1. IT Project Governance Presented by: Dr Raymond Young (MBA, MAICD) Practice Leader – Project Governance [email_address] originally delivered as lecture 8, INFO6007 Project Management in IT, University of Sydney
4. 2/3 projects realise no benefits! $1,000 billion pa spent on IT. (Seddon & al 2002) 30% on projects (?) 10-20% (Clegg et al 1997) 30-40% (Willcocks and Margetts 1994) 15% (Standish 1999,2003) 2/3 of projects deliver no benefits whatsoever number of success stories reported are almost twice the number of failures 62% of projects are reported to have either met most or all performance criteria OK Some No Fail ROI 30%
5.
6. A analogy for understanding the significance of project governance
7. It depends on your definition of success MIS Success: User focus SIS Success: Organisational focus EDP Success: Technical focus Delone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. (2003) The Delone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: a ten-year update Journal of Management Information Systems, 19:4 , 9-30. Net Benefits Information Quality System Quality Service Quality User Satisfaction Intention to use Use
9. Breakthrough #1: Exposing the [IT] blind spot Beyond Project Management success project management success is less important (Baccarini 1999) “ benefits are not delivered or realised by the project manager and project team, they require the actions of operations management.” (Cooke-Davis 2002) there is not a strong relationship between project management success and project success or between project management failure and project failure (Markus et. al. 2000)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15. Breakthrough #2: TMS – t he most critical success factor Reference: Young (2006) HB280 Case Studies – How Boards and Senior Management have Governed ICT Projects to Suceed (or Fail). Standards Australia
19. Corporate Governance, Governing Projects and Project Management Standards: OECD Guidelines ASX Guidelines AS8000 Focus on Vision and Mission and described in Corporate Plan (normally 3 years) Corporate Governance: The system by which organisations are directed and controlled Standards: PRINCE2 , MSP PMBOK, OPM3 Focus on Outputs (time, budget, quality, stakeholder support, outcomes) Project Management: The way of guiding and managing projects to ensure successful completion from start to end Standards: Gateway HB280 AS8016 www.valuedeliverymanagement.com Focus on Outcomes (Key Initiatives and business benefits) and described in Departmental Annual Plan Governing Projects: The connection between corporate governance & project management
20. Governance Evaluate Direct & Monitor Investment: benefits or terminate? Strategy/capability: how much change is required? Investment & Strategy: Benefits / alignment? Responsibility: Project Sponsor? Performance & Behaviour: measures and motivation? 67%->40% 40% 5-23% 33-67% 0-13% ITIL, COBIT Projects PMBOK, PRINCE2, etc Conformance & Behaviour: culture for issues to be raised? ??% 6Q Governance™ HB280, AS8016 Business processes ICT Operations Support Changed Business Processes Changed ICT Operations Initiate
24. Without Effective Governance… Can’t kill projects Leads to.. Too many projects Quality of execution suffers Underestimation of risks and costs Projects not aligned to strategy Over budget Projects Late Business needs not met Lack of confidence (in IT) Results in.. Benefits not received Situation Reluctance to say no to projects Lack of Strategic Focus Projects are “sold” on emotional basis -- not selected No strong review process Overemphasis on Financial ROI No clear strategic criteria for selection
25. Financial/Strategic Implications Current Performance (68% under) Source: R. Young, “What is the ROI for IT Project Governance? Establishing a benchmark.,” in 2006 IT Governance International Conference (Auckland, New Zealand, 2006) OK Some No Fail ROI 30% OK Some Fail ROI 130% Better Performance (43% under) OK Cancel ROI 220% Excellent Performance (15% cancelled)
Investments in IT should increase from the current levels of $1,000,000,000,000 per annum (Seddon et al. 2002, Cox 2003, Ein-Dor 2003) . To unlock the fifty-fold improvements in productivity promised by the information age (Covey 2004), IT continues to represent for many organisations, their main source of opportunity (Clegg et al. 1997). Evidence suggests organisations are consistently repeating the same mistakes (Collins and Bicknell 1997). Boards are looking for guidance (Young and Jordan 2002a) and IS research clearly has a role to play. Unfortunately because IS research is lacking in relevance, especially to this wider audience, it is failing to contribute where it could add the most value. 28% of IT projects are abandoned before completion (Standish 1999) 30–40% of projects are implemented without any perceptible benefits (Willcocks 1994) 80-90% of projects fail to meet their performance objectives (Clegg & al 1997)
Investments in IT should increase from the current levels of $1,000,000,000,000 per annum (Seddon et al. 2002, Cox 2003, Ein-Dor 2003) . To unlock the fifty-fold improvements in productivity promised by the information age (Covey 2004), IT continues to represent for many organisations, their main source of opportunity (Clegg et al. 1997). Evidence suggests organisations are consistently repeating the same mistakes (Collins and Bicknell 1997). Boards are looking for guidance (Young and Jordan 2002a) and IS research clearly has a role to play. Unfortunately because IS research is lacking in relevance, especially to this wider audience, it is failing to contribute where it could add the most value. 28% of IT projects are abandoned before completion (Standish 1999) 30–40% of projects are implemented without any perceptible benefits (Willcocks 1994) 80-90% of projects fail to meet their performance objectives (Clegg & al 1997)
