itSMF Scottish Regional Meeting - project review simulation - 5 Mar 2013

Why Do IT Projects Fail?

Project Review Simulation

Why do IT projects fail
Mar 2013 1

Agenda
10 min -- Introductions

60 min -- Project review simulation

45 min -- Debrief (& models)

Mar 2013 2

Objectives

 Think a little about why IT projects fail
 Explore use of project reviews to help identify failures
 Share experience and expertise

Mar 2013 3

Introductions

 Who are you?

 Why are you here?
Mar 2013 4

People lose touch with reality

The single underlying cause for most project failures…
Mar 2013 5

Role of the reviewer…

 … is to help people keep in touch with reality

PMI Research
About 75% of the things that go
wrong on projects, someone knew
about the issue but didn’t know how
to deal with / who to tell about it.

Mar 2013 6

Assessing project Airfix

 24:1 scale model
(1 hour = 3 working days)

 6 teams

 Conduct a health check of
project Airfix

Mar 2013 7

Assessing project Airfix - Rules
1) You have
 Project briefing
 Team / resource list
 Planning framework

2) Read briefing & identify who / what
you want to see over the 3 days

3) I will give document outlines &
interview notes in line with your
plan

4) Analyse notes and present findings
(2 mins)

5) Describe how you got these
findings
Mar 2013 8

Findings

 2 minutes (= 45 mins in real time)

1. Present your key findings

2. Describe how you got to these findings

Mar 2013 9

Debrief

 What was common to your findings? Different? Why?

 What was common to your plans? Different? Why?

 How did you feel during the exercise?
 What was challenging?
 What was confusing?
 What was interesting?

 How was this like real life? How did it differ?

 What would help make reviews easier?

Mar 2013 10

Some possible learnings
 Planning  Analysis
 Knowing who to talk to is tough  Knowing what to look for is tough
 You can’t cover everyone in  You may need technical skills
limited time  People will say conflicting stuff –
 You will probably identify more you need to probe
people, documents, etc  You can’t uncover every issue –
 You need to time to analyse you have to focus
and frame an actionable report  Balancing breadth versus depth
 You have to pace yourself or is tough
you’ll burn out  It’s easy to make inferences
based on limited information, or
to be overwhelmed with data
(And you didn’t have to deal with all the negotiating and so on that
happens when managing stakeholders)

There is never enough time!
Mar 2013 11

Some possible learnings

 Data Gathering
 Getting stakeholders together  You may need depth for results
may mean they spark off each to be actionable – evidence
other adds to credibility and specific
details help action.
 Two people may make slower
progress together initially (e.g.  There’s always a risk that you’ll
interview coverage), but they miss stuff. This damages the
project and your credibility.
may also fill gaps in each
Don’t let this freeze you. Be
other’s coverage organised and open minded to
 There’s always noise that you’ll minimize the risk.
need to untangle (if it was
obvious, others would have
covered it)
 Organisations & teams have
inconsistent terminology

Mar 2013 12

Some thoughts
 Which sources will give you a quick overview?
 Review & project sponsors, programme manager
 Risk register
 Business case
 Plans
 Are the documents still current? Are they well maintained?

 What does your experience tell you to look for?
 Patterns in this company or industry?
 Bad smells?

 How do you hit the ground running?
 Define charter up front
 Clear process for data gathering, recording and analysis
 Checklists to help with planning (what to look for, what to ask)
 Heuristics and models to help you plan will buy time for data collection
and analysis
Mar 2013 13

Review process (Chapters 3, 4, 5)

Control parameters Criteria
Baseline Reference Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Inputs Review execution Outputs

Artefacts & other Analysis Loop
items to review, plus Go / No -go Improved
supporting details. decision. artefacts.

