IT Project Governance Presented by: Dr Raymond Young (MBA, MAICD) Practice Leader – Project Governance [email_address] ori...
Background 1989 2009 1999 projects, projects, projects … Why? Why? Why? HB280 AS8015 ->ISO38500 AS8016
<ul><li>What is the success rate for IT projects? ________% </li></ul><ul><li>What are the most important things you have ...
2/3 projects realise no benefits! $1,000 billion pa spent on IT.   (Seddon & al 2002) 30% on projects (?) 10-20%  (Clegg e...
<ul><li>IT project failure has been an issue almost since the dawn of business computing  (Caminer 1958) .  </li></ul><ul>...
A analogy for understanding the significance of project governance
It depends on your definition of success   MIS Success:  User   focus  SIS Success:  Organisational focus  EDP Success: Te...
Project Management Success Very strong emphasis in practice
Breakthrough #1: Exposing the [IT] blind spot Beyond Project Management  success   project management success is less impo...
The Global Financial Crisis? The catalyst for widespread adoption of the ‘benefits’ definition of success? Oversight  blin...
<ul><li>¾ of mergers and acquisitions never pay off </li></ul><ul><li>2/3 of IT projects deliver no benefits whatsoever </...
<ul><li>“…  ICT needs to be driven from the boardroom, not the backroom” </li></ul><ul><li>Senator Helen Coonan, Minister ...
<ul><li>Standish (1996) </li></ul><ul><li>User involvement (19)  </li></ul><ul><li>TMS (16)  </li></ul><ul><li>Clear state...
Case Studies HB280 – 2006 <ul><li>Descriptive Case Studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Goles and Hirschheim 2000; Tashakkori and...
Breakthrough #2: TMS –  t he  most  critical success factor Reference:  Young (2006)  HB280 Case Studies – How Boards and ...
<ul><li>If TMS is the  most  important CSF, then much of our current research and practice is misdirected. </li></ul><ul><...
How do you Govern Projects?
Governing Projects  Achieving Outcomes & Realising Benefits Strategy Defined outcomes Delivered outcomes Governance Benefi...
Corporate Governance, Governing Projects and Project Management Standards: OECD Guidelines ASX Guidelines AS8000 Focus on ...
Governance Evaluate Direct &  Monitor Investment: benefits or terminate? Strategy/capability:  how much change is required...
Governance vs Management   The ITG Harmonisation Map Val IT CobiT ITIL ISO20000 PMBOK PRINCE2 Etc. Automation C.M. CMM CMM...
AS8015, AS8016 <ul><li>AS8015: ICT   </li></ul><ul><li>Directors do not manage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Directors: Evaluate-D...
A ValIT understanding of Governance <ul><li>Kubernán  (gr): to steer a ship – the process of  continually orienting and ad...
Without Effective Governance… Can’t kill projects Leads to.. Too many projects Quality of execution suffers Underestimatio...
Financial/Strategic Implications Current Performance (68% under) Source: R. Young, “What is the ROI for IT Project Governa...
Questions & Discussion Boardroom readiness Case Study History og  governance
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Project Governance Sydney Uni 2009

1,113

Published on

see http://www.e8consulting.com/blog/category/practiceareas/projectgovernance

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,113
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; 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&apos; 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&amp;cid=151800,00.html [ii] D. Lovalla and D. Kahneman, “Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executive&apos;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&amp;cid=151800,00.html [ii] D. Lovalla and D. Kahneman, “Delusions of success: how optimism undermines executive&apos;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 &amp; 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&amp;name=News&amp;file=article&amp;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
  • Project Governance Sydney Uni 2009

