ICT Project
Management
A survival guide
Dr Christopher O’Mahony
Head – Centre for Information Technology
St Ignatius’ College, Riverview
In summary
 This presentation shares some examples of IT
projects in schools, and hopefully shares some tips on
how to survive the IT Project battleground.
 Good News and Bad News
 Some wider context
 A cynical view
 Key learnings
 A sample case study
 Some useful links
The presenter
 Christopher O’Mahony
 Head – Centre for IT, St Ignatius’ College, Riverview
 In school IT management roles since 1997
 PhD research in school management information systems,
IT evolution, IT evaluation, organisational culture
 Involved in various IT projects such as
 Management information systems
 Library systems
 Voice-over-IP
 SAN / DDT
 ISP
 Reprographics
The good news
 The fact that this conference is happening, and that this topic
is included, is indicative of the growing professionalism
among school IT management.
 Most of us, during our tenure in these positions, will be
involved to a greater or lesser extent in IT projects.
 Increasingly in schools, other organisational units are looking
to IT managers for robust methodologies and discipline, rigour
and objectivity in capital projects.
 BUT ………
The bad news
 In the 1990’s, the average life span of a senior IT manager
was about 900 days.

A common cause of IT manager casualty is failed IT projects.
 Aalders, R., & Hind, P., (2002) “The IT Manager’s Survival Guide”,
Chichester, UK; John Wiley & Sons.
 Industry analysis tells that
MOST IT projects fail
 For example:
 UK NHS – 4 years over time, GBP 10 billion over budget
 Australian Customs – 4 weeks container processing backlog on
implementation
Defining project failure
 Project abandonment
 Cost overruns
 Time overruns
 Incomplete implementation / functionality
 Major causes:
 Degree of user involvement
 Executive management support
 Project management experience
(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)
Project cost vs project success
More than $10 million
2%
11%
$6m to $10m
23%
$3m to $6m
32%
$750,000 to $3m
46%
Less than $750,000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Smaller initiatives fare better at reaching goals than larger
projects do.
50%
(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)
Proportion of projects over budget
< 20% are over
budget
46%
20% - 50% are
over budget
22%
> 50% are over
budget
0%
32%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)
Proportion of projects delivered late
34%
< 20% are late
20% - 50% are late
12%
54%
> 50% are late
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
(Courtesy: Information Age, 2005)
Proportion of scope successfully delivered
< 50% scope
delivered
26%
50% - 90% scope
delivered
37%
> 90% scope
delivered
0%
37%
10%
20%
30%
40%
A cynical view
Project Management Truths
 “Never underestimate the ability of senior management to buy a
bad idea, and fail to buy a good idea.”
 “Quantitative project management is for predicting cost and
schedule overruns well in advance.”
 “Project meetings are events where minutes are kept, and
hours are lost.”
 “We build systems like the Wright brothers built airplanes –
build the whole thing, push it off a cliff, let it crash, and then
start all over again.”
A cynical view
Project Management Truths
 Projects happen in two ways: (a) Planned and then executed or
(b) Executed, stopped, then planned and executed.
 “Good project management is not so much knowing what to do
and when, as knowing what excuses to give and when.”
 “Some projects finish on time in spite of project management
best practices.”
 “Users don’t know what they want until they get it. Then they
know what they DON’T want.”
Key learnings
 Successful projects have demonstrable discipline, rigour
and objectivity
 Link all IT projects to the IT Strategic Plan – avoid
unplanned projects
 Different leadership types on a project team (eg Business,
IT, Academic) have different dynamics, and these need to
be ‘managed’
 Engage senior management in all major projects
Key learnings
 There is rarely a pure ‘IT’ project
 Clarify who’s driving
 Be wary of resourcing assumptions
 Prioritise your projects
 Build in plenty of milestones and progress meetings
 Avoid scope creep
 Talk straight
 Learn how to say “No”
One Case Study – School MIS project
 The case for change
 Building project approval
 Governance and team structure
 Internal stakeholder consultation
 External enquiries
 The Tender
 Phase 1 - evaluations
 Phase 2 - presentations
 Phase 3 – Selection and contract
 Conversion and trial
 Go live
 Post implementation
The case for change
 2004
 Business Office driving the call for change
 Areas requiring review:
 Fees & Billing
 Registrations & Admissions
 Foundation and OIU
 School shop
 Facilities
 Assets
Project approval
 Early 2004
 Business Case presented to:
 IT Committee
 Finance Committee
 College Council
 Initial ‘rule-of-thumb’ budget approved
 Project Team established
 External support from industry professionals
Evaluation Governance & Team Structure
IT Steering
Committee
Project Steering
Committee
Business
Requirements
Implementation
Plan
Ongoing
Support
Commercial
Price
G Conlon
C O’Mahony
L Holden (P2)
B Peatman (P2)
K Corbett (P2)
G Conlon
C O’Mahony
G Conlon
C O’Mahony
G Conlon
K Corbett
G Conlon
K Corbett
Stakeholder consultation
 Term 1 2004
 Questionnaires to all stakeholders
 Focus Group meetings
 What have we got that must be retained?
 What have we got that must be dumped?
 What have we NOT got that we must have?
 What have we NOT got that we’d like to have?
 Broad email enquiries to other ADAPE members
Evaluation from ADAPE members
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Happy
Unhappy
15
20
25
The Tender
 Stakeholder consultation in Term 1 informed Requirements
Specification
 Clear expectations of tender respondents
 Closed tender
 Incumbent invited to respond
Longlist to Shortlist
 Make your tender document self-scoring
 Use quantitative analysis to justify selection / rejection
 Score each dimension
 Weight each dimension
 Consider price last
 Remember to include items such as:
 Conversion costs (export as well as import)
 Customisation / configuration costs
 Training costs
Evaluation Phases
Phase 1
Assessment of compliance and evaluation
against evaluation criteria
Phase 2
Discussions, clarification, negotiations and
reference checks with short-listed Suppliers.
Update evaluation.
Short-listed
Suppliers
Preferred
Supplier
Phase 3
Finalise contract with preferred supplier,
including further discussions and negotiations as
appropriate
Signed
Contract
Evaluating Proposals
Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation
Criteria
Weightings
Scoring
Rules
Evaluating
Price
Evaluation Criteria & Weightings
(excl. Price)
Evaluation Category
Criteria
Criteria
Weighting
Business
Requirements
General
20%
Core Business functions
40%
Development / Foundation
20%
Retail Operations
10%
Other (Facilities, New Business Functions)
10%
Implementation Track Record
30%
Timeframe
20%
Approach (eg phased)
50%
Industry Track Record
20%
Depth of Resourcing
30%
Help Desk Support
30%
Account Management
20%
Vendor Stability
40%
Financial Viability
40%
Acceptance of Riverview’s Key Commercial Terms
20%
Implementation Plan
On-going Services
Commercial
400%
Category
Weighting
55%
15%
20%
10%
100%
Phase 1 Evaluation Results
 Business Requirements
 Implementation Plan
 Ongoing Services
 Commercial
 Price
Business Requirements Comparison-1
Business requirements (weighted) by supplier
40
35
30
General
25
Core
20
Foundation
15
Retail
10
Other
5
0
A
B
C
D
E
Business Requirements Comparison-2
Business requirements (weighted) by Category
40
35
30
A
25
B
20
C
15
D
10
E
5
0
General
Core
Foundation
Retail
Other
Implementation Plan Comparison
Implementation Plan Analysis
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E
Ongoing Services Comparison
Ongoing Services Analysis
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
B
C
D
E
Commercial Comparison
Commercial Analysis
100
80
60
40
20
0
A
B
C
D
E
Phase 1 Summary (excl Price)
Scores
Category
Weighting
A
B
C
D
E
Requirements (Bus + Tech)
55%
45.7
33.1
46.1
49.9
42.0
Implementation Plan
15%
7.5
3.8
10.5
9.8
5.3
Ongoing Service (estimate)
20%
12.0
10.0
11.0
13.0
11.0
Commercial (estimate)
10%
6.5
4.5
8.5
8.5
7.0
TOTAL
100%
71.7
51.4
76.1
81.2
65.2
3
5
2
1
4
Category
Rank
NOTE: higher score is more favourable
Price per Point of Value Approach

