Delivering large-scale IT projects and Change Portfolios
Whichever report you choose to read, from McKinsey's, "delivering large scale change" to BCG's, "large-scale IT projects", they confirm one simple fact which few people like to accept; large scale change projects rarely deliver on time and on budget. These type of programmes are uniquely difficult and fraught with risk, which is compounded because of their scale. There is an over whelming evidence that outlines just how risky these pr0jects are - probably best summarised by the 2011 HBR article “why your IT project may be riskier than you think”.
When and if I can, I try to avoid designing large-scale IT change projects or programmes - the odds of delivering successfully are stacked against you and few organisations know how to properly scale up to successfully deliver them - major IT programmes require a blend of expertise that most teams don't have and they require a mindset many companies find difficult to establish.
There are always occasions when large-scale IT change programmes cannot be avoided and in these situations it's worth taking time to step back to make sure you are setup for success. There is lots of good advice on how best to deliver major programmes - three of my long-term favourites are the National Audit Office's study into major projects: "delivering successful IT-enabled change", the British Computer Society's study "The Challenges of complex IT Projects" and finally, the Association for Project Management's guidance here.
In addition to the documented best practices I would call out three things I have learnt:
Are you setup for success before you start? It takes courage, diplomacy and credibility to ensure you secure the right plan and approach from Day 1 with a business sponsor who is engaged and who will "own" benefits delivery. To have a plan that is not overloaded with technical or delivery risk from Day 1 is incredibly important. It all looks so easy when drawn on powerpoint! This is more about the ability to influence and work with peers than it is about the programme. It is worth asking if your organisation has a culture and mindset of successful delivery; if not, why not? I cannot stress the importance of that question - are you good at project delivery that involves complex business needs? If not, don't expect the next project to be different if you have not addressed the underlying causes.
Do you have the right leader and team? Appoint a Programme Director who has a pedigree in large scale delivery and appoint a System Integrator or Partner with proven business and technology expertise; this needs to be a company that can land the right people with the right experience. If you meet the 'A team' during the sales pitch and the 'B team' turns up on Day 1, you're already in trouble - you cannot afford to have a team learning on the job. People deliver projects; methods, tools and processes simply support them.
Are you setup to be value-led, not scope-led? nearly all IT systems are vastly over specified (typically by about 60%) - keep things simple and ensure the programme focuses on what actually delivers value - scope should reduce, not increase! This applies at the portfolio level too - I have seen far too many change portfolios full of pet projects which dilute return on capital. It's worth reflecting on the fact that many portfolios are not always well designed when it comes to actually delivering value - there's some great thoughts on this here from Rob Fraser, a seasoned CIO who was most recently on the Operating Board of Sainsbury's. Be flexible on scope and know what you can trade off. Make sure you have the drivers of value agreed with the business sponsor - they own benefits realisation and organisational change, not the IT department. It may save your project once things get hard. Sapient have one of the best customer-centric and value-led delivery approaches I have seen and used which is core to their delivery DNA. I left them many years ago, but to this day they remain one of the best digital and IT delivery organisations in the world.
These all sound blindingly obvious, but of the numerous failures or challenges I have seen, they have nearly all had issues which can be attributed to one these three reasons. It is easy to slowly walk into a failing position, only for problems to then rapidly escalate. Programme failure is rarely because the technology does not work.
Badly setup programmes are incredibly hard and expensive to turn-around and poorly setup portfolios are even harder to reshape - the decisions you make at the start disproportionately impact your chances of success.