In IT Project Management, it seems that most projects fail – only 16% of IT projects are considered successful, according to Oxford University’s survey of 1,500 practicing IT managers. But perhaps we should ask if failure is always a bad thing and whether or not we have reward systems that set up the eventual failure of projects at greater costs to the organisation by discouraging early decisions about project termination.

It was President Woodrow Wilson who is credited with saying: "Better to try...and fail, than not to have tried at all."

In the field of Project Management it seems that we have different values. In IT Project Management, it seems that most projects fail – only 16% of IT projects are considered successful, according to Oxford University’s survey of 1,500 practicing IT managers. But perhaps we should ask if failure is always a bad thing and whether or not we have reward systems that set up the eventual failure of projects at greater costs to the organisation by discouraging early decisions about project termination.

IT projects exist to create a link between IT and the Business – helping to align investment in technology with the needs of the business as a whole. A common scenario sees a project manager being given (a) a project; (b) a team and (c) a budget and then he/she is expected to get on with the job and deliver on expectations within a specified timescale. 12 months down the line when the project is nearing completion the project is canned (at considerable cost to the business) because it no longer compliments current business objectives.

The question that is often asked at this point is: Why did it take so long for us to realise that the project was no longer relevant or useful?

Your Mission If You Choose To Accept It…

We all know that there is a considerable amount of work, effort and time that goes into getting projects set up and signed off. IT Directors and their project managers have to justify every penny – proving that the benefits far outweigh the cost to the business, or that ROI will be achieved.

Project managers are set targets, usually defined in terms of (a) Time, (b) Cost and (c) Scope and thus set out on a mission to complete the project and deliver for the people that have placed confidence in them. It is not surprising therefore that project managers are loath to divert from a path that sees a project completed, as they are more often than not paid and given incentives to finish a project and see it through. There is often little or no incentive whatsoever to identify at an early stage where projects clearly miss the company’s strategic mark. Identifying and stopping a project is more often than not seen as a complete failure and project management bonuses are lost. With this in mind – why should project managers to flag-up projects that will clearly miss the company’s strategic mark?

Mission Impossible

Today’s business environment is volatile and companies frequently need to change, adapt and even redefine propositions in order to remain competitive and deliver for their stakeholders. There will therefore be cases where projects either need to be heavily adapted to maintain their relevance or will become obsolete through no fault of the project manager and team.

However, those who are most in tune with the project’s direction (those working on the project) have absolutely nothing to gain from flagging up that the project is no longer valuable to the business. Running a project to the end and absolute conclusion is a costly exercise but it is even more costly if the aim of the project does not meet with the businesses requirements.

Abort Mission? What’s in it for me?

There is a stigma attached to ‘project failure’. It’s not good for programmers and project leaders to be seen to be involved with incomplete projects: thus there is little to no incentive for them to pick up on or identify changes in the business environment that will essentially mean the end of their project – and possibly the end of their contracts.

It is the project reward and success perception criteria that need to be fundamentally changed. Reward systems should be put in place to encourage project leaders to constantly review whether or not their project continues to support the business objectives set out at the beginning. Adaptations, changes or even the early termination of a project should be rewarded if it will save the company money in the long run.

Rewarding Failure?

IT projects exist to create a link between IT and the Business – helping to align investment in technology with the needs of the business as a whole. The same is true of other project types, from business process re-engineering and human resources to financial operations, product development or manufacturing / engineering. However, project managers in some industries will need to more carefully delineate their objectives, as the definition of failure can vary where tangible outputs are concerned. A project to build a new road, which is delivered on time and on budget, is still unsuccessful if nobody uses it.

Project leaders need to feel that intervention, even if fundamentally negative, will not be seen as a failure. Stopping a project in time – because it will be ineffective and a waste of resources – should be seen as a success and rewarded accordingly.


_________________________________
Professor Robert Macredie and Dr Mark Lycett are leaders of ‘Fluid Business’, a groundbreaking research project within the School of Information Systems Computing and Mathematics at Brunel University.


Dr Mark G. Lycett
Mark Lycett has over five years of research experience, during which time he has worked extensively with companies in the financial services sector, helping them with the management and organisation of their information systems.

Whilst his research concentrates on all aspects of systems development, his key interest lies in the design and architectural issues underlying the dynamic interaction between people, process and technology.

Prior to returning to education, Mark spent 12 years in industry working on a number of national and international feasibility/development projects. He holds a BSc in Computing and Business Management (Oxford Brookes University), a MSc in Information Systems (Brunel University) and a PhD in Information Systems (Brunel University).

Mark is currently engaged in ongoing research with a number of organisations and has published work in a number of leading journals and international conferences.


Professor Robert D. Macredie
With over 10 years of research experience, Robert Macredie has worked with a range of organisations, from large, blue-chip companies, through small businesses, to government agencies.

Robert’s key interest lies in the way people and organisations use technology, and his aim is to how we can improve the way that we understand how people and technology interact.

Educated at the University of Hull (B.Sc. and Ph.D.), he is now Professor of Interactive Systems in the Department of Information Systems and Computing, Brunel University.

Robert has worked on a wide range of issues associated with people, technology and organisations and has over 150 published research contributions in these areas.