This works for building a bridge, when you have “firm foundations” on which to 
build upon aka what are the immovable requirements and constraints. Many 
infrastructure projects run into the same problems as IT projects - overruns 
due to changing requirements, or a lack of due diligence re requirements.

At the same time, analysis has its own costs – the cost of employing people to 
keep examining details, and the opportunity cost of forgone benefits deferred.

What I see a lot of in these messages is casting blame onto other people (e.g. 
PMs in this case). Most PMs work within broader enterprise constraints (like 
confidence around cost/time/effort, in order to get funding approved). SMEs 
need to play their part in ensuring that the right level of information goes to 
PMs, in the broader context of “getting stuff done”

Regards
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com <ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> On Behalf 
Of g...@greglow.com
Sent: Monday, 28 October 2019 9:20 AM
To: 'ozDotNet' <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>
Subject: RE: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens

I think one of the biggest issues is that so many project managers still think 
you can plan IT projects like you plan building a bridge. The difference with a 
bridge is that you can specify what’s needed, and it’s unlikely to change 
before you finish building the bridge.

Unfortunately though, that’s also how the people funding it look at it. They 
want to know what it will cost before they start.

Somehow, we have to get project planning to match reality. At present, when 
there are variations from the plan, that’s seen as a problem, and seen as 
unexpected. But the reality is that it’s totally expected. The problem was the 
idea that bridge-style planning is appropriate.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: 
www.sqldownunder.com<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sqldownunder.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csspahelp%40microsoft.com%7C1f0ea4d6b97e4d897f3708d666d1e890%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636809449091516274&sdata=SLHeEGAMmWUY5YIwcC4oAPYr%2F9RIZdi4MNASsdzwX2I%3D&reserved=0>
 
|http://greglow.me<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgreglow.me%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csspahelp%40microsoft.com%7C1f0ea4d6b97e4d897f3708d666d1e890%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636809449091526278&sdata=IU8tnAITCjBxWafi3A9XpO9lF3PIwZJ8ad3t36lnxvs%3D&reserved=0>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
<ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> On Behalf 
Of Ken Schaefer
Sent: Sunday, 27 October 2019 9:38 PM
To: ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: RE: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens

Depends on how your measure success.

By the typical bottom-line, most projects aren’t “successes”. However, lots of 
organisations have:

  1.  Arbitrary limits on how much contingency can be included – which then 
doesn’t reflect the true level of uncertainty in the project
  2.  Requirements change
  3.  Vendors, systems integrators etc. go bust, change direction or 
what-have-you
  4.  Your project competes with everyone else’s for scarce capital, so 
everyone has an incentive to downplay cost, and upsell benefits
  5.  Technological cost estimates can be done relatively accurately, but 
large-scale projects include significant organisational change which is much 
harder to estimate/cost up-front.

By my guess, about 15-20% of large IT projects ($50-100m+) are successful. 
Maybe 20-30% are real failures. Everything else is in a bit of a grey area 
where they are failures based on initial cost/time/features criteria, but might 
have been successful if business cases were allowed to be more realistic.

Regards,
Ken

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
<ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> On Behalf 
Of g...@greglow.com<mailto:g...@greglow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 2:25 PM
To: 'ozDotNet' <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: RE: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens

Not sure about that. I endlessly hear that the success ratio for large IT 
projects is around 30%, not up around 70 or 80%.

It’s quite appalling really.

Regards,

Greg

Dr Greg Low

1300SQLSQL (1300 775 775) office | +61 419201410 mobile│ +61 3 8676 4913 fax
SQL Down Under | Web: 
www.sqldownunder.com<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sqldownunder.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csspahelp%40microsoft.com%7C1f0ea4d6b97e4d897f3708d666d1e890%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636809449091516274&sdata=SLHeEGAMmWUY5YIwcC4oAPYr%2F9RIZdi4MNASsdzwX2I%3D&reserved=0>
 
|http://greglow.me<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgreglow.me%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csspahelp%40microsoft.com%7C1f0ea4d6b97e4d897f3708d666d1e890%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636809449091526278&sdata=IU8tnAITCjBxWafi3A9XpO9lF3PIwZJ8ad3t36lnxvs%3D&reserved=0>

From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com> 
<ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com>> On Behalf 
Of mike smith
Sent: Wednesday, 23 October 2019 12:45 PM
To: ozDotNet <ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com<mailto:ozdotnet@ozdotnet.com>>
Subject: Re: [OT] Fines Victoria crisis deepens

Success stories don't seem to make it into MSM.  pity, because you'd think 
there's more successful outcomes than failures

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:24 Greg Keogh 
<gfke...@gmail.com<mailto:gfke...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Interesting front page article in The Age newspaper 
today<https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/fines-victoria-system-collapses-leaving-massive-hole-in-state-budget-20191022-p5333d.html>
 about a Victorian government IT disaster. IT disasters are routine (I'm sure 
we've all caused a few!) but it's interesting that they actually name the 
software as VIEW from a company called Civica. The article is a bit vague about 
what's actually wrong, it just says "[it] doesn't work", "the system was 
absolute chaos" and systems are not "talking to" their computers. Does anyone 
have inside gossip about what really happened?

There was another vast IT disaster a few years ago related to the education 
system I think, where dodgy contracts were being awarded to mates, and I think 
the loss ran into the hundreds of millions. That story vanished from the news 
and I never found out what happened.

Greg K

Reply via email to