Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010

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

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 Research?

Than you have a question and you want an answer!

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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 November 2010The 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 authors 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-Hamids work on Software Project Management (reflection analysis of cases / ex post review of cases)

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 Relevance ?

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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.


Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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].

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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 November 2010 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 November 2010The Project Life Cycle (John Smith)123456 Project ConceptionProject Initiation/ Mobilisation

System DesignSystem DevelopmentSystem Operation,Benefit Delivery,Stewardship & DisposalSystem ImplementationMacroeconomic Environment

Competitive Environment

Technological Environment

Organisational Environment

TypicalContractingPointsTimeTime(6)(11)(9)(7)(4)(3)

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 Software project outcomes by size of project (Capers Jones)1 FP =125 Cstatements

Probability of Selected OutcomesEarlyOn timeDelayedCancelledSum1 FP14.68%83.16%1.92%0.25%100.00%10 FP11.08%81.25%5.67%2.00%100.00%100 FP6.06%74.77%11.83%7.33%100.00%1,000 FP1.24%60.76%17.67%20.33%100.00%10,000 FP0.14%28.03%23.83%48.00%100.00%100,000 FP0.00%13.67%21.33%65.00%100.00%Average5.53%56.94%13.71%23.82%100.00%


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 DijkProfessor Jan Oonincx

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010Some Success / Failure factors

AuthorNoDescriptionPN04Unfamiliarity with scope and complexity (Peter van Noordam, 2007)PN06The 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 usedPN10Technical knowledge is certainly an important skill for project managers to have

JRR02The designer designs and not the method (Jaap van Rees, 1982)TG01Dont believe blindly in any one method; use your methods and common sense to measure the reality against your needs (Tom Gilb, 1988)

EliminatingduplicatesJohnSmith2002LorinMay1998JohnReel1999

JohnSmith

Others Success and failure factorsJanOonincx1982NicoBeenker2004PeterNoordam2007MichaelEvans2002123456789Methods200710MichaelEvans2002LorinMay1998CapersJones1996K.T. YEO2002InputOutputProcessMiddlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010John 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-Hamids 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 November 2010Some 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 projects phases creates a different project

TAH/52: different estimates on a software project create different projects

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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])

Success/failure factors that are mentioned the Big Hitters(BH)CJMEKYLMJRJONBPNTotalPoor project management (BH01)++++++++8Deadlines are unrealistic (BH02)++++4Poor communication (BH03)++++4Incomplete/weak definition requirements (BH04)++++4Insufficient involvement of future users (BH05)++++4

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010JohnSmith2002JohnReel1999 SUccess and Failure Factors in ICT projects (SUFFI Chart)JanOonincx1982NicoBeenker2004PeterNoordam2007Jaap van ReesTom Gilb1982/1988MichaelEvans2002LorinMay1998CapersJones1996K.T. YEO2002TarekAbdel-Hamid1991BigHitters(5) (8) (3) (9) (2) (28) (47) (16) (5) (10) (4) (2) (..) = number of SUFFIsTotal number = 139


One leg in theory and one leg in practiceTheoryDenkenPracticeDoen

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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 authors projects could have been chosen or added

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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 November 2010 Results Telephony project*) the project did not exceed the build cost by more than 50%

TelephonyScoreComplies with functionality agreedYesOn timeYesWithin the agreed budget No*)

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010Results case Multihouse versus Nutsbedrijven (public utilities) (1997)

Multihouse ScoreComplies with functionality agreedNoOn timeNoWithin the agreed budgetNo

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 +) unknown #) no specific budget available *) Yes or No, depends on the project

Big Hitters in relation with the discussed cases

Apply toScoreResults casesBigHitter1BigHitter2BigHitter3BigHitter 4BigHitter 5Funct.On timeWithinBudget

Case 1: POTVIS project (KLPD)NoNoNoNoNoYesYesYesCase 2: Kolibrie project (KPN Telecom)NoNoNoNoNoYesYesYesCase 3: Charging method project (GAK)NoNoNoNoNoYesYesYesCase 4: Telephony project (DUT)NoNoNoYesNoYesYesNoCase 5: OKAPI project (UoA)NoNoNoNoNoYesYes---#Case 6: GIRAF project (DUT)NoNoNoNoNoYesYes---#Case 7: AUBID project (DUT)NoNoNoNoNoYesYes---#Case 8: VDV project (DUT)NoNoNoNoNoYesYes---#Case 9: BIBLIOSYSTEM project (DUT) NoNoNoNoNoYesYes---#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Case 10: Audit MultihouseYesYesYesYes---+NoNoNoCase 11: Audit SYSA (GOVERN)YesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoCase 12: Audit ACCINT (PUBLIC)YesYesYesYesYesNoNoNoCase 13: Audit SOX (FINANCE)NoNoYesNoNoYesY/N*Y/N*

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010Case Netherlands Court of AuditReport 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 November 2010Case 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 November 2010Big 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)

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010 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 November 2010 Gouden regels voor opdrachtgeverschap *)

Begin met een heldere business case en blijf (aan) deze business case toetsen Eis productgerichte planning en rapportageGeef stuurgroepleden verantwoordelijkheid voor levering of gebruik van het resultaatWees kritisch bij de keus van een projectleider en moedig hem aan om kritisch te zijnSta alleen scopewijzigingen toe met autorisatie door de stuurgroep

*) VROM Liesbeth Edelbroek

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010Questions


Thesis: 520 pages

Costs: 78,- incl. mailing costs

ING bank account: 150248 Avd-Beheer BVZoetermeerThe Netherlands

Delivery address!

Middlesex University EngD Aart van Dijk November 2010Thank you very much for your attention and your questions

[email protected]

*

Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010

Documents

Transcript of Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010