Recommendations to
improve review artefacts

Mar 2013 14

Analysis Loop (Chapter 6)

Raw Data
(e.g. Documents Structured Data
& Interviews) (e.g. Issues Log)

Analysis drives
additional data gathering
(e.g. to buy information on key risks) Analysis
&
Hypothesis
Generation

Mar 2013 15

Establishing effective reviews

 Establish context for regular reviews
 Maintain review checklists and guidelines
 Monitor effectiveness
 Track project-level actions
 Support programme- and portfolio-level actions
 Embed lessons learned into organisational standards
 Provide administrative support

Mar 2013 16

Assurance as an information conduit

 Project teams often have
problems communicating key messages:
 Lack savvy
 Lack credibility
 Lack access

 Assurance teams can help them frame their messages and
communicate them effectively

 Likewise, sponsors often have trouble picking the critical information
from the mass of stuff that comes their way

 Assurance teams can help them recognise key information and
frame appropriate interventions
Mar 2013 17

Thank You
graham@grahamoakes.co.uk
@GrahamDOakes

Mar 2013 18

Useful Models

Mar 2013 19

Types of Project Review

 Timing  Attributes
 Event-based  Objectives
 Periodic  Status
 Ad hoc  Risk
 Quality
 Degree of Independence  Process
 Independent assurance  Compliance
 Peer
 Self-assessment  Summative vs Formative

 Degree of formality
 Spectrum
Mar 2013 20

Gate or Regular Review?
Gate Review Regular Review
Depth • Tend to go deep into • Tend to be more
project status and issues lightweight
Trends • Infrequent • Regular reviews can
track trends
Reviewer • Takes time to get up to • Get to know the project
Overhead
speed
Project • Can be disruptive • Small but frequent
Overhead
disruption
Objectivity • Reviewers are well • Risk of going native
separated
Specialist • May be needed for deep • Can often spot trends
skills
review without them
Mar 2013 21

Peer review or independent assurance?
Peer Review Independent Assurance
Availability of • Must find time from own • Dedicated team
Reviewers
projects
Skills of • Non-specialist • Rigorous approach. Develop
Reviewers
skills in gathering evidence,
conducting interviews, etc
Understanding • Reviewers are managing • Reviewers risk losing touch.
of Projects
similar projects themselves.
Understanding • See many projects
of Issues
Relationship to • Open, friendly relationship • Risk being adversarial
Proj Team
Organisational • Good way to share • Risk focusing on assessing
Learning
experiences projects
Match to • Organisational learning • Executive info & assurance
Overall
Objectives
• Formative reviews • Summative reviews

Mar 2013 22

Independent Assurance or Peer Review?

 Peer review  Independent Assurance
 Project team’s peers provide  Dedicated team focused on reviews
outside perspective (people may rotate through it)
 Probably take time off own projects  Work across multiple projects in a
to do it (so it can be hard to get programme or portfolio (so need to
time from reviewers) manage availability for each project)
 Provide advice and reality check to  Probably focused on checking status
project manager (& sponsor?) (but may provide advice), reporting
to sponsor or external executives
 Open and friendly, with emphasis  May become adversarial – “project
on 2-way learning from their peers police” – and lose learning focus
 Non-specialists may be  Can develop review skills and
unstructured in approach, and methods, but need to overcome
reluctant to challenge peers team resistance
 Dependent on team goodwill  Have authority (if dangerous to use!)

May mix roles, but helps to be clear which hat you wear
Mar 2013 23

Independent Assurance or Peer Review?

 Peer review  Independent Assurance
 Project team’s peers provide  Dedicated team focused on reviews
outside perspective (people may rotate through it)
 Probably take time off own projects  Help across multiple projects in a
Work executives manage
Help the project team
to do it (so it can be hard to get programme or activities need to
manage the project external portfolio (so
time from reviewers) manage availability for each project)
 Provide advice and reality check to  Probably focused on checking status
project manager (& sponsor?) (but may provide advice), reporting
to sponsor or external executives
 Open and friendly, with emphasis  May become adversarial – “project
on 2-way learning from their peers police” – and lose learning focus
 Non-specialists may be  Can develop review skills and
Help sponsors manage interventions
unstructured in approach, and methods, but need to overcome
reluctant to challenge peers team resistance
 Dependent on team goodwill  Have authority (if dangerous to use!)

May mix roles, but helps to be clear which hat you wear
Mar 2013 24

Types of Project Review

 You can mix up the types
 Formal, independent gateways at key points during initiation
 Regular peer reviews during execution
 Occasional health checks
 Self-assessments for low-risk projects or high-capability teams
 Shift from objectives, risk and process to quality and status

 How much to budget?
 ½ to 2%?

