http://www.itskeptic.org/why-it-projects-fail-underspend Comments for "Why IT projects fail: underspend" en http://www.itskeptic.org/why-it-projects-fail-underspend#comment-7477 <p>"If the project's business case doesn't stack up at this higher spend, then it was a bad idea. Because it will end up costing that much anyway to change the behaviours of the people. Or if we stick to the lower spend it will fail. Fail slowly over years or fail spectacularly, but either way it will fail because the behaviours weren't really permanently changed."</p> <p>Absolutely.</p> <p>Some of those costs, however, may be absorbed by the day-to-day work of the people in the functions. So, your ratios may be a little aggressive. The overall concept is, however, absolutely correct.</p> <p>IMO Admiral Hyman Rickover said it best, "Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous impatience. Once implemented they can be easily overturned or subverted through apathy or lack of follow-up, so a continuous effort is required."</p> <p>Recommend Marshall Goldsmith's book, "What Got You Here Won't Get You There..." and David Maister's "Strategy and the Fat Smoker." Both disuss the reasons people fail to succeed. It is people that make decisions about projects. Therefor all the reasons people fail to change are able to be seen in projects. Starting with optimism bias....</p> <p>Cary King<br /> Minerva Enterprises<br /> Managing Partner<br /> www.MinervaE.com</p> Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:11:40 +0000 Cary King comment 7477 at http://www.itskeptic.org http://www.itskeptic.org/why-it-projects-fail-underspend#comment-7469 <p>Well done, Skep. The third graph is accurate, of course, whether it is recognized and budgeted up front, or it is revealed half way into the project. In the latter case, the investments are slipped surreptitiously into the budgets of everyone else who has to deal with the mess. Hence the project may appear to be in budget even when it isn't.</p> <p>There are probably many reasons it is done this way. The various costs are contingent and hard to calculate. The people are a fixed expense and considered "free" for the purpose of absorbing incremental workloads. The project would never have been undertaken had the stakeholders understood the true costs of the effort. Risk management (identification, controls) are weak or non-existent. Hubris blinds the various stakeholders to the costs of cultural change.</p> <p>I am frustrated by the consistent "blame the tool" message in the blogosphere of late, but that is another discussion.</p> Wed, 06 Oct 2010 02:52:01 +0000 ITSMinfo comment 7469 at http://www.itskeptic.org