To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/programme/0,3800004583,39129476,00.htm

When it's best to forge ahead with an ailing IT project
CIOs sound off...

By Sylvia Carr

Published: Tuesday 12 April 2005

Deciding when to kill an ailing IT project or more widespread programme is among the more difficult calls CIOs have to make.

Terminate an unpopular project that was eating resources with no clear business gain and you are a courageous leader. But cancel an essential project unnecessarily just because of a few road bumps or carry on with a project that should have been binned - and you can find yourself in trouble with the board.

In a recent CIO Jury, silicon.com's panel of IT chiefs voted 11 to 1 that it's better to kill a problematic IT project rather than deliver just to hit boardroom targets.

Yet further discussion with industry CIOs shows there's another side to this debate - when it's right to continue with a troublesome project.

The simplest reason is if the project turns out to be less doomed than originally thought.

Richard Steel, head of ICT at London Borough of Newham, said: "If the problems can be overcome and the benefits can be realised, why not just do a gateway review and re-plan, being upfront about what the problems were and how [to] overcome [them]."

Forging ahead can also be best if larger company strategies are at stake.

Peter Pedersen, CTO at Blue Square, said even a troublesome project should not be canned if it is "a key part of company strategy and delivers value beyond ROI".

The importance of CIOs playing ball with the rest of the company was echoed by Dharmesh Mistry, CTO at edgeIPK. "If the boardroom targets have material effect on the company, e.g. share price, then yes, a project should be delivered to meet boardroom targets," he said. "If we in IT want to take a role on the board you have to look at what's best for the company, not just for the IT targets."

Politics play a role too. Steve Anderson, European IT partner at property consultancy Davis Langdon, said sometimes CIOs should not cancel an ailing IT project in order to stay on good terms with the board. "You don't want to inflame the board, go against their views and alienate yourself unnecessarily. Ultimately it is a judgement call, and it may be necessary to let a high profile project run to meet boardroom targets (which may be as simple as just 'getting it done') even though the business case went out of the window ages ago."

According to Les Boggia, head of IT at Carole Nash Insurance, "legislative or compliance reasons" are among the only justifications for carrying on with a failing IT project.

And sometimes no action should be taken by the IT department because it's really a board decision. Phil Young, head of IT at Amtrak Express Parcels, said: "I think [killing a problematic IT project] should be a board decision based on the information to hand. The [project manger] should explain the issues and why the project is not delivering, i.e. requirements not relevant etc, and then let them decide."

If CIOs do end up terminating an IT project, there can be an upside.

Phil Pavitt, CIO at OneTel, said: "Killing a project often helps highlight the internal issues that may have caused it to become problematic in the first place. [There's] nothing like a cancellation to get boardroom attention [and] so break the log jam."

Richard Steel, head of ICT, London Borough of Newham, added: "A lot of learning can come from well-managed projects, including those that don't succeed."

Of course, this whole discussion assumes IT departments are able to recognise when a project is failing in the first place.

Neil Hammond, head of IT at British Sugar, emphasised the importance of this, saying, "IT needs effective early warning mechanisms to enable IT to warn the board before too much money is spent and too many reputations are endangered."