7. Complex stakeholders
Deal with intangibles
High visibility
Immature foundations
Web Projects
Merge into operations
Anyone can build a “website”…
… but not one that scales, runs reliably,
operates desired editorial processes, etc
Why CMS projects (still)
fail Nov 2012 8
pri.studio360
8. Project
Management
Literature
Why CMS projects (still) fail
Nov 2012 9
9. Poor link to organisational
objectives
Why CMS projects (still)
fail Nov 2012 10
lsie esq.
10. Unclear scope and
requirements
Why CMS projects (still)
fail Nov 2012 11
Green-Ghost
11. Lack of executive
commitment / involvement
Why CMS projects (still)
fail Nov 2012 12
jurvetson
16. So what?
We already know all this stuff.
Why CMS projects (still) fail
Nov 2012 17
17. We lose touch with reality as
we estimate, negotiate,
track progress, …
Project failures become
apparent when we run into
reality
Note: The failure actually happened long
before it became apparent.
To avoid disaster, identify the failure while
it can be remedied and learned from.
Complexity, optimism, power
games, cognitive biases, fear all
exacerbate the problem
Much project management is
about building mechanisms to
keep in touch with reality18
Why CMS projects (still)
fail Nov 2012
Simon Schoeters
18. Because projects are run by people…
Why don’t we recognise
failures earlier?
Why CMS projects (still)
fail Nov 2012 19
Marcin Wichary
34. Summary Two types of failure
a) Failure you learn from
b) Failure that kills you
We engage with risks to achieve rewards
Sometimes the risks win
Complexity and intangibility exacerbate the risks
We recognise failure when we run into reality
If we keep in touch with reality, the bump is less dramatic
Watch reality, not the plan
Why CMS projects (still) fail
Nov 2012 36
36. Graham Oakes Ltd
Making sense of technology…
Many organisations are caught up in the
complexity of technology and systems.
This complexity may be inherent to the
technology itself. It may be created by the pace of technology change. Or it may arise from
the surrounding process, people and governance structures.
We help untangle this complexity and define business strategies that both can be
implemented and will be adopted by people throughout the organisation and its partner
network. We then help assure delivery of implementation projects.
Clients…
Cisco Worldwide Education – Architecture and research for e-learning and educational systems
Council of Europe – Systems for monitoring compliance with international treaties; e-learning systems
Dover Harbour Board – Systems and architecture review
MessageLabs – Architecture and assurance for partner management portal
National Savings & Investments – Helped NS&I and BPO partner develop joint IS strategy
The Open University – Enterprise architecture, CRM and product development strategies
Oxfam – Content management, CRM, e-Commerce
Thames Valley Police – Internet Consultancy
Sony Computer Entertainment – Global process definition
Amnesty International, Endemol, tsoosayLabs, Vodafone, …
Why CMS projects (still) fail
Nov 2012 38
Editor's Notes
5 mins intro & caveats25 mins exercise 5 mins surface issues – web projects10 mins project management failure points10 mins human traits that keep us from reality10 mins what we can do10 mins retelling the story----------75 mins
Peel away several layers to failure: Surface reasons – the symptoms we see Underlying causes – the reasons the PM literature tells you about Root cause – why those underlying causes keep happening, even though we’ve known about them for decades(one of these at the core, driven by several factors)
Channel TunnelOver budget; late; bankrupted the company which built itEngineering masterpieceWhat does “failure” mean?
10 minsBreak into groups of 4-5 peopleImagine you’re at the end of a CMS migration (either new CMS or version upgrade) & site redesign projectWhat has just happened?What happened before that?And so on – back to the “start” of the project.Eg – draw these onto hexiesSite is being actively used by group of editorsEditor induction & supportSite liveLaunch content addedContent migrated from old siteAdd new servers & reconfigure site to use themSite failed under loadSite liveLaunch contentContent migrated from old siteBeta site liveAcceptance tests passedNew sw releaseBug fixesAcceptance tests failed15 minsTell the story of your projectWhat went wrong?What might have gone wrong?
All types of projects fail – engineering, IT, web, …Projects are by definition risky – they’re non-standard, one-off endeavours.We take on risks to achieve rewards. Sometimes the risks win.
All types of projects fail – engineering, IT, web, …Projects are by definition risky – they’re non-standard, one-off endeavours.We take on risks to achieve rewards. Sometimes the risks win.
