Opinion: Giving projects a clean bill of health

Performing a review or health check of an IT project on a regular basis is a relatively simple and inexpensive exercise when compared to the huge amounts of money that can be at stake if things go pear-shaped. It provides all those involved with peace of mind that the business benefits will be realised within the given time and resource constraints. Yet the majority of organisations only perform a health check if they believe that something is fundamentally wrong.

Even if the warning signs are visible, there is a tendency to carry on with a project in the belief that issues can be resolved by doubling efforts or by throwing more resources at them. But unless corrective actions that target the fundamental aspects of a delivery are implemented early, in most cases outcomes will not be realised or a catastrophic failure will occur.

Although projects can fail in any number of ways, there are two major factors that usually influence the outcome of a project. First, it is essential to have the right sponsorship. While projects can be initiated by any function in an organisation, without electing the right sponsor, the initiative is doomed. For example, if a new IT system is to be implemented, but the CIO is not the primary sponsor or part of the programme board, the chances are that it will fail irrespective of whether or not the system is delivered successfully. For success the CIO must be part of the solution that impacts his team.

Secondly, it is just as important to ensure that a project is grounded in business logic. All too often, organisations are unrealistic in their expectations, with the belief that technology provides a “reach all cure”. Yet there are many other factors at play – such as organisation, management, process, people and environment. Technology is an enabler not a cure for organisational, process or management incompetence.

At a strategic level, the board must engage closely with programme content. Action-orientated boards will move on the intelligence they receive and ensure a programme is successful, whereas information-orientated boards report to stakeholders on progress but tend to take a back seat in terms of delivery.

Performing a health check provides a set of viable recommendations, but if sponsors and stakeholders fail to implement them, then the exercise becomes almost futile.
Businesses need to realise that when implementing IT projects, performing health checks in an independent and structured manner and taking the right actions at the right time is vital. These checks are an incredibly cost-effective means of ensuring a successful outcome, especially when compared with the cost of an IT system and the potential price of failure.
@LOC_Consulting

Peter Osborne is managing director of LOC Consulting