Business Execs Expect IT Projects to Fail
|
When an IT project fails, the reaction of business executives worldwide seems to be a collective shrug of the shoulders. |
Forty-three percent of the 800 global mid- and senior-level IT managers—23 percent in the United States—surveyed by the Indian IT services firm Tata Consulting Services say their bosses—business executives and board directors—accept failed IT projects as the norm and a necessary evil. Nearly seven of 10—77 percent in the U.S.—say their bosses continue to provide the necessary support to improve IT for the business even when an IT project fails.
Failure, it seems, is business as usual at many companies around the world. (Tata surveyed managers in Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan, Singapore, Sweden and the U.S. from companies with 250 or more employees and who said they participated in driving IT projects to completion.) Only 19 percent—13 percent from the states—say the higher-ups will be reluctant to fund new IT project after it fails.
Though conducted by a an independent firm, the survey was paid for by Tata, which is in the business of selling IT services. Considering its funding source, you decide about the accuracy of the survey.
Still, the survey has some fascinating points. My favorite: the search for a scapegoat.
Tata asked if business managers and board members seek a scapegoat among the IT staff when an IT project fails. There's a distinct East-West divide in the responses. Twenty-one percent of Indian and 19 percent of Singaporean IT managers say their bosses seek a scapegoat in IT for failed projects. But that percentage plunges to 6 percent in Britain and France, 2 percent in the U.S. and none in Germany. I'm not sure what those differences mean. Remember, the responses represent the impressions of the IT managers, not the executives themselves. Is IT much more aligned with business in the West that IT isn't Suspect No. 1 when a project miscarries? Or, perhaps, the more hierarchical corporate structure in Asia makes IT managers more apprehensive? What do you think?
Comments (7)
Yes we as project manager walk around with targets on our back; but, like the emblem on the back right of the dollar we carry an olive branch in one hand and a fist full of arrows in the other. (Which I am happy to use both against technology and the business.) Considering the source of the article (Tata Consultancy) I would hardly advocate this as nothing more than a press release and hardly objective or impartial.
Posted by armchairquarterback | December 12, 2007 12:24 PM
I am not surprised about any "it didn't work" attitude or results related to technology projects.
First, science has demonstrated that it is easier to find fault with a theory or project than to determine what is right with it. And the very truth of nature is if it has faults: kill it. It's in our DNA and brains. Otherwise, ambitious projects that come-up against the complexity barrier have little chance of succeeding in their intended dimensions.
The reason is that once the complexity barrier is reached the end game is all about work arounds.
Posted by D L Thomas | December 12, 2007 1:17 PM
So many business projects fail that it's just accepted. It does appear that businesses are getting better at managing projects. One issue is unreal expectations by C-level execs. With any project there are issues that you just can't predict will happen.
So CEOs still fund IT even after failed projects; should they stop funding IT? If one project fails is it time to outsource IT?
Sometimes project failure is the excuse to throw out the IT department when execs and users are tired of being told "no." It's interesting when they start hearing "no" from the outsourcing providers as well.
Posted by Chuck Landress | December 12, 2007 1:48 PM
Think how much more profitable the companies that "accept failed IT projects as the norm and a necessary evil" would be if they didn't "accept failed IT projects as the norm and a necessary evil."
I think they should hire Tata to do some pre caucus polls. I am pretty sure Mickey Mouse would come out highly rated.
But seriously folks, if anyone in upper management embraces failure, then hope to god that mentality catches up with them quickly.
If the poll was an attempt to say, yes, we all know failures will occur, then that makes sense. But expect it? I think the poll is losing something in the translation.
This poll isn't about projects, it's about complacency.
Posted by bufo marinas | December 12, 2007 2:52 PM
It's difficult to comment on the meaning of the different cross-cultural survey results without detailed analysis of the survey instrument, question wording and how respondents were contacted, but it's clear that:
Failure is almost never caused by a single person; there's usually a complex combination of factors that involve systems, processes, communication patterns, adequate resources, organizational culture, training, etc.
Truly high performing teams and organizations learn from failure to become stronger, but they need to be taught (or inspired by a leader) how to accomplish this.
If a project is truly "mission critical," failure can often be minimized by allocating adequate resources and time for development, testing, parallel systems, usability testing, etc.
New approaches to building high performing groups and organizations like Appreciative Inquiry have produced startling and sustainable results by building on organizational strengths and aspirations (rather than falling back into the familiar mistakes of fault finding and scapegoating).
Posted by jonmca | December 12, 2007 3:01 PM
Depends what you mean by failure. If we mean right first time, every time, then there are many failures and business executives accept it as a part of doing business because it is generally moving the business in the right direction at a reasonable cost, otherwise they would cancel the projects.
Business projects also fail - how many marketing campaigns achieve all their goals? How many massive proposal efforts result in a loss?
I do agree that if the IT organization seems to be unable to deliver acceptable service at a reasonable cost, and its projects do not deliver value until the cost becomes unreasonable or the need has passed, then it is time to start replacing people.
Posted by dmcbrown | December 12, 2007 6:08 PM
I take this with a grain of salt and strongly consider the source (especially since I am a manager who has used Tata's services). In my 30+ years of experience, I have not found that business managers accept failure in IT (or any other business functional department) as a necessary evil.
I also think the scapegoat reference is dated and that when systems fail, there is a more cross-organizational view of where the failure lies. It's not perfect but it isn't where Tata says it is.
Posted by The Hound | December 20, 2007 2:05 PM