Mar 2013 25

Review process (Chapters 3, 4, 5)

Control parameters Criteria
Baseline Reference Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Inputs Review execution Outputs


Recommendations to

Mar 2013 26

Control parameters
Baseline Criteria Reference

Outputs
Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Review execution
Inputs Outputs


Recommendations to

 It helps to be clear about the outputs and how they will be used

 The review will generally
 Produce recommendations to improve the inputs.
 Provide input to go/no-go and other decisions (by giving assurance (or otherwise)
as to the fitness-for-purpose of work done to date and proposed)

 In defined circumstances, the independent assurance team may
also trigger escalation processes to other stakeholders.

Mar 2013 27

Control parameters

Inputs
Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Review execution
Inputs Outputs


Recommendations to

 What documents, interviews, etc will we be reviewing?

 What supporting materials may be needed?
(e.g. historical context, detailed specifications, etc)

 We can’t review everything!
 Many review teams try to review all elements of a project.
 This diffuses effort across low-risk or low-impact items, reducing the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of the review.
 By clearly defining the inputs, we ensure that effort is focused where it will do
most to reduce project risk. (Breadth then depth iterations may also help.)

Mar 2013 28

Control parameters

Criteria
Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Review execution
Inputs Outputs


Recommendations to

 Criteria define what aspects of the inputs to focus on.

 Can review against many criteria. (Budget, time, process
compliance, security, performance, usability, …)

 Reviews that try to cover every angle end up skating across the
surface. What is most important to this review?

 For example, if project is constrained by tight budget, let’s focus
energy on costs.

 Typically 2-3 criteria per review. Schedule additional reviews to
cover more criteria.

Mar 2013 29

Control parameters

What doesn’t need to
Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Review execution
Inputs Outputs

be reviewed? Artefacts & other
items to review, plus
supporting details.
Analysis Loop
Go / No -go
decision.
Improved
artefacts.

Recommendations to

 Baseline defines what’s been agreed prior to the review.
 For example, if we’re reviewing a project plan, we measure it against it’s likelihood
of delivering the objectives.
 Input artefacts are “fit for purpose” if they meet their objectives against the
baseline.
 The baseline will often have been reviewed in a stage prior to the current review.

 Reference Models define external practices agreed for our context.
 The input artefacts conform to best practice to the extent that they align to these
reference models.
 By agreeing reference models up front, we can avoid many of the debates that
occur between review and project teams as to whether designs or
implementations conform to someone’s perception of “best practice”.

Mar 2013 30

Control parameters

Feedback loops
Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Review execution
Inputs Outputs


Recommendations to

 First feedback loop is to improve the inputs (plans, designs, project
processes, etc).

 Second feedback loop updates our database of good practices,
building in organisational learning:
 Improvements to organisational standards and processes
 Improvements to review checklists (e.g. new questions, retired questions)

Project reviews can be a key contributor to
organisational learning
Mar 2013 31

Control parameters

Execution
Feedback
Models to improve
reference
models

Review execution
Inputs Outputs


Recommendations to

 One time vs. Ongoing Review (Oversight)?

 What time, resources & expertise are available for the review team?
(Will you need subject matter experts to assist with details?)

 What access to the project team, documents, etc is available?

 How about administrative support?
(Scheduling interviews and meeting rooms can take a lot of time.)

 Preserving confidentiality of interviews*

 Security requirements for review results or project artifacts?

 May preliminary findings be shared to allow confirmation/correction?
Mar 2013 *You can’t promise confidentiality if you discover illegal activity
32

Analysis Loop (Chapter 6)

Raw Data
(e.g. Documents Structured Data
& Interviews) (e.g. Issues Log)

Analysis drives
&
Hypothesis
Generation

Mar 2013 33

Analysis Loop Raw Data
(e.g. Documents
& Interviews)
Structured Data
(e.g. Issues Log)

 Iterations may be based on Analysis drives
 Breadth then depth &
Hypothesis
Generation
 Risk
 Dependencies
 …

 Gather information into “issues log” for analysis and clustering

 Hence build models of potential problems, and of information we
might gather to refine our understanding and confirm / disconfirm

 Build traceability from problem to issues cluster to detailed issues
and their supporting notes

 You’ll often start with some sort of hypothesis: be aware of biases
Mar 2013 34

Interviewing (Chapter 6)

1) Planning

2) Interview Preparation

3) Pre-interview

4) Opening

5) Mid-Interview

6) Closing

7) Post-Interview

Mar 2013 35

Interviewing

1) Planning
 How do interviews contribute to review objectives?
 Number and scope of interviews

 Type of interview – individual, pair or workshop?