Figure of the heavenly bodies - Illuminated illustration of the Ptolemaic geocentric conception of the Universe by Portuguese cosmographer and cartographer Bartolomeu Velho . (Bibilotèque nationale de France, Paris). Notice the distances of the bodies to the centre of the Earth (left) and the times of revolution, in years (right). The Ptolemaic geocentric model of the Universe according to the Portuguese cosmographer and cartographer Bartolomeu Velho (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bartolomeu_Velho_1568.jpg Challenged by Copernicus in 1543 and later by Galileo in 1610
Baccarini, D. (1999) The logical framework for defining project success, Project Management Journal, 30:4 , 25-32. Cooke-Davies, T. (2002) The "real" success factors on projects, International Journal of Project Management, 20 185-190. Markus, M. L., Axline, S., Petrie, D. and Tanis, C. (2000) Learning from adopters' experience with ERP: problems encountered and success achieved, There are huge implications: Success should not be the responsibility of the project manager Success should not be the responsibility of the vendor
Management of large-scale expenditures is a fiduciary duty requiring careful oversight. However a Deloitte survey of boardroom directors revealed oversight of IT projects was either “blind” (29% with inadequate information) or non-existent (16%) [i] . They warned in 2007 that the results were “tantamount to negligence” and the AICD have long reported statistics suggesting the problem is more widespread [ii ] (Figure 1). My own research suggests that as many as two out of three projects fail to deliver the expected benefits [iii ] . Increased scrutiny could reveal the real failure rate. However what might be worse in the current financial environment is to have two out of three strategic initiatives fail to increase revenue, enhance customer service or reduce cost and threaten survival. [i] What the Board Needs to Know About IT: Phase II Findings (Deloitte, 2007), http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,sid=36692&cid=151800,00.html [ii] D. Lovalla and D. Kahneman, “Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executive's decisions, Harvard Business Review,” Harvard Business Review July (2003): 58 [iii] R. Young, “What is the ROI for IT Project Governance? Establishing a benchmark.,” in 2006 IT Governance International Conference (Auckland, New Zealand, 2006)
Management of large-scale expenditures is a fiduciary duty requiring careful oversight. However a Deloitte survey of boardroom directors revealed oversight of IT projects was either “blind” (29% with inadequate information) or non-existent (16%) [i] . They warned in 2007 that the results were “tantamount to negligence” and the AICD have long reported statistics suggesting the problem is more widespread [ii ] (Figure 1). My own research suggests that as many as two out of three projects fail to deliver the expected benefits [iii ] . Increased scrutiny could reveal the real failure rate. However what might be worse in the current financial environment is to have two out of three strategic initiatives fail to increase revenue, enhance customer service or reduce cost and threaten survival. [i] What the Board Needs to Know About IT: Phase II Findings (Deloitte, 2007), http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/article/0,1002,sid=36692&cid=151800,00.html [ii] D. Lovalla and D. Kahneman, “Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executive's decisions, Harvard Business Review,” Harvard Business Review July (2003): 58 [iii] R. Young, “What is the ROI for IT Project Governance? Establishing a benchmark.,” in 2006 IT Governance International Conference (Auckland, New Zealand, 2006)
28% of IT projects are abandoned before completion (Standish 1999) 30–40% of projects are implemented without any perceptible benefits (Willcocks 1994) 80-90% of projects fail to meet their performance objectives (Clegg & al 1997)
Jed
Jed
Raymond
To survive, thrive and also to minimise the governance backlash, the first step must be to get the right information needed to govern effectively. The board bears the responsibility to set clear guidelines and expectations about the kinds of information they want to see filter up. What benefits are being targeted? [how is this consistent with our strategic priorities?] Do we have the organisational capacity to realise these benefits and what other risks are involved? How will we measure success? Do we have the right person driving the change? Are there any warning signs that the project is going off track? Are the benefits being realised? These questions seem simple but none of the directors I have spoken to had an effective process to terminate failing projects. Benefits are usually quantified (66%), but they are often overstated (27%) [i] , change is not always considered (40%) [ii] , individuals are not held accountable (5-23%) and few organisations track benefits through to realisation (10%) [iii] . Organisations do not focus on the true determinants of success. [i] Chad Lin, Graham Pervan, and Donald McDermid, “IS/IT investment evaluation and benefits realization issues in Australia,” Journal of Research and Practice in Information Technology 37, no. 3 (2005): 235-251 [ii] KPMG, “Global IT Project Management Survey: How committed are you?,” 2005, http://www.kpmg.com.au/Portals/0/irmprm-global-it-pm-survey2005.pdf [iii] John Thorp, “Unlocking Value - Delivering on the Promise of Information Technology,” in Delivering Value , 2008, http://www.isaca.org.au/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=28
Expand to many different classes of vessel, with different characteristics starting from different points, experiencing different weather conditions with intermediate/transfer points but with one ultimate goal/outcome/destination