Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

2 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010

3 Research? Than you have a question and you want an answer!

4 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)

5 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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)

6 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Relevance ?

7 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 Professor Jan Oonincx (The Netherlands) ( Why are information systems still failing?) John Smith (United Kingdom) ( The 40 root causes of troubled IT projects) 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

8 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

9 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].

10 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)

11 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)

12 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 The Project Life Cycle (John Smith) 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 Typical Contracting Points Time (6)(6) (11) (9)(9) (7)(7) (4)(4) (3)(3)

13 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Probability of Selected Outcomes EarlyOn timeDelayedCancelledSum 1 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% Software project outcomes by size of project (Capers Jones) 1 FP = 125 C statements

14 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 “… 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 ir. Aart J. van Dijk” Professor Jan Oonincx

15 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Some Success / Failure factors AuthorNoDescription PN04Unfamiliarity 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 used PN10Technical knowledge is certainly an important skill for project managers to have JRR02The designer designs and not the method (Jaap van Rees, 1982) TG01Don’t believe blindly in any one method; use your methods and common sense to measure the reality against your needs (Tom Gilb, 1988)

16 Eliminating duplicates John Smith 2002 Lorin May 1998 John Reel 1999 John Smith Others Success and failure factors Jan Oonincx 1982 Nico Beenker 2004 Peter Noordam 2007 Michael Evans Methods Michael Evans 2002 Lorin May 1998 Capers Jones 1996 K.T. YEO 2002 Input Output Process Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010

17 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 Total 59 Together: = 106

18 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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

19 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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

20 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Success/failure factors that are mentioned the “Big Hitters”(BH) CJCJ MEME KYKY LMLM JRJR JOJO NBNB PNPN Total Poor project management (BH01) Deadlines are unrealistic (BH02)++++4 Poor communication (BH03)++++4 Incomplete/weak definition requirements (BH04) Insufficient involvement of future users (BH05) 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])

21 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 John Smith 2002 John Reel 1999 SUccess and Failure Factors in ICT projects (SUFFI Chart) Jan Oonincx 1982 Nico Beenker 2004 Peter Noordam 2007 Jaap van Rees Tom Gilb 1982/1988 Michael Evans 2002 Lorin May 1998 Capers Jones 1996 K.T. YEO 2002 Tarek Abdel-Hamid 1991 Big Hitters (5) (8) (3) (9) (2) (28) (47) (16) (5) (10) (4) (2) (..) = number of SUFFIsTotal number = 139

22 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 One leg in theory and one leg in practice Theory Denken Practice Doen

23 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Portfolio of projects 9Projects  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

24 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)

25 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 TelephonyScore Complies with functionality agreed Yes On timeYes Within the agreed budget No *) Results Telephony project *) the project did not exceed the build cost by more than 50%

26 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 MultihouseScore Complies with functionality agreed No On timeNo Within the agreed budgetNo Results case Multihouse versus Nutsbedrijven (public utilities) (1997)

27 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Apply toScore Results casesBig Hitter 1 Big Hitter 2 Big Hitter 3 Big Hitter 4 Big Hitter 5 Funct.On time Within Budget Case 1: POTVIS project (KLPD)No Yes Case 2: Kolibrie project (KPN Telecom)No Yes Case 3: Charging method project (GAK)No Yes Case 4: Telephony project (DUT)No YesNoYes No Case 5: OKAPI project (UoA)No Yes ---# Case 6: GIRAF project (DUT)No Yes ---# Case 7: AUBID project (DUT)No Yes ---# Case 8: VDV project (DUT)No Yes ---# Case 9: BIBLIOSYSTEM project (DUT)No Yes ---# Case 10: Audit MultihouseYes No Case 11: Audit SYSA (GOVERN)Yes No Case 12: Audit ACCINT (PUBLIC)Yes No Case 13: Audit SOX (FINANCE)No YesNo YesY/N* +) unknown #) no specific budget available *) Yes or No, depends on the project Big Hitters in relation with the discussed cases

28 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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

29 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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

30 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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

31 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 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 )

32 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

33 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 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

34 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Questions

35 Middlesex University – EngD – Aart van Dijk – November 2010 Thesis: 520 pages Costs: € 78,- incl. mailing costs ING bank account: Avédé-Beheer BV Zoetermeer The Netherlands Delivery address!

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


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google