Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Success and failure factors in ICT projects by Dr. ir. Aart J. van Dijk EMITA RE 9 November

Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010

Success and failure factors in ICT projects

by

Dr. ir. Aart J. van Dijk EMITA RE

9 November 2010

ICT ZORG CONGRES 2010

Engineering Doctorate Middlesex University London

School of Engineering and Information Sciences



Research?

Than you have a question and you want an answer!


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)


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

• what others say happens with regard to success and failure factors and• the procedures in Professor Abdel-Hamid’s work on Software Project Management (reflection analysis of cases / ex post review of cases)


Relevance ?


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

Relevance

One may ask the question, whether it is relevant to look at success and failure factors in ICT projects

September 2010

• Logica verslikt zich in belastingsysteem (Forse schadepost dreigt voor Waterschapshuis)

• Justitie trekt stekker uit ERP-systeem Cajis (Budget: 13 miljoen. 12 miljoen is daarvan al is verbruikt)

• Professor Chris Verhoef (VU): Overheid verspilt nog steeds miljarden door mislukte ICT-projecten

Conclusion: SUFFIs still are very topical.



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 moreof 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 withthe functionality agreed to in advance, it is delivered on time andit is delivered within the agreed budget [Noordam et al. 2007].


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)


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)


The Project Life Cycle (John Smith)

1

2

3

4

5

6

Project Conception

Project Initiation/ Mobilisation

System Design

System Development

System Operation,Benefit Delivery,Stewardship & Disposal

System Implementation

Macroeconomic Environment

Competitive Environment

Technological Environment

Organisational Environment

TypicalContractingPoints

Time

Time

(6)

(11)

(9)

(7)

(4)

(3)


Probability of Selected Outcomes

Early On time Delayed Cancelled Sum

1 FP 14.68% 83.16% 1.92% 0.25% 100.00%

10 FP 11.08% 81.25% 5.67% 2.00% 100.00%

100 FP 6.06% 74.77% 11.83% 7.33% 100.00%

1,000 FP 1.24% 60.76% 17.67% 20.33% 100.00%

10,000 FP 0.14% 28.03% 23.83% 48.00% 100.00%

100,000 FP 0.00% 13.67% 21.33% 65.00% 100.00%

Average 5.53% 56.94% 13.71% 23.82% 100.00%

Software project outcomes by size of project (Capers Jones)

1 FP =125 Cstatements


“…

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”

Professor Jan Oonincx


Some Success / Failure factors

Author No Description

PN 04 Unfamiliarity with scope and complexity (Peter van Noordam, 2007)

PN 06 The use of a business case results in a higher degree of satisfaction with the project, whilst the satisfaction with the project is very low when no business case is used

PN 10 Technical knowledge is certainly an important skill for project managers to have

JRR 02 The designer designs and not the method (Jaap van Rees, 1982)

TG 01 Don’t believe blindly in any one method; use your methods and common sense to measure the reality against your needs (Tom Gilb, 1988)

Eliminatingduplicates

JohnSmith2002

LorinMay1998

JohnReel1999

JohnSmith

Others

Success and failure factors

JanOonincx

1982

NicoBeenker

2004

PeterNoordam

2007

MichaelEvans2002

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9

Methods2007

10

MichaelEvans2002

LorinMay1998

CapersJones1996

K.T. YEO2002

Input

Output

Process



John Smith 40 Root Causes + 7 Public Root Causes

Others Capers Jones 16Michael Evans 5K.T. Yeo 10Lorin May 4John Reel 2Jan Oonincx 8Nico Beenker 3Peter Noordam 9Methods 2 ------------------------------------ Total 59

Together: 47 + 59 = 106


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


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


Success/failure factors that are mentioned the “Big Hitters”(BH)

CJ

ME

KY

LM

JR

JO

NB

PN

Total

Poor project management (BH01) + + + + + + + + 8

Deadlines are unrealistic (BH02) + + + + 4

Poor communication (BH03) + + + + 4

Incomplete/weak definition requirements (BH04)

+ + + + 4

Insufficient involvement of future users (BH05)

+ + + + 4

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])


JohnSmith2002

JohnReel1999

SUccess and Failure Factors in ICT projects (SUFFI Chart)

JanOonincx

1982

NicoBeenker

2004

PeterNoordam

2007

Jaap van ReesTom Gilb1982/1988

MichaelEvans2002

LorinMay1998

CapersJones1996

K.T. YEO2002

TarekAbdel-Hamid

1991

BigHitters

(5)

(8)

(3)

(9)

(2)

(28)

(47)

(16)

(5)

(10)

(4)

(2)

(..) = number of SUFFIs Total number = 139


One leg in theory and one leg in practice

TheoryDenken

PracticeDoen


Portfolio of projects

9 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


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)


Telephony Score

Complies with functionality agreed

Yes

On time Yes

Within the agreed budget No*)

Results Telephony project

*) the project did not exceed the build cost by more than 50%


Multihouse Score

Complies with functionality agreed

No

On time No

Within the agreed budget No

Results case Multihouse versus Nutsbedrijven (public utilities) (1997)


Apply to Score

Results cases BigHitter

1

BigHitter

2

BigHitter

3

BigHitter

4

BigHitter

5

Funct. On time

WithinBudget

Case 1: POTVIS project (KLPD) No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Case 2: Kolibrie project (KPN Telecom) No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Case 3: Charging method project (GAK) No No No No No Yes Yes Yes

Case 4: Telephony project (DUT) No No No Yes No Yes Yes No

Case 5: OKAPI project (UoA) No No No No No Yes Yes ---#

Case 6: GIRAF project (DUT) No No No No No Yes Yes ---#

Case 7: AUBID project (DUT) No No No No No Yes Yes ---#

Case 8: VDV project (DUT) No No No No No Yes Yes ---#

Case 9: BIBLIOSYSTEM project (DUT) No No No No No Yes Yes ---#

------------------------------------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------ --------

Case 10: Audit Multihouse Yes Yes Yes Yes ---+ No No No

Case 11: Audit SYSA (GOVERN) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Case 12: Audit ACCINT (PUBLIC) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No

Case 13: Audit SOX (FINANCE) No No Yes No No Yes Y/N* Y/N*

+) unknown #) no specific budget available *) Yes or No, depends on the project

Big Hitters in relation with the discussed cases


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


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


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


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)


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


Gouden regels voor opdrachtgeverschap *)

1. Begin met een heldere business case en blijf (aan) deze business case toetsen

2. Eis productgerichte planning en rapportage

3. Geef stuurgroepleden verantwoordelijkheid voor levering of gebruik van het resultaat

4. Wees kritisch bij de keus van een projectleider en moedig hem aan om kritisch te zijn

5. Sta alleen scopewijzigingen toe met autorisatie door de stuurgroep

*) VROM – Liesbeth Edelbroek


Questions


Thesis: 520 pages

Costs: € 78,- incl. mailing costs

ING bank account: 150248 Avédé-Beheer BVZoetermeerThe Netherlands

Delivery address!


Thank you very much for your attention and your questions

[email protected]

Documents

Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Success and failure factors in ICT projects by Dr. ir. Aart J. van Dijk EMITA RE 9 November