IT Project Failure and The Art of Scapegoating

 With Scapegoating still high on the agenda of Executives,  Boards and CEO's I figured it was time to readdress this issue and ask the question:

"Is your organization geared up for IT Project Success or will a Scapegoat suffice?"

IT Project Failure and 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 derailed or failed IT projects. Everyone is responsible for the project and no one is accountable for its outcomes. This issue will become even more apparent through the project life-cycle. 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 IT investment and project 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? Firstly, because often the business executives lack visibility of critical business architecture information and business intelligence upon which to base vital project planning decisions. And secondly, 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 planning 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 experts?

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).

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 Architecture Genius!"

Kind regards
Sarah Jane Runge

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