Do we really understand what the problem is? (Part 1)

Too often I see technology being seen as the answer without really understanding the problem. It sounds so simple but IT has an almost hypnotic attraction which needs to be countered by a focus on a business outcome. 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see technology’s potential to deliver efficiencies in the workplace. Over the years, all businesses have invested in some level of technology in search of the Holy Grail of efficiency but many have been left scarred with numerous stories of failed attempts along the quest. The reasons for these failures have been vast and varied and are never usually caused by just one thing.  However, one area that has been in the spotlight is Program and Project Management. This is not surprising given these disciplines are exposed to the whole investment process including the sharp end where the pain becomes most obvious – project delivery. 

Now don’t get me wrong, I have seen many a case where Project Management was a significant contributor to a project failing but usually it is a number of factors all conspiring – it’s rarely as simple as just one thing.  

Perhaps understandably, the normal organisational reaction to a major project failure results in a renewed focus on Project Management. This results in an investment into more (or more experienced) Project Managers, a renewed interest in project methodologies and, of course, new tools (as that always fixes things!). It also sees the development of, or further investment in, an improved capability in a Program and/or Projects Office(s). Depending on the size of the organisation, larger ones will usually implement a Program and a Projects office as scale dictates a need for a two level governance model while smaller organisations wrap the Program and Project offices up together for efficiency.

I find it interesting that in most of these cases no effective measures are put in place to monitor overall improvements of Program/Project Offices so the Executives who approve the funding in the first place have no idea whether that investment paid off. They have reacted to an issue and have actioned what is seen as a logical fix but they normally forget about the monitoring of the actual results. I haven’t seen many organisations monitoring the number of successful projects (however success is defined) over time and linking them to particular capability investments. Perhaps this is because there are so many other factors involved which can influence outcomes both positively and negatively. Factors such as the experience and skills of the Project team, clear scope, more engaged/experienced senior responsible officer and/or simply more Executive focus on Projects. Nevertheless measurement is still a key tool which many Boards are not leveraging. Too often they lose sight of what the role of the Board is and what problem they are trying to solve. 

I have seen many large organisations investing heavily in a Program Management capability. This is the group that controls the funding via the allocation of the organisation’s capital budget. Projects are initiated on a priority basis each tasked to deliver the benefits outlined via their business case. These projects are given a scope and budget and the Project Manager (PM) is tasked with its delivery and a Projects Board given the day-to-day oversight of that investment. The Program Board is usually kept abreast of their investment via monthly Project Reports (normally via the Projects Board for larger organisations). Such a model is considered best practice and ensures oversight over the company’s investments. It can provide a escalation point for the inevitable project issues that arise and gives the Executives (who are usually on the Board(s)) some control over the direction.  

But in reality, this model can be dogged by inaccurate project reporting (aka Project Managers managing upwards!) and inexperienced Executives who do not have the skills to ask the right questions so they get the wool pulled over their eyes. I also don’t see the buy-in from these Executives who should have a greater stake in the outcome. They are too far removed from the running of the day-to-day project and it can be convenient to blame the PM or his/her team for any failures.

I have also seen Program Boards who do have experienced Executives and good quality project reporting (vetted by the Project Board) but the focus is usually squarely on project governance. Again this is good in theory but the downside of this focus is they lose sight of the outcome they are trying to achieve. I see Project after Project being implemented that hasn’t met the user’s needs, and/or was delivered within organisational silos and, in some cases, delivered the same capability using different (duplicated) technology. But they have been delivered on-time and on-budget so are regarded as successful.  

Technology is about enabling a solution which will help fix a business problem and not just about delivering the project on-time and on-budget. It is important to always keep this in mind so you don’t get caught up in the IT hype trance.