1 / 53

Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

Success and failure factors in ICT projects by Ir. Aart J. van Dijk EngD EMITA RE 8 September 2009 Nederlands Genootschap voor Informatica (NGI) Engineering Doctorate Middlesex University London

teness
Download Presentation

Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Success and failure factors in ICT projects by Ir. Aart J. van Dijk EngD EMITA RE 8 September 2009 Nederlands Genootschap voor Informatica (NGI) Engineering Doctorate Middlesex University London School of Engineering and Information Sciences Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  2. Proefschrift: 520 pagina’s Aanschaffingskosten: € 78,- Gironummer: 644362 t.n.v. Avédé-Info BV Zoetermeer Afleveradres vermelden svp Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  3. Research? Than you have a question and you want an answer! Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  4. Research question Problem definition Research sub question 1 Research sub question 2 Research sub question n … Data 1 Methods 1 Theories 1 Data 2 Methods 2 Theories 2 Data n Methods n Theories n Answer to sub question 1 Answer to sub question 2 … Answer to sub question n Answer to Problem definition Answer to Research question Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  5. The Research Question • Objective • (An academic exercise in) finding out • (a contribution to) the true success and • failure factors used in ICT practice • (SUFFIs = SUccess and Failure Factors in ICT projects) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  6. The Research Question • Definition of the problem • How were the ICT projects the author worked on • managed with regard to success and failure factors? • the portfolio of projects: ICT projects the author worked on • including IT projects audited by the author • the key here is the author’s observations and experiences • How do they agree or disagree with • the procedures in Professor Abdel-Hamid’s work • on Software Project Management and • what others say happens with regard to success and • failure factors? • (reflection analysis of cases / ex post review of cases) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  7. Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  8. Relevance ? Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  9. Relevance • One may ask the question, whether it is relevant to look at success and failure factors in ICT projects • 1982 - Professor Jan Oonincx (The Netherlands) • (Why are information systems still failing?) • 2002 - John Smith (United Kingdom) • (The 40 root causes of troubled IT projects) • 2003 - The American “Standish Group” • (only 34% are successful, 51% does not go according • to plan but ultimately does lead to some result and • 15% of the projects fail completely) • …. - A lot of other publications • Conclusion: SUFFIs still are very topical. Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  10. What is understood by a project failure? • We can find different definitions • (Capers Jones, John Smith, Peter Noordam, Darren Dalcher, etc.) • For this thesis a project failure has one or more • of the following characteristics: • it does not comply with the functionality agreed to in advance • it exceeds the planned time-scale by more than 50%, • it exceeds the build cost by more than 50% • ==== • A successful project satisfies this three factors: it complies with • the functionality agreed to in advance, it is delivered on time and • it is delivered within the agreed budget [Noordam et al. 2007]. Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  11. What others say happens • International publications • The 40 root causes of troubled IT projects (John Smith, 2002) • Large Software System Failures and Succ. (Capers Jones, 1996) • Major Causes of Software Project Failures (Lorin May, 1998) • Critical Success Factors In Software Projects (John S. Reel, 1999) • Seven Char. of Dysfunctional Software Projects (Evans et al, 2002) • Critical failure factors in information system proj. (K.T. Yeo, 2002) • The procedures of Tarek Abdel-Hamid and Stuart Madnick in: • “Software Projects Dynamics – An Integrated Approach” (1991) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  12. What others say happens • Dutch publications • Why are information systems still failing? • (Professor Jan Oonincx, 1982) • Success and failure factors in complex ICT projects • (Nico Beenker, 2004) • ICT project management on the road to adulthood: • Success factors for ICT projects • (Peter Noordam et al, 2007) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  13. Macroeconomic Environment Competitive Environment Technological Environment Organisational Environment Project Conception (6) Project Initiation/ Mobilisation 1 (11) 6 2 Time Typical Contracting Points System Design 5 3 (9) 4 System Operation, Benefit Delivery, Stewardship & Disposal Time (3) System Development (7) System Implementation (4) The Project Life Cycle (John Smith) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  14. John Smith found (no more than) 40 generic root causes of troubled projects Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  15. VRAAG: • Systeem A heeft een omvang van 2000 functiepunten • Systeem B heeft een omvang van 6000 functiepunten • Wat is uw mening: • Systeem B is 3x zo complex als systeem A • Systeem B is 1 ½ x zo complex als systeem A (schaalvoordeel) • Systeem B is 10x zo complex als systeem A Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  16. Software project outcomes by size of project (Capers Jones) 1 FP = 125 C statements Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  17. Professor Jan Oonincx “… Information systems, which are set up too ambitiously, too isolated or without proper planning, stand a very large chance of failing. Insufficient involvement of future users in the development of information systems or a passive attitude of the top management also often lead to disappointing results. … 25 August 1982 - ir. Aart J. van Dijk” Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  18. Some Success / Failure factors Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  19. Success / Failure factors Can