Chapter 1. The risks of IT innovation in government In 1995, the Standish Group began to publish using advanced information technologies reports of the IT failure rates of both public However, as the California dMv failure amp They suggested that more than 80 percen es and private organizations in the United Sta demonstrates,the risks of IT innovation in ply government are daunting of systems development projects fail in whole or in part. Most projects cost more, take longer Years of research on information system than planned, and fail to achieve all of their success and failure have been unable to goals. One-third are canceled before they are conclusively identify the factors that cause completed. good or bad results. Information technology success and failure seem to be in the eye of One system development project cancellation the beholder took place at the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles(DMV) in the mid-1990s Weve spoken to public managers who The project to move nearly 70 million vehicle, consider a project a success if it comes in license, and identification records from an on time and on budget. others, who evaluate antiquated system to a new relational database functionality and usability, might call the same was both behind schedule and over budget project a failure. Many see failure when regardless of time and budget, a new system When California s lawmakers finally decided makes it more difficult to do routine and to end the agency' s IT project, over $44 million familiar tasks. They have the latest technology had already been spent and no end was in but cant get their work done as well as they sight. One of the reasons the dMV project did before. Weve heard about systems that failed, says California Assemblyman Phillip perform beautifully, but can't be supported by Isenberg is "because the agency staff were in-house staff and therefore continue to over their heads with a technology they did not generate high costs for consultants to maintain understand The project also lacked a clear link between Failure may be a desirable statewide system agency operational goals and the capabilities that local governments cant use because of the selected technology. Due to procurement they lack their own expertise and technical restrictions, the agency was committed to a infrastructure to connect to it failure has also pecific hardware platform before all the been described as an on-time, on-budget vailable options could be explored. As a system with great user interfaces and function result of the failure, California' s technology ality, but users will not work with it because procurement process faces even greater they dont trust the underlying data sources control and oversight. Despite these problems, $1 billion, and more big projects are on the over California has an annual IT budget of well over How do you protect against something you can' t define? We advocate an approach that y are everywhere in the wo builds knowledge and understanding throug reful analysis of the goals, the larger Ict, government constitutes one of the environment, the specific situation, the likely d s largest consumers of information and the reasonable alternatives. tha technology. Because of its size, complexity, kind of thinking will help you raise useful and pervasive programs and services questions, engage partners, challenge old government cannot operate effectively without models, garner support, assess policiesCENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT: MAKING SMART IT CHOICES 7 Chapter 1. The risks of IT innovation in government In 1995, the Standish Group began to publish reports of the IT failure rates of both public and private organizations in the United States. They suggested that more than 80 percent of systems development projects fail in whole or in part. Most projects cost more, take longer than planned, and fail to achieve all of their goals. One-third are canceled before they are completed. One system development project cancellation took place at the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in the mid-1990s. The project to move nearly 70 million vehicle, license, and identification records from an antiquated system to a new relational database was both behind schedule and over budget. When California’s lawmakers finally decided to end the agency’s IT project, over $44 million had already been spent and no end was in sight. One of the reasons the DMV project failed, says California Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg, is “because the agency staff were over their heads with a technology they did not understand.” The project also lacked a clear link between agency operational goals and the capabilities of the selected technology. Due to procurement restrictions, the agency was committed to a specific hardware platform before all the available options could be explored. As a result of the failure, California’s technology procurement process faces even greater control and oversight. Despite these problems, California has an annual IT budget of well over $1 billion, and more big projects are on the horizon—as they are everywhere in the world. In fact, government constitutes one of the world’s largest consumers of information technology. Because of its size, complexity, and pervasive programs and services, government cannot operate effectively without using advanced information technologies. However, as the California DMV failure amply demonstrates, the risks of IT innovation in government are daunting. Years of research on information system success and failure have been unable to conclusively identify the factors that cause good or bad results. Information technology success and failure seem to be in the eye of the beholder. We’ve spoken to public managers who consider a project a success if it comes in on time and on budget. Others, who evaluate functionality and usability, might call the same project a failure. Many see failure when, regardless of time and budget, a new system makes it more difficult to do routine and familiar tasks. They have the latest technology but can’t get their work done as well as they did before. We’ve heard about systems that perform beautifully, but can’t be supported by in-house staff and therefore continue to generate high costs for consultants to maintain them. Failure may be a desirable statewide system that local governments can’t use because they lack their own expertise and technical infrastructure to connect to it. Failure has also been described as an on-time, on-budget system with great user interfaces and function￾ality, but users will not work with it because they don’t trust the underlying data sources. How do you protect against something you can’t define? We advocate an approach that builds knowledge and understanding through careful analysis of the goals, the larger environment, the specific situation, the likely risks, and the reasonable alternatives. That kind of thinking will help you raise useful questions, engage partners, challenge old models, garner support, assess policies