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!"

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

Do the decades differentiate IT Project failures?

So, how does Corporate Profiling influence the successful outcomes of IT Projects – including Agile Development, Cloud Computing, SOA’s and any other type of IT project?

Today's technologies are a far cry from the times of paper tape input and card deck readers of mainframe computers that required real estate approximately the size of the White House in the early 1970s just to supply a fraction of the computing power of a single modern server.

In the famous words of Albert Einstein:

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”

Albert Einstein

Has technology outsmarted us and exceeded our ability to keep pace in today’s information age?

Are organizations fooled into believing that a natural outcome of these technology advancements is that their next IT project that utilizes Agile Development, Cloud Computing, SOA or other advanced packaged solutions will have more chance of succeeding than IT projects of the ‘70s?

Most top level executives can conceptualize how technology works and what it is capable of delivering, but very few actually comprehend the complexities involved.

The fact remains that these technologies still rely on human factors. Unfortunately they therefore still face the same risk of failure and are still subject to ongoing issues regarding support, communications, requirements, management and poor decisions.

So, what does Corporate Profiling change and do differently that can help organization to minimize the risk of project failures?

As we have all come to realize, there is no panacea, no silver bullet and no “10 point plan” or easy path to guarantee an IT project’s success. Corporate Profiling, however, does reduce the risk of a “ready, fire, aim” approach.

In a nutshell, it is a pre-implementation/pre-investment process undertaken by organizations before they embark on their next IT project. This is done ahead of and is not a replacement for methodologies such as process modeling.

And according to Plato:

“The beginning is the most important part of the work” Plato

Firstly, Corporate Profiling provides an extensive framework of key decisions and questions that need to be addressed by an organization’s leaders and executives. Their answers validate the decision to pursue the project and underpins its success by mandating core strategies vital to the project’s execution and flow.

These decisions require collaboration between relevant parties and peers to ensure consensus that leads to fully supported decisions. All decisions require executive accountability to ensure the quality of these decisions. The resulting decisions and derived information at this initial stage of an IT project forms the basis for further development of a Corporate Profile which will then provide the answers and input required for each subsequent critical step within the pre-implementation framework and process.

Corporate Profiling promotes three key principles: Visibility, Collaboration and Accountability. All three are required to ensure that a solid foundation is established before a project commences.
Visibility of an organization’s key elements and processes is critical to developing a blue-print of the organization and allows for the accurate identification of correct and extensive project requirements, communication points, information sources, interlinked relationships, strengths and weaknesses and the most appropriate people or parties to be involved in the project.

Often it is the less obvious or indirect factors that adversely impact upon a project if they are not identified at the outset. Visibility also alerts an organization to other not so obvious parties that need to be involved in providing input into the key project discipline decisions.

Collaboration on all strategic project decisions by C-level and senior executives is critical to ensure that unbiased quality decisions are arrived at, consensus is achieved and that decisions are fully supported. Collaboration is also a prerequisite for requirements gathering to ensure that all input and feedback is received and correctly processed.

Accountability empowers employees to drive change and to feel involved rather than becoming cynical or resistant to change. Responsibility for key decisions more often than not just promotes issues such “agreement for ease of an answer”, “deferring to a higher power” or “self appointed decision makers for the group” to name a few. On the other hand holding parties fully accountable for results and outcomes is critical to ensure that quality input into strategic project planning decisions are obtained.

If you look back on your experience and encounters with IT Projects, I am willing to bet that the majority of the causes for failures would have been avoided if a Corporate Profile had been established at the outset.

Kind regards
Sarah Jane Runge

Best intentions will not guarantee IT project success

So why do IT projects continue to keep failing when there are so many Project Management and Quality Assurance tools out there to manage them?

Recently I heard of an organization that decided to invest in EVM (Earned Value Management) software so that they could monitor the progress and budget of their forthcoming major IT project. However, the EVM software implementation became troubled. And since this was their silver bullet to help them avoid an IT project failure in the first place, there was no software or processes in place to tell them when, where and how the EVM implementation began to go off the rails.

Simply put it doesn’t matter what variety of IT system, software or SOA initiative an organization is looking to undertake, the risk of IT failure remains the same. If due diligence on an organization’s strategic decision making processes has not been undertaken at the pre-investment or project pre-planning stages, failure (in one form or another) is almost guaranteed.

When an IT Project fails due to human factors, (which is most likely the case), often the causes can be traced directly back to poor or a lack of strategic decision making at the pre-investment or pre-planning phase of the project.

The “What”, “Why”, “Who”, “When” “Where” and “How” decisions of investing in or undertaking IT projects are critical to organizations in determining whether projects will succeed or not. As these decisions are the foundations and key drivers for determining project successes, they must be diligently made by C-level executives and senior management *before* projects commence.