Lowest price per point of value score = highest ranked supplier
“Price per Point of Value”
Score

=
NPV for Supplier
Weighted Score for Supplier
The service providers response must meet Riverview’s minimum
requirements on each of the non-price evaluation criteria
Financial Comparison - 1
Price Analysis (per Point of Value)
NPV over 3 Yrs
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
E
D
C
B
A
-
Financial Comparison - 2
Price Analysis (per Point of Value)
NPV over 5 Yrs
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
A
B
C
D
E
Narrowing the field
 Vendor presentations
 We drove the agenda, not the vendor
 Important to use real-life scenarios / scripts
 Level playing field for all presentations
 No second chance
 Reference site checking
 Vendor recommendations
 Plus our own enquiries
Selection and Contract
 From two down to one:
 Keep #1 and #2 keen right to the very end
 Contracts:
 Don’t simply accept the ‘standard’ contract
 Make the extra effort to ensure the contract matches your needs
 Always make sure your school legal advisers review the contract
Conversion and trial
 If converting data from old system to new system:
 Do your best to retain support from outgoing vendor.
 Allocate plenty of time and resources to test the converted data.
 Worth considering at least two iterations of the conversion-and-trial
cycle.
 Ensure robust change request procedure is in place during this phase.
Go live!
 November 2004 – Conversion-&-Trial #1
 January 2005 – Conversion-&-Trial #2
 March 2005 – Go Live!
Train! Train! Train!
Support! Support! Support!
Post implementation

March 2005 was chosen for implementation as it had the least impact on
our daily business.

By Term 2, we were ready to use the new system for the second billing
run.

We’ve now been working with the new system for over one year.

Every month / term that goes by things get easier, smoother, more
second-nature.

The old system is still available for reference, which is helping to mop up
inconsistencies.

We have also been building communication channels with other schools
using the system, which is helping to inform the vendor of future
improvements.
Other Project Applications
 At Riverview, we have been using essentially the same
methodology for about three years, for projects such as:
 Internet Service Provision
 Storage solution (SAN/DDT)
 Reprographics refresh
 Integrated Library Management System
Useful links
 There is an increasing requirement for IT Project Managers to have
formal accreditation
 AIPM – Australian Institute of Project Management
 www.aipm.com.au
 Endorsed courses:
 www.aipm.com.au/html/aipm_endorsed_courses_act_nsw.cfm
 Sydney University – Project Management Graduate Programme
(PMGP)
 www.pmgp.usyd.edu.au
 PRINCE2
 http://www.ogc.gov.uk/prince2/
In Conclusion
 Good ICT projects must be informed by robust
research and well-exercised methodology;
 Good ICT projects must be continuously
evaluated and reviewed;
 Good ICT projects lead to improved
organisational agility and effectiveness.
Contact Details
Dr Christopher O’Mahony
Head – Centre for Information Technology
Saint Ignatius’ College, Riverview
Tambourine Bay Road, Riverview, NSW 2066
Phone (02) 9882 8222 Fax (02) 9882 8588
Web www.riverview.nsw.edu.au Email cdomahony@riverview.nsw.edu.au