Slashdot Mirror
95% of IT Projects Not Delivered On Time
An anonymous reader wrote " The Globe and Mail reports that 'A new report conducted by market research firm Info-Tech Research Group says 95 per cent of information technology groups are not delivering some number of projects on time or to the full satisfaction of the business executive.' The article goes on to discuss the reasons for this pervasive (perceived?) problem. The article mentions Info-Tech's reasons: unrealistic time frames, staff shortages, and poorly defined project scope. However, the article's author lays the blame with vendors."
I'd say its actually closer to 100%.
Actually, it really depends on who they would ask in a company. Whether it be
the business executive (probably a higher estimate)
the IT middle manager (lower estimate)
the IT worker (who would think that they are on time)
or the customer (who sometimes have unrealistic expectations)
95 per cent of information technology groups "are not delivering some number of projects on time or to the full satisfaction of the business executive."
:-) I say that joking, but have seen discussions like this almost erupt into fist fights as the sales staff makes promises to customers that are either 1) blatantly false or 2) concepts under development and are nowhere near "production".
Could it be that marketing is always overselling the product? Seriously. I cannot count how many times I have heard (in the past now I am in science), "oh, yeah....well, you need to include feature X because we told customer Y we already had that feature". This is often followed up by the engineer muttering under his/her breath "Dumb jock.
So, this is another example of why pre-announcing products is a baaaaad idea. Treat your customers with honesty and announce the product when it is ready and not before. Again, this is why vaporware only serves to irritate your customers and build expectation of a product that is not always delivered.
I also believe the fundamental problem is that managers these days (in many cases) no longer come from the ranks and are not engineers. So, they do not always understand what is involved in 1) building the codebase 2) testing code base 3) proper interface design 4) end user testing 5) documentation 6) making sure it does not suck.
The last point is where most executives seem to get hung up. More often than not in most companies, executives really have no idea of what makes good code and all too often, what makes a good product. Come on now, a good portion of executives can barely use their personal computers to answer email or browse the Internet. When you have companies run by executives and managers that have come up through the ranks, you are much more likely to get quality which often is much more important than meeting an arbitrary deadline.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
95% of the time, the business changes their mind about the project and/or doesn't know what they want, anyway.
The Globe and Mail reports that 'A new report conducted by market research firm Info-Tech Research Group says 95 per cent of information technology groups are not delivering some number of projects on time or to the full satisfaction of the business executive.
The answer to this problem is change, and isn't change always the answer?
Consider if you will for a brief moment the vast difference between the average executive and the average programmer. Programmers are generally broad-picture thinkers who solve largely complicated problems that regular folks can't possibly wrap their heads around. The executive runs on a schedule and uses reports and correspondance to understand what is going on, because business folks have to judge their employees and projects.
These two groups are forced to work together, and we expect good results? We need someone to interpret between these two groups! The HR department can't regularly serve in the interpretive capacity, but perhaps they should.
Managers generally don't want to give the programmers the whole picture, because management often believes that they are superior in rank to programmers, placing the programmers on a need-to-know-basis, only. Huge mistake.
What programmers and managers need to do is realisticly approach their solutions together. They need to be honest with each other. They need to share each other's thoughts and feelings about the subject matter. It's not happening today.
The programmers need to come to the table and care about their customers a little more. The managers need to come to the table and care about their programmers a little more. The customers need to be more specific and realistic about how far their dollar can go. Then deadlines will be met and promises kept and successful solutions provided to customers.
I encourage a no-holds-barred approach to project management. The superior product is developed using the Agile method.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
A study shows that 95% of clients don't know what they want.
Us: We can do that for $x in 12 months.
Customer: But Joe Bloggs says his company can do it for $x/2 in 3 weeks!
Us: That's simply not possible.
Customer: Well, for that sort of savings we're going to give them a try.
11 months later and $x^2 later they're still waiting for Bloggs to finish but by then we're on the dole and Bloggs is laughing all the way to the bank.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Then they are either padding their project plans way too much, or are really not trying to do anything new.
It doesn't matter how much time I spend in the pre-planning stage, meeting with users, coming up with all the needs and feature requests. Once the project is in progress, and specially as you start demoing it, the end users will start adding requirements that had never come up before no matter how detailed you tried to be. And of course all the "wouldn't it be nice if"s.
Sometimes some of the new requirements or wants involve going back and rewriting a good chunk of code, or changing the DB design, etc, no matter how carefully you wrote your code and flexible the code may be.
