Failure Has Some Options

Everyone fails at one time or another. Every organization can point to a program or project that jsut didn't go well at all. One of the big steps is admitting the problem in the first place. Another big step is figuring out what to do about it. There are three main options: do nothing; add resources; scrap the project. For many years, the federal government has only take the first two tacks; now it's going to try the third. According to an article in 'nextgov' magazine, the White House will review and post the health of all government IT projects. You can find that link at
http://it.usaspending.gov/.

While some of us might enjoy the handy pie chart and deep red color of these stats, there is so much more to know. By what measure is a particular project failing? Will this project succeed given more time and other resources? Is it worth it? Are there particular people to blame? Yes, I know it's popular to say that no one is at fault, or everyone is, which means the same thing for accountability. Starting with the project requirements, it's useful to look at the history of the whole effort. It's entirely possible that the project in question was never going to meet the organizational goals in the first place, especially if there are no goals.

What's nice about adding accountability to these IT projects is that contractors who don't meet the timeline or requirements will no longer be rewarded with more money, at least the really bad ones won't. Those bad projects are a huge time and resource suck, and I for one can think of all sorts of valuable ways that money can be spent. Even if the project is set to continue, it can be done under another contractor. As you've read previously, I'm pretty big on accountability and consequences, and this IT health monitor is set to deliver plenty of both. I'll be watching to see what happens.