we integrate the SUFFIs of different author’s to create a more holistic view? (together we would like to have more than the sum of the parts) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  20. Success and failure factors 7 8 9 10 Jan Oonincx 1982 Nico Beenker 2004 Peter Noordam 2007 Methods 2007 Input 1 2 3 4 5 6 John Smith 2002 Capers Jones 1996 Michael Evans 2002 Michael Evans 2002 K.T. YEO 2002 Lorin May 1998 Lorin May 1998 John Reel 1999 Eliminating duplicates Process John Smith Others Output Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  21. John Smith 40 Root Causes + 7 Public Root Causes Others Capers Jones 16 Michael Evans 5 K.T. Yeo 10 Lorin May 4 John Reel 2 Jan Oonincx 8 Nico Beenker 3 Peter Noordam 9 Methods 2 ------------------------------------ Total 59 Together: 47 + 59 = 106 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  22. The procedures in Tarek Abdel-Hamid’s work on • Software Project Management: • An Integrated Approach*) • based on systems thinking / system dynamics • in relation to Project Management • 20 Chapters (264 pages) • I found 82 (TAH) SUFFIs • I studied the book many times • it was a very heavy job to tease out the TAH SUFFIs • from the text • I separated the TAH SUFFIs in category A (28) (most important) • and category B (54) • *)Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  23. Some TAH SUFFIs • TAH/09: systems complexity grows as the square of • the number of systems elements • TAH/14: the relationship between cost and system size is not linear. • In fact, cost increases approximately exponentially as size • increases • TAH/65: different distribution of estimated effort among a project’s • phases creates a different project • TAH/52: different estimates on a software project create • different projects Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  24. Vraag: • Maakt u wel eens gebruik van een veiligheidsmarge • bij het maken van een planning? • Hoeveel? Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  25. Safety Factor Policy --------Method------- A B C Safety factor 0% 50% 150% Mandays estimated 2,359**) 3,5385,900 Mandays actual 3,795 5,080 5,412 % Error (relative) + 38%*) +30% - 9% *) 3,795 – 2,359 **) Project: 64 KDSI ------------------ = + 0.38 (Delivered Source Instr.) 3,795 (Boehm/COCOMO, 1981) (COnstructive COst MOdel) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  26. Safety Factor Policy --------Method------- A B C Safety factor 0% 50% 150% Mandays estimated 2,359**) 3,5385,900 Mandays actual 3,795 5,080 5,412 % Error (relative) + 38%*) +30% - 9% *) 3,795 – 2,359 **) Project: 64 KDSI ------------------ = + 0.38 (Delivered Source Instr.) 3,795 (Boehm/COCOMO, 1981) The “Safety Factor Policy” does achieve its intended objective: More accurate estimates. However, the organisation pays dearly for this because the project consumes 34% resp. 43% more mandays!!! TAH: A different estimate creates a different project!!! Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  27. Vraag: Wat is de meest voorkomende faalfactor bij ICT projecten? Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  28. Success/failure factors that are mentioned the “Big Hitters” *) *) Big Hitters: are the most important (most common, often mentioned) success and failure factors. (John Smith introduced the name Big Hitter [Smith 2001]) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  29. Success/failure factors that are mentioned the “Big Hitters” • Big Hitters: are the most important (most common) • success and failure factors • for project managers and managers it is very important • to know what are the often mentioned Big Hitters • because they can give special attention to these SUFFIs • to avoid these pitfalls! • of course each project can have its own pitfalls • managers who want to realise a professional environment • can also give special attention to these SUFFIs and can • take countermeasures, e.g.: • junior project managers will have a coach • putting the Big Hitters on top of the risk list is • mandatory • etc. Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  30. Jan Oonincx 1982 Nico Beenker 2004 Peter Noordam 2007 Jaap van Rees Tom Gilb 1982/1988 Tarek Abdel-Hamid 1991 Big Hitters (8) (3) (9) (2) (28) (5) John Smith 2002 Capers Jones 1996 Michael Evans 2002 K.T. YEO 2002 Lorin May 1998 John Reel 1999 (47) (16) (5) (10) (4) (2) (..) = number of SUFFIs Total number = 139 SUccess and Failure Factors in ICT projects (SUFFI Chart) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  31. One leg in theory and one leg in practice Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  32. Portfolio of projects • Projects  related to 12 project-based publications • in Dutch journals*) • 4 ICT project audits • Case: Multihouse versus Nutsbedrijven (public utilities) (1997) • Case: SYSA (GOVERN) (2004) • Case: ACCINT (PUBLIC) (2004) • Case: SOX (FINANCE) (2006) • *) of course other author’s projects could have been chosen or added Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  33. Portfolio of projects • 9 Projects  related to 12 project-based publications • in Dutch journals • Case: Composition of bibliographies (DUT) (1971) • Case: Traffic Data Collection (DUT) (1975) • Case: Library Book Request system (DUT) (1979) • Case: General Information Retrieval (GIRAF) (DUT) (1984) • Case: Fin. info. system (building/housing) (OKAPI) (UoA) (1994) • Case: Telephony (new PABX and so on) (DUT) (1994) • Case: Charging method (services based) (GAK) (1998) • Case: Interfacing appl. (EAI) (KOLIBRIE) (KPN Telecom) (2001) • Case: RBAC SAP R/3 (POTVIS) (Police Agency) (2004) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  34. Results Telephony project *) the project did not exceed the build cost by more than 50% Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  35. Results case Multihouse versus Nutsbedrijven • (public utilities) (1997) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  36. Big Hitters in relation with the discussed cases +) unknown #) no specific budget available *) Yes or No, depends on the project Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  37. Conclusions Although the results are based on a very limited spot check, the conclusion may be drawn that the collection Big Hitters within this collection of cases acts discriminating. Where at least four of the five Big Hitters are not applicable, the “score” is positive. Where at least four of the five Big Hitters are applicable, the “score” is negative. This picture also corresponds with my experiences and observations during other projects and audits. When the five Big Hitters lead to a negative score, a large number of other SUFFIs usually play a part. Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  38. Case “Netherlands Court of Audit” • Report “Lessons from government ICT projects”, November 2007 • as far as ICT projects are concerned, the government handles • these badly • the Dutch government spends billions Euros every single year • on ICT projects that fail entirely or in part • it is not clear how many projects and how much money is involved • government ICT projects become far too ambitious and complex • through a combination of political, organisational and • technical factors • …. Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  39. Case “Netherlands Court of Audit” • Report “Lessons from government ICT projects”, November 2007 • I analysed the report several times: • I found 39 success/failure factors • advisors/experts gave their comments/opinion in different ways • analysing the comments: • I found 58 remarks/recommendations Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  40. Case “Netherlands Court of Audit” • Report “Lessons from government ICT projects”, November 2007 • Conclusion: • it is possible to apply the SUFFI Chart in the • “Netherlands Court of Audit” case • based on this case, • the SUFFI Chart does not need to be extended • SUFFIs are well known but unpopular Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  41. Big Hitter 6: Lack of senior management involvement and commitment (Jan Oonincx, John Smith) Big Hitter 7: Lack of professionalism (Tarek Abdel-Hamid, Chris Verhoef et al) EX49: There is a gross lack of professionalism in the world of ICT. Only a very small section of people have actually qualified in informatics EX50: The government should really just work with accredited information scientists and not with self-educated people EX52: Universities should train people better in managing and executing large ICT projects Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  42. Big Hitter 7: Lack of professionalism (Tarek Abdel-Hamid, Chris Verhoef et al) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  43. Conclusion • The results of the research as represented in this thesis • are partly recorded in the SUFFI Chart above • Both experienced as well as starting project managers • can reap the immediate benefits (immediately usable) • Spending a few hours in advance on studying the mapped • SUFFIs will help them avoid a number of pitfalls • The SUFFI Chart seems to apply many more areas than just • software engineering Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  44. Further research • The SUFFI Chart can be tested and improved • by project managers and researchers: • - other type of ICT projects or projects outside ICT • - other environments / cultures • - Mary Otieno: “Failure of IT Projects in • Sub-Saharan Africa” • - Ahmad Estabraghy: “Patterns of software failures” • - Ming Nie: “Cultural issues in IT Project Management” • Create a thesaurus of SUFFIs • (something like ISO 9126-standard quality model) • If SUFFIs are well known, why are not they popular? • (PhD research – social sciences?) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  45. 7 Big Hitters • Poor project management (BH01) • Deadlines are unrealistic (BH02) • Poor communication (BH03) • Incomplete/weak definition requirements (BH04) • Insufficient involvement of future users (BH05) • Lack of senior management involvement • and commitment (BH06) • Lack of professionalism (BH07) Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  46. Some recommendations to junior project managers Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  47. Some (author’s) recommendations - I • prepare the project thoroughly • be sure to have a Business Case • make a risk analysis based on the Big Hitters and • the top ten of SUFFIs and take countermeasures • if necessary • 4. refuse to start when deadlines are unfeasible or • adjust these after consultation with the client • 5. make realistic plans, not “desired” plans • if necessary, adjust plans on time and • substantiated. Do not allow the project to run its • course • do not start a project that is too sizeable or • cut the project into pieces • look for projects that also appeal to the project • leader as regards to application. Preferably not • too sizeable but certainly challenging Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  48. Some (author’s) recommendations - II • 9. work methodically but use the method as a tool, • not as a goal (Gilb, Van Rees, Noordam) • wherever possible, deliver the project results • in phases • 11. avoid wherever possible “big bang” scenarios • ensure an adequate way of communicating with • the various parties (draw up a comm. plan) • make sure that the project officers are enjoying • themselves (challenge) • involve ICT Management in the project at an • early stage (requirements from ICT management) • make sure that the embedding of the project • results in the user organisation is arranged and • approved Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  49. Some (author’s) recommendations - III • 16. budget for having a few audits done • 17. ensure a good project administration but spend • the bulk of your time by far on project officers • and project aspects with regard to content • work on your own quality through permanent • education • be convinced that every project will encounter • problems that need to be resolved and view these • as a challenge. Be creative with regard to solutions • go for quality and do things right in one single go • try to work with small, expert teams • complete the project properly, it will make you • feel good Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

  50. Questions Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – September 2009

More Related