Sometimes Big Is Better

For large outfits, establishing rigorous governance can be easier than for smaller businesses. Large organizations can better afford the cost overhead of extensive governance procedures, and - given the risks involved - less afford not to have it. However, even the smaller companies do recognize the need for all IT projects to align with current (as opposed to blueprinted) strategy. It is CIO 101. When they do not align they are instantly candidates for euthanasia.

Mark Newton, the CIO of Mortgage Choice, says that his organization has a limited number of IT projects under way at any one time. "It's not like the Commonwealth Bank where there are hundreds of projects; it's very obvious to us which are important and which aren't," he says.

"We have a process across the business where every project, IT or not, is assessed against the business, and that is supported by a monthly meeting. At that monthly meeting we would identify those projects not on strategy and would cut them loose," Newton says.

Flexirent Capital is a similarly young and relatively small organization, providing lease financing for computer and office equipment. Kate Carruthers, who was until recently the CIO, says the way triage is tackled depends very much on the level of process and maturity in the organization. Formerly with the NSW state government, she has seen both large and small outfits attempt technology triage.

Formal processes to support prioritization are generally better accepted in larger organizations, she says. "Entrepreneurial organizations find more process very confronting and they say: 'We do everything. What do you mean you want to instil processes?'"

Carruthers says that before she left the business she had a couple of attempts to tackle the issue of project prioritization at Flexirent. "The current view is that the CIO sits with the CEO in a weekly meeting and tells him: 'This is what people want and this is what we are working on.'" She tried to limit the possibility of projects going awry by keeping the bulk of them down to 30-day sprints. When they did go wrong the CEO had the chance to cut them loose during the weekly meeting.

There are some benefits from this unilateral approach to triage Carruthers says. First, the CEO brooks no argument - what he says goes. Second, although she tried to make the weekly meetings a dialogue involving the CEO, CIO and user, where the user attempted to convince the CEO that his project should take priority over others, if the CEO was unconvinced of its strategic importance then the project would simply be cut loose. Squeaky wheels were swiftly silenced.

However, as Flexirent grows, Carruthers, who has now moved on to another business in a marketing role, believes more formal process will be required. Already the company employs around 280 people and she believes changes will be required as it continues to expand. "I don't seen how John [DeLano] can sustain that level of attention in the future."

If he cannot, then someone else must, since as Gartner vice president Andrew Rowsell-Jones says, "the way to get a runaway project is to give a lump of funds and never look back".

Like Treadwell, Rowsell-Jones recommends a traffic light management system and a dispassionate oversight committee, although he admits this may not be as easy to implement in a small or medium enterprise. For both groups, however, he also acknowledges that even when the traffic lights are red, it can be tough to cut a project loose. It demands, he says, "a certain steeliness of purpose".

There is a tendency toward self-delusion - that miraculously the project will come good on its own. "It's like the red stain on the carpet or the elephant in the lounge room. It's a big problem and it's too big to tackle," Rowsell-Jones says. "We are managing them better than in the past, but we could do better."

One organization that could find an entire herd of elephants in its lounge room is the CSIRO, which is undergoing a significant restructure.