Technology plans: the simpler, the better.

I wish to comment on three articles from this week concerning technology plans; namely, the Whittaker, Chabrow, and Schuyler articles. I found each interesting for different reasons, and will briefly relate what I took away from each.

First, the Whittaker article. I don't dispute that many technology implementations fail to materialize, but I found the research methodology in this article suspect. Obviously, wasted time and resources on poorly planned technology initiatives are a major issue, however, this article left me unconvinced that it's taken very seriously by many institutions, particularly large ones. For example, only 14% of the research surveys were returned? That is not a very inspiring number. Does that mean 86% of the recipients don't think it's a serious issue or problem, and so didn't take the time to participate? Also, 1450 surveys were sent, but only 176 "arrived in time to be analyzed for this report". So, really, only 12% of the surveys sent were used. Apparently, of these, 61% reported a failed IT initiative, but I wonder if that failure provided motivation to participate in the survey. As anyone with customer service experience knows, customers are much more likely to share a bad experience than a good one.

Also, the survey was sent to "chief executives" but many of the respondent comments blame upper management for IT failures. Would chief executives really blame themselves for the failures? I doubt it. I think the surveys were passed to other (unidentified) parties for completion. Bottom line - I didn't find this article very persuasive in convincing me that most institutions are distressed by the success rate of their IT projects.

Even though the Chabrow article focused on government IT plans, I took interest in several points made in the article. First, the idea that it was preferable to "fail fast" on IT projects that appear to be off-track. Recognition that a plan isn't working, and taking steps to quickly change or abandon it, will save time and money and, I believe, is good advice. I believe there should be no sacred-cows with IT projects. Don't throw good money, or good time, after bad. Admit it's not working, re-evaluate the need and plan, and change or dump it.

Chabrow cites frequent changes in management as one issue that can lead to failed IT projects. Managers inheriting a project they weren't originally involved in planning is a recipe for setbacks and failure. The risks are obvious: lack of interest, wanting to make changes, different priorities, etc. Continuity of management and staff is critical for success, particularly for long-term projects.

One thing that can help raise the success rate of projects is to implement them with "incremental steps and rollouts that deliver benefits along the way". I think this is great advice, especially for large projects. Small rollouts are less likely to meet with problems or resistance from staff, and allow for small successes over shorter time periods than waiting years for some big project to reach completion.

Finally, I really enjoyed the Schuyler article. His assertion that technology plans are a "political document" is true. They are often implemented by upper management because they're necessary for grant applications, but often are created without input from the IT department. Often the authors of technology plans aren't the same people that actually implement them. And his advice that technology plans are best kept vague rings true. Many technology plans look years ahead, but things happen. Recessions happen. Technology changes. Needs change. Overly specific technology plans are exactly the ones most likely to fail.

Eventually I hope to have the opportunity to contribute to a technology plan. At least, I'll have to read them, because my future career will probably involve some grant writing. In a sense, technology plans can seem like a necessary evil - a loop one has to go through to obtain funding for projects. As I mentioned above, I really think keeping them flexible and vague is good advice. As quickly as technology and business needs change, I think the most useful technology plan is a flexible one.