfactory response that they could factor into their planning.

Another instance was where the terms “Actors, Artifacts and Use-Cases” were thrown into the conversation at a business meeting. Needless to say – Blank looks abounded!

One key issue with having so many different technical and methodology specific terms and jargon, is that the chance of business executives understanding what you are talking about is pretty remote.

In the event that business doesn’t understand what IT is talking about, often the question will be side-stepped or they may even agree with what you are suggesting without even knowing what it is that they are agreeing to because business executives are not inclined to question techno-speak!

Acknowledging that qualifications in Enterprise Architecture, Process and Business Analysis, and Project Management methodologies are hard won, it is no wonder that we like to use our specific terms when we can. It is also certainly handy to have commonality of terms across IT teams.

However, business and executives require business terminology for understanding and clarity in order to be more involved, committed, and accountable for the “pre-implementing planning and IT investment decision making phases” of IT projects.

This is where "Profiling-Pro" comes into the picture.

In a nut-shell, Profiling-Pro is a cloud computing service that produces presentation quality reports in business-speak aimed specifically at the pre-implementation planning and decision-making phase. It bridges the chasm between IT people struggling to get their IT Projects approved and on the right track and C-Level executives who need to be reassured that all bases have been covered and that matters such as diligence in requirements gathering have been addressed.

Because these phases are critical to project success it is a very good idea to ensure that business, IT and executives are all speaking the same language and understand what is being proposed or asked for at the outset.

Consequently, CEO’s need to have a very clear picture and a broader view from a business perspective of what elements need to be addressed  during IT project pre-implementation planning phases if they want to begin bridging the chasm rather than just going along for the ride with their cheque book.

Additionally, we need project teams that can not only think like Architects, Analysts and Project Managers but can also relate specialty technical concepts in business terms to mitigate any cross communications or understandings.

A small change can make a big impact!

Kind regards

Sarah Jane Runge

Top Down Accountability For IT Project Success

So how can we manage C-level executives of organizations before their next IT Projects commence?

Specifically, they need to be kept fully accountable for their initial input and project decisions that they make *before* the project commences. This is because these are the critical investment and pre-implementation decisions that will drive subsequent business processes for these IT projects.

As HP CEO, Mark Hurd, went on to say about the job of the CEO: "At the end of the day, [the CEO has] gotta get this part [business processes] of the business right to be able to align IT throughout the company. It's no different than aligning your sales organization, aligning your R&D, aligning any other piece of it."

Rather than letting CEO’s and Chief executives lay the early foundations for IT project failures (through poorly made, unfounded and unaccountable decisions), organizations needs to manage and delegate upwards. This will prevent them sitting back while their minions, who actually execute the project, take the fall for what they could have prevented at the projects outset. By making better decisions and hence ensuring robust project processes,  accountability of all executive strategic project decisions will be assured.

A point that James Taylor makes in his article, “Make Better Decisions”, is that organizations, and especially senior executives, should conduct some form of decision making discovery. This is a critical issue that I support and one that I believe should predominantly also include C-level executives.

Even the best Project Managers and project management tools, cannot ensure the success of a project if the initial strategic investment and project decisions made by C-level and senior executives are poor, devoid of input, lack hard facts and where the executives making them are not held accountable.

Critical project discipline decisions, as outlined below, all result in the development of important pre-project planning and business processes. If these decisions are delegated, glossed over or taken without sufficient collaboration and input from the *appropriate* parties, then the supporting business processes will thereby also lack substance.

    * Communications
    * Requirements gathering
    * Stakeholder support and involvement
    * Management support
    * User support and involvement
    * Strategy alignment
    * Success and Progress Metrics
    * IT Risk and Governance
    * Solution and Vendor Selection
    * Change Management
    * Training and development

Each of these strategic project disciplines and business process decisions should be orchestrated at the top of the organization by the CEO and C-level executives. In order that these disciplines don't become "Reasons for Failure", critical decisions about "Who" and "How" to execute and manage each discipline must be made at the top of the organization.

Because many of these disciplines and business processes are already incumbent within organizations, a general blaze attitude to addressing them can become prevalent. For this reason, C-level executives unfortunately often abdicate any responsibility for making these discipline decisions, thereby removing most of their accountability.

This may all seem a bit harsh, however I have rarely (if ever) seen any CEO or C-level executive become a scapegoat for a failed IT Project - (other than the unfortunate CIO).

Kind regards

Sarah

IT Project Success through Corporate Profiling

Check out this SlideShare Presentation:

IT Project Success through Corporate Profiling

View more presentations from Sarah Runge.

IT Project Failure - The Root Causes behind every Reason for IT Project Failure

Simply put, IT projects fail not because of what we do, but because of what we haven’t done!

