IT Project Governance ‐ why IT Projects in Public Administration Fail and What can be Done About it
Konrad Walser Bern University of Applied Sciences, e‐Government‐Institute, Bern, Switzerland konrad. walser @ bfh. ch
Abstract: Based on literature review, this article investigates the reasons why IT projects in public administration fail in terms of IT governance. COBIT control objectives and management guidelines provide indicators for possible improvements. This then suggests a separate project governance model based on checks and balances between the following stakeholders: administrative management, project‐initiating centre, finance department and project management. On this basis, a large IT project initiated by the Swiss federal administration, that has since been stopped, is analysed with regard to the interactions presented in the model. In summary, the project governance model is useful when evaluating projects, for example with regard to checks and balances from an administration management point of view.
Keywords: IT governance, project governance, project governance model, checks and balances, tasks, skills and responsibility
1. Introduction
1.1 Presentation of the problem
The size and complexity of IT projects in public administration( PA) are increasing due to e‐Government and networking. This increases the risks associated with the projects. E‐Government and large projects in the field of administration bring, seen from a management / governance perspective, changes on the business and IT side for the project and IT management of the PA. From a risk management perspective, it must be assumed that information technology( IT) projects could fail( cf. for reasons e. g.( Alfaadel et al. 2012),( Bronte‐Stewart 2005),( Evangelidis 2002),( Graeme and Fernandez 2008),( Heeks 2003),( Mertens 2008),( OECD 2001),( Van der Westhuizen and Fitzgerald 2005),( Young 2003)). The following research questions are relevant for this article: Why do IT projects in PA fail? What is responsible for the failure of IT projects in public administration? What can be done to prevent the failure of IT projects in public administration from a governance perspective?
1.2 Aims and objectives of the article
The article initially deals with creating a governance model for projects from a PA perspective, as a central subarea of corporate and IT governance( ITG). The article also explores governance tasks and mechanisms, as well as checks and balances( CaB) between the corporate functions of management, finance, the department that commissioned the project and the project manager. Furthermore, the model will be verified on the basis of a large project that was stopped in the Swiss federal administration. The core of the article deals with achieving a systematic improvement in( IT) project governance in PA, which is currently often poor, and systematically reducing( IT project) risks in PA.
2. Assertions on the issue in literature and IT governance frameworks
2.1 Conclusions from literature
Starting from Weber( 1988), who lived and worked in the first half of the twentieth century, and his bureaucracy model, Jain( 2007) investigates, in terms of the characteristics it defines, the reasons for the failure of e‐ Government projects that arise from the bureaucracy model developed by Weber( 1988). The following conclusions can be drawn from the article from Jain( 2007): „ IT can be used to override and reform features of Weberian bureaucracy such as hierarchy, division of labor and rigidity of rules; according to the other theme, these very features have the potential to render E‐Government projects unsuccessful.“ Administration consists of organisations with a strongly hierarchical structure: it is dominated by functional and responsibility‐oriented silos which are built on the legally defined duties of administrative units. This makes it difficult to implement organisation‐wide solutions. The rules for acting and behaving are rigid. This means that, in terms of IT project management and from a governance perspective, the behaviour of people in the project environment is more weighted toward conformance than performance. As Jain( 2007) states it: „ There is no doubt that E‐ Government is here to stay and is the way of the future. Also, there is no doubt that E‐Government impacts
543