ICT-project failure in public administration: the need to include risk management in enterprise architectures

ABSTRACT

The failure of large and complex ICT projects has gained the attention of politicians and public managers. Decision-makers are looking for ways to reduce the number of project failures. As one of the instruments, they are looking at architectures to mitigate project management risk in order to reduce ICT project failures. Enterprise Architecture (EA) has been heralded as a way to advance digital government developments. This has resulted in the development of building blocks, standards, principles, models and other architectural instruments.

Despite the importance of this topic, little is known about the actual relationship between project failure and enterprise architecture. Although architectures might include risk management instruments, there is no insight in their actual use and experience. In this paper, the relationship between EA and project failure is investigated by creating a retrospective view on the use of EA in large and complex ICT-projects. A simple questionnaire is developed aimed at measuring the use of enterprise architecture in organizations and factors related to ICT project risks. During an interactive policy workshop, participants from various public organizations in the Netherlands were asked to fill in this survey for the ICT projects they were experience with. This was followed by a discussion about EA and risk management. The findings show that a disappointingly number of projects use either EA or risk management in a sufficient way. From the results, we conclude that architecture was hardly used as an instrument to mitigate project risks. This implies that one way of mitigating project failure is to ensure that the enterprise architecture and its use provide explicit attention to the subject of project risks. Six recommendations are formulated to improve risk management.

References

1. Algemene_Rekenkamer. Lessen uit ICT-projecten bij de overheid - Deel A, National Accountability office, 's-Gravenhage, 2007.
2. Algemene_Rekenkamer. Lessen uit ICT-projecten bij de overheid - Deel B, National Accountability office, 's-Gravenhage, 2008.
3. Armour, F. J., Kaisler, S. H. and Liu, S. Y. A big-picture look at Enterprise Architecture. IEEE IT Professional, 1 (1). 35--42.
4. Bernard, S. B. An introduction to Enterprise Architecture. AuthorHouse, 2004.
5. Bharosa, N., Janssen, M. and Wagenaar, R. Enterprise architecture evaluation: a casestudy on the pruposes of enterprise architecture for e-business. Khosrow-Pour, M. ed. IRMA: Managing Worldwide operations and Communications with information technology (proceedings) IGI Publishing, Vancouver, 2007, 834--844.
6. Doucet, G., Gøtze, J., Saha, P. and Bernard, S. Coherency Management: Using Enterprise Architecture for Alignment, Agility, and Assurance. Journal of Enterprise Architecture, 4 (2). 9--20.
7. Janssen, M. Framing Enterprise Architecture: A metaframework for analyzing architectural efforts in organizations. in Doucet, G., Gøtze, J., Saha, P. and Bernard, S. eds. Coherency Management: Architecting the Enterprise for Alignment, Agility and Assurance, Authorhouse, 2009.
8. Janssen, M., Chun, S. A. and Gil-Garcia, J. R. Building the next generation of digital government infrastructures Government Information Quarterly, 26 (2). 233--237.
9. Janssen, M. and Hjort-Madsen, K. Analyzing Enterprise Architecture in National Governments: The Cases of Denmark and the Netherlands. Sprague, R. ed. 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07), IEEE, Big Island, Hawaii, 2007
10. Kaisler, S. H., Armour, F. and Valivullah, M., Enterprise Architecting: Critical problems. in Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System sciences, (Hawaii, US, 2005).
11. Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L. and Ropponen, J. Attention Shaping and Software Risk- A Categorical Analysis of Four Classical Risk Management Approaches. Information Systems Research, 9 (3). 233--255.
12. McAfee and Andrew When too much IT knowledge is a dangerous thing. MIT Sloan Management review. 83--89.
13. McConnell, S. Rapid Development. Microsoft Press, 1996.
14. Nelson, R. R. IT project Management: Infamous failures, classic mistakes and best practices. MISQ Executive, 6 (2). 67--78.
15. Nelson, R. R. Project Retrospectives: Evaluating Project Success, Failure, and Everything in Between. MIS Quarterly Executive, 4 (3). 361--372.
16. Peristera, V. and Tarabanis, K. Towards an enterprise architecture for public administration using a top-down approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 9 (4). 252--260.
17. Perks, C. and Beveridge, T. Guide to Enterprise IT Architecture. Springer, 2002.
18. Richardson, L., Jackson, B. M. and Dickson, G. A Principle-Based Enterprise Architecture: Lessons From Texaco and Star Enterprise. MIS Quarterly, 14 (4). 385--403.
19. Rohloff, M., Enterprise architecture: Framework and methodology for the design of architecture in the large. in European Conference on Information Systems, (2005).
20. Ross, J. Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: Learning in stages. MISQ Quarterly Executive, 2 (1). 31--43.
21. Spoelstra, J. Spraakmakende ICT-fiasco's Computable, VNU, 2009.
22. Zachman, J. A. A Framework for Information Systems Architecture. IBM Systems Journal, 26 (3). 276--292.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Computers in other domains

    • Computing in government

  • Enterprise computing

• Computing methodologies

  • Modeling and simulation

    • Simulation theory

      • Systems theory

• Mathematics of computing

  • Information theory

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems

      • File systems management

      • System management