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book)Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book)Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book) Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book)Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book)Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book)Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
Why projects fail (Chaos, OGC, book)Poor link between project and organisational objectivesUnclear scope & requirements – keep it fuzzy for political or other reasonsLack of executive commitment and involvement – they have to clear obstacles, set prioritiesUnrecognised change – to context (org objectives, competition, user requirements), scope, etc Unmanaged risks – often the undiscussablesPoor communications – within team, between team and sponsor, between team and external stakeholdersUnrealistic estimates, schedules, staffing / unrealistic assessment of tools and vendors
But we know all this stuff, and have known it for decades. Why aren’t we fixing it?The problem is in the timing:Running into reality makes the failures apparent – they actually happened a long time ago.To avoid disaster – catch them quickly, while they can be remedied and learned from.Why don’t we do this?
Why don’t we recognise failures earlier? Because projects are run by people.
Real issue is the perceptual and related biases that keep us from realityOverconfidence – all think we’re better than averageOversimplification – we build simple mental models to deal with reality, then treat them as realityAvoiding pain – put off unpleasant stuff in hope it will never happen (often happens even worse)E.g. avoid confrontation, avoid sense of “loss of mastery” / “loss of face”, cultural taboosConfirmation bias – look for info that confirms our judgementsRepetition bias – say it often enough & we’ll believe it ourselvesPerceptual biases – don’t recognise gradual trends until too late
Real issue is the perceptual and related biases that keep us from realityOverconfidence – all think we’re better than averageOversimplification – we build simple mental models to deal with reality, then treat them as realityAvoiding pain – put off unpleasant stuff in hope it will never happen (often happens even worse)E.g. avoid confrontation, avoid sense of “loss of mastery” / “loss of face”, cultural taboosConfirmation bias – look for info that confirms our judgementsRepetition bias – say it often enough & we’ll believe it ourselvesPerceptual biases – don’t recognise gradual trends until too late
Real issue is the perceptual and related biases that keep us from realityOverconfidence – all think we’re better than averageOversimplification – we build simple mental models to deal with reality, then treat them as realityAvoiding pain – put off unpleasant stuff in hope it will never happen (often happens even worse)E.g. avoid confrontation, avoid sense of “loss of mastery” / “loss of face”, cultural taboosConfirmation bias – look for info that confirms our judgementsRepetition bias – say it often enough & we’ll believe it ourselvesPerceptual biases – don’t recognise gradual trends until too late
Real issue is the perceptual and related biases that keep us from realityOverconfidence – all think we’re better than averageOversimplification – we build simple mental models to deal with reality, then treat them as realityAvoiding pain – put off unpleasant stuff in hope it will never happen (often happens even worse)E.g. avoid confrontation, avoid sense of “loss of mastery” / “loss of face”, cultural taboosConfirmation bias – look for info that confirms our judgementsRepetition bias – say it often enough & we’ll believe it ourselvesPerceptual biases – don’t recognise gradual trends until too late
Real issue is the perceptual and related biases that keep us from realityOverconfidence – all think we’re better than averageOversimplification – we build simple mental models to deal with reality, then treat them as realityAvoiding pain – put off unpleasant stuff in hope it will never happen (often happens even worse)E.g. avoid confrontation, avoid sense of “loss of mastery” / “loss of face”, cultural taboosConfirmation bias – look for info that confirms our judgementsRepetition bias – say it often enough & we’ll believe it ourselvesPerceptual biases – don’t recognise gradual trends until too late
Real issue is the perceptual and related biases that keep us from realityOverconfidence – all think we’re better than averageOversimplification – we build simple mental models to deal with reality, then treat them as realityAvoiding pain – put off unpleasant stuff in hope it will never happen (often happens even worse)E.g. avoid confrontation, avoid sense of “loss of mastery” / “loss of face”, cultural taboosConfirmation bias – look for info that confirms our judgementsRepetition bias – say it often enough & we’ll believe it ourselvesPerceptual biases – don’t recognise gradual trends until too late
These combine with organisational and political pressures (exacerbated by complex stakeholders)Politics exacerbates fears of loss of face and etcOrganisations reward overconfidenceOrganisations repeat the messageGroupthink creates overconfidence
Keeping in touch – Independent viewpointReviews
Keeping in touch – Iterations = clear, tangible visibilityAGILE – e.g. lots of SCRUM at JBOYE
Keeping in touch – Metrics
Keeping in touch – Plan with a view to keep track of where we are, not to follow slavishly – Think visibility, not adherence to plan…
Keeping in touch – Watch for programmes (fuzzy deliverables & ongoing rather than point in time delivery) – Change the organisation go into production – reporting, metrics, pace, etc all changeKANBAN
Keeping in touch – Communication = listening, not talking
Redesign your projects to keep in touch with realityWhat new problems might this cause?
To learn from failure, you want it to happen in small, frequent increments – that’s the type you can learn from.To do this, you need to be constantly watching for it.