Conventional wisdom suggests that we can identify a set of reasons for project failures post implementation. As Michael Krigsman highlighted in his blog "Six types of IT project failure", classifying the reasons for failure can often illuminate Root Cause for project failure. However, in my opinion by simply categorizing failures often leads organizations to incorrectly believe that there were only one or two aspects of their project that caused it to fail.

My research has identified that the genesis of project failures is in fact an organization's pre-implementation strategic decision making (or lack thereof). The symptoms or reasons for the failure are easily classified but the root cause is often buried because it becomes almost impossible to unravel the causes after a protracted period once the project has failed.

Furthermore, I have found that simply identifying reasons for IT project failures can in itself lead to "Scapegoating" of the parties that were responsible for that element of the project (e.g. the Project Sponsor, Vendor or Project Manager ).

In the case of the Project Sponsor, mentioned in Michael Krigsmans blog, they need to be given the authority and accountability to make project decisions otherwise they will not remain actively and positively involved in the project. If they are not actively involved (with skin in the game), then they are just the "Go To” person, (which can be a pretty unenviable and arduous position to be in). This is just one example (not assigning accountability) of how poor strategic decision making by the organization before the project is initiated puts IT projects at risk.
 
"Failure is not a single, cataclysmic event. You don't fail overnight. Instead, failure is a few errors in judgment, repeated every day" Jim Rohn.

More often than not, what I have found is that the "Root Cause" is generally embedded in the organization as an underlying and fundamental flaw in its pre-investment strategic planning and pre-implementation strategic decision making processes.

These are executive decisions that provide the strategy for How the project will commence and What and Who needs to be included or involved.

Many of the reasons for IT project failures that I have identified, and that Mike Kavis has covered extensively, can be eliminated by addressing these key strategic decisions at the outset of a project, because the potential Root Cause will thereby be identified and addressed before the project has even begun.

Kind Regards
Sarah Jane Runge

Taking the risk out of IT Risk and Governance

,Do IT Risk and Governance measures really help organizations to avoid IT Project failures?

To coin a phrase used by a fellow Twitterer “No process at all is better than a bad process”.

So how many resources, either dollars or human, do organizations invest in establishing IT risk and Governance frameworks? How much time is spent administering, managing and monitoring these processes and what is an organization’s ROI for their IT governance investment?

For all of the above, most organizations would probably respond “Too much”!

It is surprising to find that many large organizations and government bodies that claim to have or would be required by stakeholders to have stringent IT Risk and Governance frameworks still have rogue, run-away or failed IT projects. The following are some of the many examples of organizations and government bodies who experienced the chaos of rogue IT projects:

• The USA Census bureau $2bn in IT project overruns for a project that will probably need to be scrapped!

• Avis Car rental –Europe ERP Project - €45m IT failure as ERP Project is cancelled.

• Melbourne Transportation Authority Australia – Myki project$1bn later and 18 months behind schedule delivering Project “Myki”

• Australian Ports – Integrated Cargo system$217bn cost blowout for a system that still does not work to the extent it was intended to.

• FBI - VCF project $170m for an IT project that had to be cancelled

• Sydney Water – CIBS project estimated $97m blowout and lengthy delays for a project that was scrapped

If an organization’s IT risk umbrella covers IT governance with a comprehensive IT risk portfolio, then how do organizations still get lumbered with runaway and failed IT Projects?

An underlying cause is that IT Risk and Governance frameworks are focused almost exclusively on the “tangibles” of the organization and the direct outcomes of projects giving insufficient attention to the important “soft” intangibles of their organization. This is most critical at the crucial “pre-investment” IT decision making and process planning phase when identifying and determining how to achieve these project outcomes needs to take place.

IT governance will take into account the amount of human and financial resources required for the project and an IT risk portfolio will monitor IT projects, IT service continuity, service providers, information assets, new and emergent technologies, software applications and infrastructure to ensure they are integrated with management, the business benefits and their alignment with strategy.

As critical as these governance and risk measures are to the success of an IT Project, they will fail to deliver if left to act in isolation. Simply put, IT risk and governance measures do not address the internal psycho-analytical aspects of an organization, including its decision making process. Nor do they analyze the “What”, “Why”, “Who”, “When” “Where” and “How” decisions needed in investing in or undertaking IT projects.

These key decisions are fundamental to organizations in determining whether projects will succeed or not and are the foundations and key drivers for determining IT project success. They must therefore be diligently made by C-level executives and senior management *before* projects commence.

In short, all of these key decisions are uncovered and addressed when applying Corporate Profiling to an organization before initiating an IT Project.

Indeed, Corporate Profiling can assist organizations in achieving their expected ROI and other benefits from their IT and Risk Governance processes in delivering IT projects.

“Nothing and nobody fails as badly as when undertaking something that someone else has failed to plan” (Sarah Jane Runge).

Kind regards
Sarah Jane Runge