Is your technology project stuck?

When it comes to making technology decisions, many corporate executives seem more like children fighting in a sandbox than highly paid professionals. They draw lines in the sand, dig in their heals, build castles with it, and even resort to throwing it. It is essential to break this pattern because sound technology decisions are critical to your business's survival.

So what goes wrong with IT projects? I have witnessed countless projects that remain stuck forever in decision-making mode. This means that management reached a consensus about something, a project manager was selected, and that unfortunate individual has been trying to figure out how to move forward. It is important to realize that no actual decisions or commitments have been made at this point. Management is waiting for concrete details (and maybe a glitzy demo) before truly committing the business to the project.

Technology decisions must stand on four legs: platform, price, plan, and politics. In order for a project to proceed past the consensus phase into the action phase, all issues with all four legs must be addressed. The problem is that our four legs are not equally balanced like a horse that you could ride into the sunset. Instead, we have something that rests heavily on its two hind legs: a kangaroo that either leaps forward or just stands still.

The two easy factors in technology projects are platform and price. Most companies have well-established guidelines for new technologies to insure they fit within the current supportable platform. And even the strictest requirements can be bent if the need for the technology is real. Determining price is hard for technology projects because they are notorious for budget overruns; however, even through it is hard to predict, cost is an important early criterion so companies know up front that they can afford the chosen solution. Since platform and price factors are always addressed before the real decisions are made, they are not the real hurdles to getting projects going.

Plan is the part of the project where businesses try to figure out how they are actually going to get the work done and who is going to do it. It is essentially a measure of risk and works as follows: when management is eager (risk-ready) for a project, it considers planning as nothing but a delay to positive impacts. Then, too little planning creates lots of confusion during the implementation. On the other side, a risk-adverse company spins its wheels getting forever caught in trying to plan and prepare. I have seen this manifested as a never-ending parade of demos and drawn-out negotiations with ponderous contract issues.

Finally, politics are the hardest to understand and most difficult to spot because they usually manifest under the guise of one of the other issues. The fact is that technology decisions are not about technology. For example, I have often heard, "We can't live without this" until the final price tag is calculated and suddenly the ROI is considered lacking even if the numbers have not changed. Sometimes I hear, "Our organization is not ready," even though the project initiative was started by the troops. I have even seen database technology used to aggressively screen out vendors only to have a non-compliant vendor filibustered onto the list of finalists.

What causes political issues to surface? The reasons are endless, tend to run in packs, and read like a dirty laundry list. Here are some examples:

• Management is getting ready to fire a key project participant
• Personality conflicts among team members
• Personality conflicts with technology vendor/salesperson
• Company sales performance/forecast is looking weak
• Company is getting bought or selling a division
• Boss's golf partner sells a competing product
• The boss owes someone a favor
• Too much competition between departments or managers
• Fear of getting blame for possible failure
• People feel threatened by technology (afraid of becoming obsolete or incompetent)

The fact that technology decisions end up highly political really should not be so surprising. After all, companies are run by people. The best implementations can radically alter the status quo and the worst eat up lots of money and time. Either scenario has the potential to bring out the worst in a manager or team.

The only way to sidestep the four Ps is if you have a true crisis on your hands. I was talking with Bill McAlister, Marketing Director of Branden Technologies, providor of a shop floor control system called Shotscope. He had a clear idea of the primary motivator for technology projects. Their customers "are ready to move when the then-current system is failing and their customers' customers are demanding action."

More politics then platform

I do not want to leave you with the impression that only a crisis will motivate technology projects. Instead, accept the fact that these projects are more politics than platform. With this knowledge, you stop wasting time and resources on a wild goose chase when a political issue has your project treading water. Here are some ideas from the front lines:

• Work with influential decision-makers off-line where they can learn about the technology without feeling ignorant.
• Do not try to sell your organization because this tends to make it you-versus-them.
• Help people get a feel for the impacts early by getting the facts on the table quickly, and do not be afraid to publish guesstimate times and costs.
• Lay the foundations for making a decision in a casual setting: I have seen more decided at lunch after a site visit than in days of meetings.
• Appealing to a higher authority can bypass political interference, but this can backfire in very unpleasant ways.
• Ease up. I have seen people get so personally involved they forget that their company is (somehow) managing without the latest technology.
• Most importantly, be patient. If the delay is political there is little you can do and nothing gets people to dig in faster than feeling pushed to make a decision.

Remember if all else fails you can always call in a consultant.