ICT ProjectManagement

A survival guide

Dr Christopher O’Mahony

Head – Centre for Information Technology

St Ignatius’ College, Riverview

In summary This presentation shares some examples of IT

projects in schools, and hopefully shares some tips on how to survive the IT Project battleground.

Good News and Bad News

Some wider context

A cynical view

Key learnings

A sample case study

Some useful links

The presenter

Christopher O’Mahony

Head – Centre for IT, St Ignatius’ College, Riverview

In school IT management roles since 1997

PhD research in school management information systems, IT evolution, IT evaluation, organisational culture

Involved in various IT projects such as

Management information systems

Library systems

Voice-over-IP

SAN / DDT

ISP

Reprographics

The good news

The fact that this conference is happening, and that this topic is included, is indicative of the growing professionalism among school IT management.

Most of us, during our tenure in these positions, will be involved to a greater or lesser extent in IT projects.

Increasingly in schools, other organisational units are looking to IT managers for robust methodologies and discipline, rigour and objectivity in capital projects.

BUT ………

The bad news

In the 1990’s, the average life span of a senior IT manager was about 900 days.

A common cause of IT manager casualty is failed IT projects.

Aalders, R., & Hind, P., (2002) “The IT Manager’s Survival Guide”, Chichester, UK; John Wiley & Sons.

Industry analysis tells that MOST IT projects fail

For example:

UK NHS – 4 years over time, GBP 10 billion over budget

Australian Customs – 4 weeks container processing backlog on implementation

Defining project failure

Project abandonment

Cost overruns

Time overruns

Incomplete implementation / functionality

Major causes:

Degree of user involvement

Executive management support

Project management experience

Smaller initiatives fare better at reaching goals than larger projects do.

46%

32%

23%

11%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

More than $10 million

$6m to $10m

$3m to $6m

$750,000 to $3m

Less than $750,000

Project cost vs project success

(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)

32%

22%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

< 20% are overbudget

20% - 50% areover budget

> 50% are overbudget

Proportion of projects over budget

(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)

54%

12%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

< 20% are late

20% - 50% are late

> 50% are late

Proportion of projects delivered late

(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)

37%

37%

26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

< 50% scopedelivered

50% - 90% scopedelivered

> 90% scopedelivered

Proportion of scope successfully delivered

(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)

Project Management Truths

“Never underestimate the ability of senior management to buy a bad idea, and fail to buy a good idea.”

“Quantitative project management is for predicting cost and schedule overruns well in advance.”

“Project meetings are events where minutes are kept, and hours are lost.”

“We build systems like the Wright brothers built airplanes – build the whole thing, push it off a cliff, let it crash, and then start all over again.”

A cynical view

Project Management Truths

Projects happen in two ways: (a) Planned and then executed or (b) Executed, stopped, then planned and executed.

“Good project management is not so much knowing what to do and when, as knowing what excuses to give and when.”

“Some projects finish on time in spite of project management best practices.”

“Users don’t know what they want until they get it. Then they know what they DON’T want.”

A cynical view

Key learnings

Successful projects have demonstrable discipline, rigour and objectivity

Link all IT projects to the IT Strategic Plan – avoid unplanned projects

Different leadership types on a project team (eg Business, IT, Academic) have different dynamics, and these need to be ‘managed’

Engage senior management in all major projects

Key learnings

There is rarely a pure ‘IT’ project

Clarify who’s driving

Be wary of resourcing assumptions

Prioritise your projects

Build in plenty of milestones and progress meetings

Avoid scope creep

Talk straight

Learn how to say “No”

One Case Study – School MIS project

The case for change

Building project approval

Governance and team structure

Internal stakeholder consultation

External enquiries

The Tender

Phase 1 - evaluations

Phase 2 - presentations

Phase 3 – Selection and contract

Conversion and trial

Go live

Post implementation

The case for change

2004

Business Office driving the call for change

Areas requiring review:

Fees & Billing

Registrations & Admissions

Foundation and OIU

School shop

Facilities

Assets

Project approval

Early 2004

Business Case presented to:

IT Committee

Finance Committee

College Council

Initial ‘rule-of-thumb’ budget approved

Project Team established

External support from industry professionals

Project Steering Committee

IT SteeringCommittee

Implementation Plan

Ongoing Support Commercial PriceBusiness

Requirements

G ConlonK Corbett

G ConlonC O’Mahony

G ConlonC O’Mahony

G ConlonK Corbett

G ConlonC O’Mahony

L Holden (P2)B Peatman (P2)K Corbett (P2)

Evaluation Governance & Team Structure

Stakeholder consultation

Term 1 2004

Questionnaires to all stakeholders

Focus Group meetings

What have we got that must be retained?

What have we got that must be dumped?

What have we NOT got that we must have?

What have we NOT got that we’d like to have?

Broad email enquiries to other ADAPE members

Evaluation from ADAPE members

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Happy Unhappy

The Tender

Stakeholder consultation in Term 1 informed Requirements Specification

Clear expectations of tender respondents

Closed tender

Incumbent invited to respond

Longlist to Shortlist

Make your tender document self-scoring

Use quantitative analysis to justify selection / rejection

Score each dimension

Weight each dimension

Consider price last

Remember to include items such as:

Conversion costs (export as well as import)

Customisation / configuration costs

Training costs

Evaluation Phases

Phase 1

Assessment of compliance and evaluation against evaluation criteria

Phase 2

Discussions, clarification, negotiations and reference checks with short-listed Suppliers. Update evaluation.