    1. 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
    2. 2. Background 1989 2009 1999 projects, projects, projects … Why? Why? Why? HB280 AS8015 ->ISO38500 AS8016
    3. 3. <ul><li>What is the success rate for IT projects? ________% </li></ul><ul><li>What are the most important things you have been taught to do for your projects to succeed? </li></ul><ul><li>You are probably wrong … </li></ul><ul><li>“ the current ‘expert advice’ has less impact on success than previously believed” Young (2008) </li></ul>It is now week 8 … what have you learned?
    4. 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. 5. <ul><li>IT project failure has been an issue almost since the dawn of business computing (Caminer 1958) . </li></ul><ul><li>It has been studied intensively for the past 40 years (Lucas 1975, Lyytinen and Hirschheim 1987) </li></ul><ul><li>but it remains a poorly understood phenomena (Sauer 1993, 1999). </li></ul><ul><li>An enormous number of largely untested methodologies have been proposed and adopted (Checkland 1981, Strassmann 1995, Clegg et al. 1997). </li></ul>Rethinking project management “ dimensions thought to be important divide tasks, requirements scrubbing, KISS, reduce scope, simulation/scenarios, prototyping, pilots, testing, user participation, user surveys, publicising participation results, team meetings, user led teams, user committees and good relationships, user managed decisions and development, user commitment, monitor progress and promote open discussion, critical task focus, project organisation, external contracts and outsourcing, formal procedures, cost allocation structures, pre-scheduling, cost and schedule estimation, incremental approach, path-analysis, risk-driven project planning, physical arrangements, staff with top talent, seek champions, cross training, morale building, manage expectations, implementation games, training, role playing, study and screen potential actors, specification standards and methods, task and organisational analysis techniques, information hiding/abstraction and modelling, bench marking, flexible governance structures, task matching, contingency models, managing technology options, adapt authority and decision structure, modify process model, technical analysis, service assessment, gain management support, appropriate leadership, change authority or workflow, adopt/configure new organisational technologies (Lyytinen, Mathiassen et al) have no consistent impact on the success of computing”(Kraemer & King 1986). The traditional wisdom must be revisited
    6. 6. A analogy for understanding the significance of project governance
    7. 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
    8. 8. Project Management Success Very strong emphasis in practice
    9. 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. 10. The Global Financial Crisis? The catalyst for widespread adoption of the ‘benefits’ definition of success? Oversight blind (29%) or nil (16%) Increasing degrees of negligence Level of scrutiny (benign economy) 1:5 projects perceived to fail 2:3 projects fail New levels of scrutiny <ul><li>M anagement of large-scale expenditures is a fiduciary duty requiring careful oversight. The results were “tantamount to negligence”. Deloitte( 2007) What the Board Needs to Know About IT: Phase II Findings </li></ul><ul><li>“ A pay structure that rewards origination without regard to investment outcomes is not appropriate” Michael Larkin, CEO Babcock and Brown (AFR 11 Nov 2008, p 84) </li></ul>
    11. 11. <ul><li>¾ of mergers and acquisitions never pay off </li></ul><ul><li>2/3 of IT projects deliver no benefits whatsoever </li></ul><ul><li>most large capital projects fail to live up to expectations </li></ul><ul><li>majority of efforts to enter new markets are abandoned in a few years </li></ul><ul><li>70% of new manufacturing plants are closed in their first decade </li></ul>The Global Financial Crisis? The catalyst for widespread adoption of the ‘benefits’ definition of success? Level of scrutiny (benign economy) 1:5 projects perceived to fail New levels of scrutiny <ul><li>M anagement of large-scale expenditures is a fiduciary duty requiring careful oversight. The results were “tantamount to negligence”. Deloitte( 2007) What the Board Needs to Know About IT: Phase II Findings </li></ul><ul><li>“ A pay structure that rewards origination without regard to investment outcomes is not appropriate” Michael Larkin, CEO Babcock and Brown (AFR 11 Nov 2008, p 84) </li></ul>
    12. 12. <ul><li>“… ICT needs to be driven from the boardroom, not the backroom” </li></ul><ul><li>Senator Helen Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts </li></ul><ul><li>, </li></ul><ul><li>“ IT is a board room issue: in the last 200 years, there have only been two or three significant changes in the productivity statistics. The first change was due to the industrial revolution … the last two are related to IT” </li></ul><ul><li>Prof Steve Burdon (FAICD), UTS </li></ul>Earlier calls for change
    13. 13. <ul><li>Standish (1996) </li></ul><ul><li>User involvement (19) </li></ul><ul><li>TMS (16) </li></ul><ul><li>Clear statement of requirements (15) </li></ul><ul><li>Proper planning (11) </li></ul><ul><li>realistic expectations (10) </li></ul><ul><li>smaller project milestones (9) </li></ul><ul><li>Competent staff (8) </li></ul><ul><li>ownership (6) </li></ul><ul><li>clear vision & objectives (3) </li></ul><ul><li>hard working, focussed staff (3) </li></ul><ul><li>Project methodologies (35) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Clear statement of requirements (15), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proper planning (11), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>smaller project milestones (9) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>User ( 25): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>User involvement (19), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ownership (6) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>TMS (16) </li></ul><ul><li>High level planning (13): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>realistic expectations (10), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>clear vision & objectives (3) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Project staff (11): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Competent (8), </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>hard working and focussed (3) </li></ul></ul>Reference: Young and Jordan (2008) “ Top Management Support: mantra or necessity ” International Journal of Project Management Vol 26, pp713-725 Re-examining the traditional wisdom Top Management Support: mantra or necessity?
