It is encouraging to see the government's recently
published ITstrategy focusing on addressing the success rate of
public sector IT projects.
The negative clamour that surrounds IT projects when they go
wrong and the propensity for those involved to become embroiled in
a ruthless blame game are not constructive and achieve little.
The new strategy shows the government is thinking more
holistically about all the factors that contribute to the success
of IT projects, such as proper stakeholder consultation, scoping
and planning, and the skills and experience of those leading and
managing the projects.
One key point is often missed when failing IT projects are
criticised. Major IT projects are fundamentally business change
projects, and often it is the change programme itself that is at
the root of the problems that arise. The IT systems are usually the
most visible evidence of the failures or problems associated with
such major change programmes.
To understand the real root causes of high-profile project
failures requires a greater analysis and understanding of the way
in which high-level government policy is interpreted and executed
as it passes down the chain of command. The way in which, for
example, manifesto policy aspirations are encoded into projects and
eventually into IT requirements.
Repeating problems
All too often inquiries intoproject failures look at only one
component of the problem - the IT systems - rather than the overall
project of which those IT systems formed a part. I suspect that is
why we see the same problems repeating themselves time and
again.
Looking back at my own time in public service and the way it
continues to operate now, the public sector risk/reward model also
requires review to help provide an environment better suited to the
delivery of major change programmes.
There should also be a review of the way in which IT projects
still seem to be built on the out-dated and unsuccessful "built to
function, built to last" principle, when best practice has moved on
to the "built to adapt, built to change" model.
Likewise, the old monolithic thinking around waterfall projects
should also be pensioned off. We have far better ways of
delivering successful projects, such as the component approach
(connected systems and service oriented architectures) and more
flexible project methodologies that deliver better results.
Apply the lessons now
It is important that we learn and apply these lessons now. Look
ahead for examples of the type of flexibility we will require in
the administration of public sector services in the future. We know
that the current idea of a fixed retirement age and associated
pensions regime is under enormous pressure. It seems likely that
the model will change to one where retirement will happen as a
gradual process and over a longer period than at present.
Those of my own generation may well find themselves only
semi-retiring at first, maybe drawing part-pensions while still
working part-time. The demands this will place on our currently
functionally disparate taxation, benefits and pensions systems will
be immense if we do not both reform the business processes and the
IT systems to support the flexibility likely to be required.
In order to enable technology and businesses to work more
closely together to deliver projects that meet requirements, it is
essential that we find some way of communicating the true value of
technology to our business decision-makers and policy-makers.
We are increasingly reliant at every level of society on new
technological innovations in both software and hardware. Yet the
number of people who understand either the technology or, more
importantly, how we can use and manage it to real advantage; to
re-think and improve the way we learn, work and live, remains
worryingly small.
Unless we can find a way of better articulating the way in which
technology and business can interact to beneficial effect, we seem
likely to continue to see failed IT projects and associated public
service change programmes that frustrate both providers and
users.
Jerry Fishenden is national technology officer at Microsoft
UK