First of all, the report focuses with Candian firms.
Second of all, rather than delving in to the varied array of processes and methodologies prevalent in the software development arena and reviewing advantages and disadvantages of each, the report goes in lenght talking about Vendor issues. I dont have a clue why.
Right from the Waterfall approach, or having no approach as well, we have RUP, XP and a mix of each playing itself out for the last few years. In my past projects, I have implemented each or a customized version of each and has varying levels of success. The biggest issue that I have so far seen is the lack of adequate knowledge in each methodology that someone who starts implementing any approach, either loses interest and resorts to a quick fix at which point the process starts to wither and die. More over, to some of the developers I have worked with, its not process, its documentation. CRC Cards is not a design tool, its documentation, its impediment to writing code. Much of it has to do with no academic background in best design or coding practices. They have heard of design patterns, and probably has used MVC to death, but when it comes to designing a system, its back to "lets start writing code rightaway and maybe the design will flesh out over time". The system gets built, but it suffers from Simplicity, it has very low quality.
I have seen a lot of firms talk about having a process, they love throwing RUP in the air, but nary a project which has successfully or much less adequately implemented any sort of process. They talk about Use Cases/ User Stories, but when the project gets kickstarted, they resort to SRS documents or less. And then they forget to adequately keep them up to date. Many even have Requirements management tools like Requisite Pro which hasnt seen daylight yet. Fuck the tools, atleast have a damn process. Many dont even define success at the outset of a project, no acceptance criteria either. They end up in a deathly downward spiral towards absolute failure dragging their clients with it.
I love XP, I love it for several reasons. Having a Client involved during all phases of the project, much less have a day to day interaction with the team is a phenomenal idea. I have had great success with this, but it becomes a bit of a problem, when the project is outsourced. No amount of communication (documents/mail/phone) can stand up to having a person next to you to tell you whats important and whats not. I love pair programming even though I could never fully implement it, when the client doesnt believe in it. I have tried pair design and have had great success. I have a few developers reviewing Test First Design and this has limited success as well. Limited, since the developers rebel, having low discipline and patience to write tests as they code. They are tutored and trained in the ways of "lets code first, maybe manually test it later and let the QA worry about it".
I would like to hear about other's experiences as well.
Rapid Nirvana
Could be seen as 95% of IT projects not given enough time for completion by marketing
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
This reminds me of my PM class I had. ..., then a project plan, then an end date is to be derived.
In a nutshell, the instructor said that the requirements, then the specs, then design,
The guy next to me who was a PM just shook his head and said, "No, the end date comes first and then we figure out how to get it done." I have had the same experience in my decade+ of experience.
The instructor said that's why most projects fail.
- Failure to Understand Business Need
- Trying to Solve Training/Documentation Issues via Engineering
- Scope/Requirements Creep
Join me next week as I discuss the problem with dumbing down your architecture so that you can hire morons for less money to maintain it when all your best talent gets fed up with their 2% raises and quits."I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
How many non-IT projects are done on time?
;)
Let's see... Boston's Big Dig. Nope. Designing a new aircraft carrier... nope. Red Sox winning the World Series... badly delayed
I wonder if in general it's creative projects or maybe highly complex projects that suffer lousy under-estimates for completion dates. Many software projects (i.e., MS Longhorn) are both.
On an unrelated note: I wonder how project planning estimate accuracy correlates with the experience level of the person making the estimate. Because if the IT industry tends to burn out the young people os that there are't many older IT people, that could contribute as well.
True, but think what this implies: 5% of development groups never deliver a project that is late. Amazing...
Have you read my blog lately?
What are the design constraints of a bridge? It generally solves a simply stated problem - get X lanes of traffic from point A to point B. And failure is not acceptable. Due to these constraints millions of dollars and years of planning and construction are available. This might be comparable to the Shuttle software discussed a few weeks ago, but not any projects I have worked on.
Consider the construction of a house, or an addition to an existing domicile. Price is a significant factor, and the customer has many arbitrary constraints (call them "aesthetics"). In many cases the customer isn't sure what they want until they see what they don't want, which requires rework. There is no official certification process for most construction trades - only specialties like electrical wiring. So it is difficult to know how good a crew is until you work with them. Many (if not most) construction projects like this run over budget or over schedule.
I think writing business software is more like building a house. The constraints are unique and vague. The workers vary in their abilities. And the customers are cheap bastards. Projects in this environment have very little chance of coming in under budget and on time.