    14. 14. Case Studies HB280 – 2006 <ul><li>Descriptive Case Studies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Goles and Hirschheim 2000; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003; Benbasat and Zmud 1999 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Multiple-case study design </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 typical organisations, 3 exemplary organisations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Case history developed through interviews with: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>project sponsors, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>top managers, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>project team, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>stakeholders from multiple levels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rigour through multiple sources of evidence: interviews, project documentation, observation, critical review (at 3 levels) Young and Jordan 2002a; Young and Jordan 2002b; Young 2003; Young and Jordan 2003 </li></ul></ul>
    15. 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
    16. 16. <ul><li>If TMS is the most important CSF, then much of our current research and practice is misdirected. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HB280 has informed AS8015 which has just been accepted as an international standard on the corporate governance of IT (ISO38500) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HB280 findings are being incorporated into AS8016 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>A major shift in emphasis may be required: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Boards and top managers may have to accept that they personally have the most influence whether a project succeeds or fails </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Boards, top managers and their advisors may have to accept that the current ‘expert advice’ has less impact on success than previously believed. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Further research is needed to explain how TMS influences success and to develop credible guidelines for practice. </li></ul>Breakthrough #2: Top Managers Must Govern Projects to succeed
    17. 17. How do you Govern Projects?
    18. 18. Governing Projects Achieving Outcomes & Realising Benefits Strategy Defined outcomes Delivered outcomes Governance Benefits Enabling projects
    19. 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. 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
    21. 21. Governance vs Management The ITG Harmonisation Map Val IT CobiT ITIL ISO20000 PMBOK PRINCE2 Etc. Automation C.M. CMM CMMI CobiT Spice Etc. The 6 Principles ISO38500 © Brian O. Cusack
    22. 22. AS8015, AS8016 <ul><li>AS8015: ICT </li></ul><ul><li>Directors do not manage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Directors: Evaluate-Direct-Monitor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managers: Plan-Do-Check-Act </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principles-Based </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish clearly understood responsibilities for ICT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan ICT to best support the organisation; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquire ICT validly </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure ICT performs well, whenever required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure ICT conforms with formal rules </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure ICT use respects human factors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>AS8016: Projects </li></ul><ul><li>Why do we invest in projects? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Directors: Business Benefits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Managers: on-time, on-budget </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principles-Based </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Those responsible for achieving business outcomes are clearly identified and held accountable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Strategy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>… aligned with business requirements </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acquisition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>business benefits … are clearly identified </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Measures … agreed before a project is approved. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assurance …outcomes will be achieved. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Conformance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Human Behaviour </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The measures of success are aligned to stakeholders’ needs and motives. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Stakeholders are effectively encouraged to raise issues … </li></ul></ul></ul>
    23. 23. A ValIT understanding of Governance <ul><li>Kubernán (gr): to steer a ship – the process of continually orienting and adjusting </li></ul>“ Managing an uncertain journey to an uncertain destination”
    24. 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. 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)
    26. 26. Questions & Discussion Boardroom readiness Case Study History og governance

    ×