ict project management
DESCRIPTION
ICT Project Management. A survival guide Dr Christopher O’Mahony Head – Centre for Information Technology St Ignatius’ College, Riverview. In summary. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected]