Project Failures and the Passport Agency - Research Paper Example

 Project Failures and the Passport Agency Introduction There are many different reasons why projects fail in today’s organisations, ranging from problems with budget to human factors in areas of communications and group cohesion among staff members. A large portion of projects, in all types of businesses of different size and service, meet with failure for reasons that could have been avoided with proper contingency planning and knowledge about human resources. Budget and cost problems often result from human behavioural problems or lack of team unity. This report describes project failures and their causes and then applies this thinking to a real-life case study at a governmental organisation. Why Projects Fail Project failures occur as a result of multiple issues, with the majority involving poor management or staff training as well as lack of personal commitment among business staff members to attaining project goals. These are considered social subsystem risks, where requisite knowledge does not exist in those who are implementing or supporting the system changes (Kappelman, McKeeman & Zhang, 2009). Social problems tend to cause internal conflicts between organisational members due to resentment over weak commitment to the project goal by associate organisational members or simply as a matter of ongoing communications breakdowns. The social risks that plague project goal attainment are mostly avoidable problems that are built on a lack of contingency planning or failure to put considerable thought into the human behavioural tendencies that can spoil meeting project success. According to VanDoren (2009), two-thirds to three-quarters of all new projects implemented, regardless of their scope or size, meet with failure. Further, “few organisations are armed with the necessary infrastructure, education, training or management discipline to bring project initiatives to successful completion” (Al-Ahmad, Al-Fagih, Khanfar & Alsamara, 2009, p.94). These are internal problems that could be cured by examining the flow of information between organisational members and then creating the communications systems necessary to carry knowledge from one group involved with the project to the other. All of the factors discussed that lead to project failure require an organisation to adopt a system thinking approach to project management where different subsystems must work together to meet project goals or satisfy budget (Chowdhury, Butler & Clarke, 2007). Nearly half of all projects that involve information technology overrun their budgets and initial timetables for completion (Al-Ahmad, et al). Recognising that special organisational projects cannot be completed at the individual level, without subsystem support, is the most logical reason for why projects fail. A systems thinking approach will identify key group leaders and special project teams that have a unique function toward meeting project goals and then build the infrastructure or internal design necessary to carry information in a way that is meaningful to the project. The development of a corporate intranet, using existing systems as a means to essentially piggyback the flow of project information, establishes this needed communications infrastructure. Special project meetings, as well, in which project contributors meet regularly to discuss frustrations or accomplishments will also isolate any animosities between existing team members and avoid further development of social risks to the project environment and project goals. In order to tackle the avoidable problems in project teams, leadership must adopt a CRM approach, or customer relationship management. Many organisations, when considering the term stakeholder, believe these to be external entities that somehow impact the pace by which a project moves. In larger companies, stakeholders could be considered the investors or the media that is waiting in the wings to either applaud or discredit special project momentum. In this case, from the beginning, the project is rather unconsciously being developed and moulded around the needs of external stakeholders, thereby forgetting the internal stakeholder and their absolute importance in meeting with successful project completion. CRM software implementation, across Europe, is predicted to grow at a rate of 10.5 percent through 2012, representing market opportunities of (US) $6.6 billion (Weinberger, 2008). This would tend to show that companies across Europe are recognising that customer relationship management, for both the internal and external stakeholder, is a quality investment for improving inter-organisational relationships and helping associates in the organisation to work within a subsystem framework that truly defines a system-thinking project team. Even though the organisation does not necessarily have to adopt expensive technologies to build a CRM-focused project, growth in this business function at such a high rate shows that stakeholder relationships matter significantly for achieving a successful project that takes into consideration both investors and human behavioural tendencies among associate workers and project leaders. Costs and budget are often considered to be problems that bring projects to a halt or make them so costly that it takes years to achieve a return on the investment. Some are even abandoned completely because they overrun the budget substantially (Supply Management, 2007). However, many of these problems are avoidable if a 360 degree feedback system, or some internal effort that builds stronger relationships, is setup. One business expert offers suggestions for improving project unity by avoiding finger-pointing in the face of project errors and using research tools (such as questionnaires) to get to the root of all human-related issues that bring the project to a halt or slow its forward progress (Bordeau, 2010). In organisations where there is a centralised hierarchy of control, where decisions tend to flow from the top, control is focused at the highest ranks of leadership and workers expected to comply with different project changes or mandates strictly as a result of authoritarian demands. In this type of organisation, command decisions are often muffled in the lower ranks and this becomes an organisational constant regarding level of control or distance of power between ranks. Adopting a special project in this environment rests on the back of existing centralised control and employees have already developed a sense of submission and may not be as open to free expression of ideas or innovations. If the organisation does not make special efforts to include a human resource focus in the project that offers both autonomy and increased decision-making, behind-the-scenes finger-pointing or resentment against leadership might occur. By building a 360 degree system for feedback, both internal and external stakeholders involved with the project can offer their insights into the project and freely express their grievances on paper and in meetings where leadership recognises that human worker contribution is just as vital to project completion as the costs that are delivered to the effort. “Many IT projects fail because the people developing the new system and the people who will use it do not work as a team” (Ingersoll, 2007, p.1). This might occur because project leaders are intimidated by experts involved in the information technology project or simply because the company holds the external stakeholder philosophy when deciding how best to delegate project tasks. Having a clear, well-communicated executive vision of the project (Tichy & Bascom, 2008), and then using communications mediums to send this consistent message, builds the foundation of teamwork and shows, right from the start, that worker needs will absolutely be considered in the project equation. In many ways, building this cross-team functionality begins with ousting an ineffective executive sponsor and assigning individuals to lead the project that understand how to construct and communicate an effective business case for the project. These factors have been cited as being common reasons for project failure (Perkins, 2007). Tichy and Bascom (2008) suggest that it is necessary to have people on the project that understand the business completely and have the passion for improving it. Seven different factors leading to project failure are identified: fear, misaligned expectations, confusion, loss of momentum, dissatisfaction, lack of commitment and unconscious incompetence (Dyer, 2006, p.52). Again, these are human-related factors that deal with behavioural tendencies, socialisation principles, and even human psychology. It is commonly known that people in organisations must work amid very different personalities, cultural lifestyles, and levels of knowledge and authority within the organisation on a regular basis. Simply in order to fulfil everyday business objectives, diversity is required for each worker or manager so as to avoid complications between different organisational members. Many companies have difficulty in setting up a well-oiled, social machine at their organisations and, when adding new project requirements to the equation that require ongoing communications with other organisational members, socialisation problems can become unmanageable. These might be classified as inherent problems with project teams as they often already exist in day-to-day business function. To cure the inherent problems at the social level, setting up a system of individual or group accountability can improve project focus (Tichy & Bascom). When workers in the organisation have trouble working around the unmotivated or impassionate, resentment is likely to pervade the worker’s efforts at meeting their own project obligations. Allowing others to witness reprimand or applause for another’s project efforts builds accountability from the start, avoiding issues such as group punishment in the event that a project goal has not met with group expectations or has led to unacceptable budget overruns. Dividing tasks equitably is another factor that starts the project off right (Spolsky, 2007) so that no individual feels they are doing more than others or perceive themselves to have unrealistic expectations for performance placed upon them. Again, this is an absolutely avoidable situation that involves project leaders genuinely understanding that failure to meet personality-driven or culturally-driven needs can lead to immediate project failures. In many cases, it seems that a human resources approach builds a stable foundation for project coordination and cannot succeed successfully without this focus, regardless of budget capabilities or deadlines set. Project failures and passport delays In the case of the passport agency, the organisation established a systems-thinking approach right from the beginning. As identified in the previous section, clear and decisive goals were clearly listed so that each organisational member or project leader understood what the outcomes were expected to be. In terms of laying the foundation for mission and vision, the agency excelled in goal-setting and communications. Similarly, the agency developed a CRM approach built to satisfy the needs of travellers, both in relation to process fulfilment prior to their declared travel dates and also in being responsive and courteous to any incoming inquiries about passport processing and the stage of its completion (NAO, 1999). However, due to higher demand, increasing staff overtime, and implementation of new/modified software systems, it led to noticeable problems with passport processing. In this case, costs were incurred due to both avoidable and inherent problems with the design chosen for passport processing improvements. In areas of defining and planning, the agency seems to have taken into consideration stakeholder needs, satisfying compliance and accuracy in the new project, but experienced budget overruns despite the approach taken and the systems purchased/modified to enhance passport processing. One must first recognise that passport processing, by nature, is a rather routine and mundane job function that essentially browses over checklists to ensure that processing has occurred properly. Job roles in this organisation are clearly defined and there is little room for ingenuity, job role innovation, or other human-oriented factors that make the job motivational. Further, because of the seasonal nature of passport inquiries and processing, workers already have a semi-conscious view about when their job roles are going to be excessively busy and, as most workers do, begin to dread this high-volume period. Nowhere in the case study was there mention about establishing passion and strategy in subordinate worker groups nor any contingency for dealing with cultural conflict that can easily arise in this type of organisation, especially when dealing with foreign visitors. Even though a systems approach was adopted, the human resources tools needed to drive motivation and personal commitment seem to have been overlooked or understated. This was previously identified as being vital to project success and to build higher levels of competence in project groups. Though an avoidable situation, all of these factors likely led to budget overruns and failures in new IT support systems. Very unique to the agency case study was the instant transition from low profile to high publicity that was experienced due to sudden passport processing delays that reached Parliament and extended members of society. This goal of the project was to meet deadlines and budget requirements while improving overall passport processing efficiency, with no contingency for handling public relations issues. The media, in this case, was waiting in the wings to expose the agency for failing its obligations, therefore damaging relationships with both internal and external stakeholders. Those workers who were actively involved in implementation of these new project systems were likely de-motivated when they reviewed their efforts being criticised by multiple media outlets. This added an unexpected and, potentially, unnecessary complexity to job role status and overall agency reputation. In virtually any organisation where workers feel that their efforts are being undervalued, their performance is going to reduce in conjunction with negative media or leadership attacks on performance or pace. Add to this the increase in telephone calls that were becoming difficult or next-to-impossible to handle because of technological failures in the project or poorly designed IT infrastructures and the groundwork for motivational problems is created. Using the systems thinking approach as the example, the agency also experienced problems with external stakeholders, in this case Siemens, which could not meet its processing and posting obligations (NAO). Because this is such an inter-connected system of subsystems working together internally and externally, this adds further pressure to organisational members at the agency who have their efforts halted by failures stemming from business partners. Even though the business case was well-developed and discussions had occurred between different external partners in this project, the demands added to workers seriously complicated issues of customer relationship management (CRM) and meeting goals for satisfying consumers in need of prompt passport processing and service. External failures, which can be classified as either avoidable or inherent depending on the severity of the failure, slows internal progress and leads to costly overtime. Siemens, of course, was not the only cause in this case study as the paperwork, itself, caused problems for Siemens in accomplishing their portion of the process. However, the result was higher-than-expected labour payments, a staff likely under motivated, and negative public relations with multiple stakeholders and media. Even though demand forecasting is necessary for this agency, as part of planning, it is also an ongoing execution issue that plagues the agency. Demand volumes are sporadic and unpredictable, leading to extra permanent staff members to be recruited (NAO), further leading to budget overruns in the short-term. Part of this project was to recognise opportunities for reducing costs in the process, however executing this, in areas of labour cost reductions, is difficult unless accurate demand forecasts can be developed. However, to the benefit of the agency, different IT systems and training support is provided so that employees are equipped with the knowledge necessary to function in times of high demand or times of low demand. As mentioned, even though the agency developed a systems approach, its focus on the internal needs of employees is not well-documented. Research was conducted with different consumer groups and other external stakeholders to discover what was driving the highest volume of complaints about the process, but failed to identify with the emotional or job-related needs of employees who are forced to work under this complicated and unpredictable system. Using the research information provided in the first section of this report, the establishment of a 360 degree feedback system at the agency would identify the problems at the human resources level so that a passionate, knowledgeable executive sponsor can lead the human resources function and build team philosophy. Failure to identify with worker needs represents a risk to any project, and with such a high volume of projects meeting with failure, overrun budgets or complete abandonment, the agency did not seem to take these factors into consideration to a level that could have avoided some of the project’s problems. Wood (2009) offers that projects often fail because of a lack of skilled resources, and this was present at the agency. Additional software and computer equipment was purchased at a high price to facilitate speed and efficiency in the processing system, adding further costs to the budget. However, after implementation of some of these systems, they were either inadequate for the job or needed modifications to make them suitable for different passport agency locations. The agency was adopting and changing technologies and processes so quickly that employees likely did not understand whether they could rely on their systems or operate with them long enough before they were replaced. Coupled with negative media attention about their own contributions to project failures, lack of skilled resources (or at least the perception of this) could have led to the many problems experienced during this project transition phase, forcing new execution and implementation strategies to be developed on an ongoing basis. Essentially, there was a lack of consistency at the employee level that should have been bridged through human resources efforts and a passionate project champion with workers at the forefront of the leader consciousness. Projects often fail because “the end goal is too distant with too few review points to confirm the business case” (OGC, 2009). There were so many variables involved, from demand forecasting accuracy to costly information technology improvements that did not lead to immediate efficiency, that the majority of the review points were focused around systems elements and not the impact to internal stakeholders. The agency even furnished umbrellas and food for waiting citizens who were burdened with the processing delays caused from multiple sources (NAO), however no mention of similar internal efforts to boost confidence and morale were provided. Again, even though the systems thinking approach dominated this project, more emphasis was definitely given to external stakeholders which could have easily led to overtime cost problems. Conclusion Unlike other companies that implement projects and witness budget and cost problems because of poor planning or design infrastructure, the agency seems to have had most of these potential difficulties planned in the original project architecture and clearly communicated its long-term goals. The problem here is support at the employee level and more should be done to facilitate the actual worker desire to champion these change projects. Confusion about how to proceed was evident in leader ranks and employees will, as an inherent human trait, pick up on this confusion and find little job reward in an already-mundane job environment. References Al-Ahmad, W., Al-Fagih, K., Khanfar, K. & Alsamara, K. 2009. A taxonomy of an IT project failure: Root causes. International Management Review, Marietta. 5(1), pp.93-106. Bourdeau, A. 2010. The secret to better luck next time. Profit, 29(1), p.26. Chowdhury, R., Butler, R. & Clarke, S. 2007. Healthcare IT project failure: A systems perspective. Journal of Cases on Information Technology. 9(4), p.15. Dyer, S. 2006. The root causes of poor communication. Agency Sales, 36(12), pp.52-55. Ingersoll, W. 2007. IT projects: Doomed to fail? Traffic World, Newark. 26 Mar, p.1. Kappelman, L., McKeeman, R. & Zhang, L. 2009. Early warning signs of IT project failures: The dangerous dozen. EDPACS, Reston. 40(6), p.17. NAO. 1999. The passport delays of Summer 1999. National Audit Office. The United Kingdom Passport Agency. OGC. 2009. Best practice: Why IT projects fail. Office of Government Commerce. http://www.adaptiveframeworks.com.au/prince2/Project_Failure.pdf. (accessed 8 Mar 2010). Perkins, B. 2007. 12 things you know about project but choose to ignore. Computerworld, 41(11), p.34. Spolsky, J. 2007. Nothing like a weak team or an unrealistic schedule to start a project off right. INC, 29(11), p.85. Supply Management. 2007. Training seminar aims to cut down project failures. London. 12(19), p.42. Sutterfield, J., Friday-Stroud, S. & Shivers-Blackwell, S. 2006. A case study of project and stakeholder management failures. Project Management Journal, 37(5), pp.26-36. Tichy, L. & Bascom, T. 2008. The business end of IT project failure. Mortgage Banking, 68(6), pp.28-36. VanDoren, V. 2009. How to avoid project failure. Control Engineering, Barrington. 56(11), p.38. Weinberger, J. 2008. CRM Market set to double. Customer Relationship Management, Medford. 12(1), p.19. Wood, D. 2009. Tips for avoiding project failure. Project Smart. http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/tips-for-avoiding-project-failure.html. (accessed 9 Mar 2010). Read More