Questions such as:

• What is driving the investment decision, what key strategic processes do we need in place, what do we need to do to initiate the project and what outcomes do we expect?
• Why are we undertaking this project?
• Who is driving the investment decision and project, who supports the project, who needs to be involved and who is accountable for what?
• When do critical project initiatives and actions need to be initiated?
• Where are our key information, communication and requirement sources?
• How will we secure and retain project support, how will the project proceed and how will we measure progress and success?

If these questions cannot be adequately answered by C-level executives and senior management and communicated both verbally and formally to their organizations *before* projects get underway, there is little hope that answers or corrective actions will materialize once the project is in full swing.

Kind regards
Sarah

Unbundling complex organizations to simplify IT Projects

How to simplify organizational complexities in order to understand and analyze the “What”, “Why”, “Who”, “When” and “How” of an IT project.

The first step is to “Unbundle” an organization into it’s constituent categories, functions (or business units/departments), and processes. In so doing you are then able to profile these components and analyze and understand how and where they are interconnected with each other and their relationships.

Unbundling the processes will also give you visibility into what, where and how manual (and often undocumented) processes are interconnected with automated computer-based processes. This is important because as one interconnected process is changed it will likely impact upon other processes which will in turn impact on further processes and so on creating a ripple effect (the butterfly effect). It is essential to identify common interfaces between manual and/or computer-based systems in order to better understand what and how processes are influenced.

Once the functions, departments, business units and processes have been unbundled, you are then able to identify the most appropriate parties that need to be involved and included in the IT project. Often only the most obvious or prominent parties are identified as essential for the project, however, by unbundling we are able to identify the more obscure or indirect parties and processes. These additional parties and processes can often be a key source of project requirements and will need to be solicited for their input and involvement. It is also helpful to identify key communication points, informal and formal information sources, possible areas of change resistance or support and who needs to be involved in the decision making process.

Unbundling the external value chain will identify if, where and how suppliers and customers integrate into an organization’s incumbent IT systems, functions, departments and processes. This is also a major source of project requirements and will allow the parties to understand precisely how they will be impacted and what they need to do to adapt to the change.

Remember 80% of an iceberg is out of sight and similarly the vast majority of project requirements are largely hidden.

Unbundling the Pre-implementation process enables us to break each step down into specific disciplines. At the outset of a project these disciplines all require strategic decisions to guide them so that they can be successfully established, executed, managed and adopted by an organization throughout the projects life-cycle.

1. Pre-investment decision making process
2. Communications
3. Executive, stakeholder and user support
4. IT governance and risk
5. Success metrics and strategy
6. Change process
7. User input and requirements gathering
8. Training and process development
9. User adoption
10. Vendor and solution selection

In my next post to this blog I will investigate the first of these disciplines the all-important “Pre-investment decision making process”.

Kind regards
Sarah Jane Runge

IT Project Issues and Causes

It is still incredible that people expect IT projects to proceed successfully when they have not done sufficient planning at the outset?

It’s a bit of a Catch-22 – you cannot plan if things that have not yet been fully decided and agreed upon and at the same time you cannot manage something that has not been planned.

When a project starts to go off the rails, chances are that the root cause of the problem can be easily traced back to poor project decision making processes before the project commenced. So in order to understand the many possible reasons and causes for IT projects failing (to varying degrees), we need to review events at the *inception* of IT projects rather than analyzing problematic outcomes *after* the proverbial brown stuff hits the fan!

Specifically it is an organization’s pre-investment decision making and pre-implementation planning processes that needs attention – not scapegoating and other such unproductive exercises. If these strategic processes are either not established or lack structure and rigor, decisions will be insubstantial with a lack of accountability for the outcomes. The flow-on effect of weak decisions is guaranteed to adversely impact the project once it gets underway.

My in-depth analysis of failed IT projects clearly demonstrates that problematic project outcomes are almost always directly attributable to insufficient or poor strategic project decision making at the outset.

The following issues and associated causes may well ring a bell!



The above sample of issues and causes is by no means exhaustive but is indicative of common causes of IT project failures.

A final word on strategic decision making is that these decisions *cannot* be made in isolation by a single person who “deems” themself to be the chief decision maker. For decisions to be accurate and also supported by an organization and peers they require collaboration and accountability.

Kind regards
Sarah Jane Runge

The Art of Scapegoating

Have you or someone you know ever been the scapegoat for a failed IT project? If so read on. This may give you a déjà vu feeling.

And as the saying goes, “A good scapegoat is nearly as welcome as a solution to the problem”!