Phase 3

Finalise contract with preferred supplier, including further discussions and negotiations as appropriate

Short-listed Suppliers

Short-listed Suppliers

Preferred Supplier

Preferred Supplier

Signed Contract

Signed Contract

Evaluation Criteria

WeightingsScoring

RulesEvaluating

Price

Evaluation Methodology

Evaluating Proposals

Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a &

Wei

gh

tin

gs

(exc

l. P

rice

)Evaluation Category Criteria Criteria

WeightingCategory Weighting

Business Requirements

General 20%

55%

Core Business functions 40%

Development / Foundation 20%

Retail Operations 10%

Other (Facilities, New Business Functions) 10%

Implementation Plan Implementation Track Record 30%

15%Timeframe 20%

Approach (eg phased) 50%

On-going Services Industry Track Record 20%

20%

Depth of Resourcing 30%

Help Desk Support 30%

Account Management 20%

Commercial Vendor Stability 40%

10%Financial Viability 40%

Acceptance of Riverview’s Key Commercial Terms

20%

400% 100%

Phase 1 Evaluation Results

Business Requirements

Implementation Plan

Ongoing Services

Commercial

Price

Business Requirements Comparison-1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

A B C D E

Business requirements (weighted) by supplier

General

Core

Foundation

Retail

Other

Business Requirements Comparison-2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

General Core Foundation Retail Other

Business requirements (weighted) by Category

A

B

C

D

E

Implementation Plan Comparison

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E

Implementation Plan Analysis

Ongoing Services Comparison

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E

Ongoing Services Analysis

Commercial Comparison

0

20

40

60

80

100

A B C D E

Commercial Analysis

Phase 1 Summary (excl Price)

Scores

CategoryCategory Weighting

A B C D E

Requirements (Bus + Tech) 55% 45.7 33.1 46.1 49.9 42.0

Implementation Plan 15% 7.5 3.8 10.5 9.8 5.3

Ongoing Service (estimate) 20% 12.0 10.0 11.0 13.0 11.0

Commercial (estimate) 10% 6.5 4.5 8.5 8.5 7.0

             

TOTAL 100% 71.7 51.4 76.1 81.2 65.2

             

Rank   3 5 2 1 4

NOTE: higher score is more favourable

Price per Point of Value Approach

Lowest price per point of value score = highest ranked supplier

The service providers response must meet Riverview’s minimum requirements on each of the non-price evaluation criteria

NPV for Supplier

“Price per Point of Value” Score =Weighted Score for Supplier

Financial Comparison - 1

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Price Analysis (per Point of Value)NPV over 3 Yrs

Financial Comparison - 2

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Price Analysis (per Point of Value)NPV over 5 Yrs

Narrowing the field

Vendor presentations

We drove the agenda, not the vendor

Important to use real-life scenarios / scripts

Level playing field for all presentations

No second chance

Reference site checking

Vendor recommendations

Plus our own enquiries

Selection and Contract

From two down to one:

Keep #1 and #2 keen right to the very end

Contracts:

Don’t simply accept the ‘standard’ contract

Make the extra effort to ensure the contract matches your needs

Always make sure your school legal advisers review the contract

Conversion and trial

If converting data from old system to new system:

Do your best to retain support from outgoing vendor.

Allocate plenty of time and resources to test the converted data.

Worth considering at least two iterations of the conversion-and-trial cycle.

Ensure robust change request procedure is in place during this phase.

Go live!

November 2004 – Conversion-&-Trial #1

January 2005 – Conversion-&-Trial #2

March 2005 – Go Live!

Train! Train! Train!

Support! Support! Support!

Post implementation

March 2005 was chosen for implementation as it had the least impact on our daily business.

By Term 2, we were ready to use the new system for the second billing run.

We’ve now been working with the new system for over one year.

Every month / term that goes by things get easier, smoother, more second-nature.

The old system is still available for reference, which is helping to mop up inconsistencies.

We have also been building communication channels with other schools using the system, which is helping to inform the vendor of future improvements.

Other Project Applications

At Riverview, we have been using essentially the same methodology for about three years, for projects such as:

Internet Service Provision

Storage solution (SAN/DDT)

Reprographics refresh

Integrated Library Management System

Useful links

There is an increasing requirement for IT Project Managers to have formal accreditation

AIPM – Australian Institute of Project Management

www.aipm.com.au

Endorsed courses:

www.aipm.com.au/html/aipm_endorsed_courses_act_nsw.cfm

Sydney University – Project Management Graduate Programme (PMGP)

www.pmgp.usyd.edu.au

PRINCE2

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/prince2/

In Conclusion

Good ICT projects must be informed by robust research and well-exercised methodology;

Good ICT projects must be continuously evaluated and reviewed;

Good ICT projects lead to improved organisational agility and effectiveness.

Contact DetailsDr Christopher O’Mahony

Head – Centre for Information Technology

Saint Ignatius’ College, Riverview

Tambourine Bay Road, Riverview, NSW 2066

Phone (02) 9882 8222 Fax (02) 9882 8588

Web www.riverview.nsw.edu.au Email cdomahony@riverview.nsw.edu.au