 Who to interview

 Establish relationships

 Set up logistics
 Quiet, private space to interview in
 Timing, maps, water, etc

Mar 2013 36

Interviewing

2) Interview preparation
 Review project documentation
 Briefing pack (explain objectives and process)

 Self-assessment questionnaires

 Agree roles (e.g. if interviewing in pairs)

 Develop interview protocol

Mar 2013 37

Interview Protocol

 Questions
 Closed
 Open
 Clarifying
 Metaquestions
 Demonstrations

 Use a mix of question types!

 Directive or non-directive interviewing?

Mar 2013 38

Interviewing

3) Pre-interview
 Review objectives
 Review background to interviewee

 Manage the interview space

 Be on time

 Be alert & ready to listen

Mar 2013 39

Interviewing

4) Opening
 Set people at ease!
 Introductions
 Names
 Organisational roles
 Role on this review & interview
 Objectives (or review, of interview)
 Confirm timing
 Confirm note taking, confidentiality & other protocols
 Do they have any questions?
Mar 2013 40

Interviewing

5) Mid-Interview
 Early questions build rapport
 When did you join the project? What is your role?
 Gather basic facts
 Give people space to expand
 Confirm you’ve heard correctly – listen actively, recap
 Confirm evidence for opinions, assumptions & assertions:
“What makes you believe that?”
 Record notes (What are you recording? How?)
 Listen & observe (e.g. body language & emotional issues)
Mar 2013 41

Interviewing

 Don’t be afraid of pauses and silences

 LISTEN
 Use note-taking to create space
 Don’t let the protocol dominate
(I throw it away)

 Have a plan, but follow the energy

 Check opinions, assumptions and assertions: “what
leads you to believe that?”
Mar 2013 42

Interviewing

6) Closing
 Respect interviewee’s time – reschedule if necessary
 Confirm you’ve heard main messages
 Final chance to gather new info
 Metaquestions
 Is there anything else I should be asking?
 What else did you expect me to ask?
 Is there anyone else you should see?
 Exchange contact details
 Confirm next steps and protocol for checking / follow-up
 Thank them for their time
Mar 2013 43

Interviewing

7) Post-interview
 Debrief
 Record notes
 I quickly lose ability to read my handwriting…
 It helps me think about follow-up activities
 Log new documents and other artefacts
 Record issues
 Confirm notes
 This may gather new info.
 What people change is often interesting.
 Schedule any follow-up activities
Mar 2013 44

Observation

 The ability to gather data is essential to assessment. Data comes in
a variety of forms other than documents & interviews:
 Interaction
 Body language
 The environment

“You can observe a lot just by watching”
- Yogi Barra

Mar 2013 45

Graham Oakes Ltd
 Making sense of technology…
 Many organisations are caught up in the
complexity of technology and systems.
 This complexity may be inherent to the
technology itself. It may be created by the pace of technology change. Or it may arise from
the surrounding process, people and governance structures.
 We help untangle this complexity and define business strategies that both can be
implemented and will be adopted by people throughout the organisation and its partner
network. We then help assure delivery of implementation projects.
 Clients…
 Dover Harbour Board – Systems and architecture review
 Council of Europe – Defined systems for monitoring compliance with international treaties
 Sony Computer Entertainment – Defined common product approval process for global units
 National Savings & Investments – Helped NS&I and BPO partner develop joint IS strategy
 Amnesty International – Defined ECMS strategy for researchers, activists and campaigners
 Cisco Worldwide Education – Researched competitive marketplace for e-learning assets
 The Open University – Defined enterprise architecture, CRM and product development strategies
 Oxfam – Helped defined strategy for content management, CRM, e-Commerce
 MessageLabs – Implementation assurance for customer service portal
 Sapient Ltd – Risk management strategy for customer billing solution

Mar 2013 46
Some images & clipart in this presentation are © JupiterImages Corporation

itSMF Scottish Regional Meeting - project review simulation - 5 Mar 2013

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (7)

Similar a itSMF Scottish Regional Meeting - project review simulation - 5 Mar 2013

Similar a itSMF Scottish Regional Meeting - project review simulation - 5 Mar 2013 (20)

Más de Upside Energy Ltd

Más de Upside Energy Ltd (18)

Último

Último (20)

itSMF Scottish Regional Meeting - project review simulation - 5 Mar 2013

Notas del editor