This is often a sorry consequence of failed or derailed IT projects. Everyone is responsible for the project and no one is accountable for its outcomes. This issue will become even more apparent as the project progresses. Over a period of 1, 2 or 3 years people will either leave the organization/project or will otherwise forget who was actually accountable for having made the critical investment and planning decisions in the first place. Time has a tendency to blur the facts! So what can project sponsors do when they get that sinking feeling that an IT project is heading into deep waters? Hunt for scapegoats! (shhhhh people don’t readily admit that this is what actually happens). Who wants to be held accountable for a train wreck of that magnitude? Nobody – hence the scapegoating!

Unfortunately, organizations typically identify vendors, project managers and CIO’s as the obvious parties (read scapegoats) responsible for under-delivered and over-budget IT projects.
In actuality, the causes generally lie in the camp of the C-Level, senior executives and presidents themselves. Why? Because strategic decisions to invest in IT systems are always made at the top level of an organization. They should instead be asking themselves where they messed up and analyze whether, why or how their IT investment and project decisions were under-analyzed, under-scoped, under-supported, under-communicated or under-trained. Did they make the critical strategic project decisions and follow through with an execution strategy to establish key project procedures or not? Information cannot be expected to be communicated via osmosis or hearsay.

Ask yourself who was responsible for identifying and collecting project requirements and were they empowered and accountable? Were they the most appropriate people or just the most senior or worse still – self-appointed?

The other key question that vendors and customers should be asking themselves is “did we assume that extensive requirements were collected and correctly documented from the most pertinent and pivotal parties?” Most of the time both parties just assume that the important task of requirements gathering has been diligently carried out (which is where the slippery slope begins and scapegoats are sought out).

Kind regard
Sarah Jane Runge

Causes for IT Project Failures

A lot of blogs out there are dedicated to analyzing IT projects once they have failed and the cause nearly always tend to be the same. I want to make a difference!

I am a Kiwi (New Zealander) born and raised, which makes me a straight talker, no BS and you won’t need to read between the lines. In 1985 I moved to Australia to pursue my IT career. Back then NZ didn’t have a lot of opportunity for IT professionals to advance (things have changed now). Being a “pseudo” Aussie means I am objective, confident, don’t mind being wrong and love to hear other people’s opinions.

This blog, myself and my company (ITPSB) are dedicated to helping organizations minimize the risk of their IT projects failing, under delivering business benefits or the dreaded budget and time overruns. Most of these issues are avoidable provided that sufficient pre-implementation planning and execution of strategic decisions are undertaken before projects commence.

Having been involved with both the business and technical side of IT projects for over 24 years and also having conducted numerous research investigations and interviews into why IT projects continue to be hindered in some way or another – there always appears to be a myriad of reasons given as to why individual projects failed. Reasons that are identified in hindsight: such as poor management, communication problems, lack of project support, lack of technical expertise, over-promised and under-delivered, vendor issues and so on.

However, the single key issue that I have isolated as the primary cause is the Strategic IT Project Decision Making and Execution (or lack of) in those decisions. If strategic project decisions such as “why are we investing”, “who is responsible”, “how is the organization is going to secure project support”, “actively involve users”, “communication strategy”, “identify requirement sources”, “training”, “project sponsorship”, “management support and leadership” are not made before the project commences then planning their execution becomes mission impossible!

Over the next 10 days I will post to this blog on the subject of Corporate Profiling.

Corporate Profiling will detail the various organizational disciplines that must be addressed by the organization and its executives before they undertake their next IT project. So I look forward to your feedback and comments.

For a preview of my book “Stop Blaming the Software – Corporate Profiling for IT Project Success” please feel free to view my SlideShare.

Kind regards
Sarah

Welcome to IT Project Starting Blocks

Welcome to Stop Blaming the Software - Corporate Profiling for IT Project success.

IT Profiling is a simple yet comprehensive process that delivers an in-depth blueprint of the organization, its people, its process, its customers and their relationships.

This is the first step to undertaking an IT implementation.

Only after an Organizational Profile has been established should the company even contemplate investing its hard earned IT budget.

Only then will you know that the investment decision is based upon comprehensive accurate organizational information from the appropriate sources.

Profiling identifies where the interlinked relationships occur within the organization and its immediate external value chain. Profiling also identifies any common or causal factors between corporate, business and IT and more significantly it elucidates hidden or not so obvious factors that would normally be over looked.

In order for comprehensive Profiling to be undertaken there must be a common objective between the three business components and a level of executive support and cohesion that will drive tri-directional communication channels throughout the business components.

Since each component contributes to the development of the organization’s operational, management and implementation processes, they are the key identifiers to profiling the Organization, the enablers of a successful IT Project and ultimately the "sustainers" for future IT change.