February 3, 2010

Why Do Public Sector Software Development Projects Fail?

Part 1 – Overview

All major public sector enterprises have an increasing investment in software (and IT in general) and a growing need to earn a better return on their investment.  Recent studies have shown that software projects are often over budget and behind schedule.  Although studies come up with differing numbers, generally statistics show that:

  • Over half of all medium and large software projects do not deliver their expected benefit, and exceed their schedule and budget.
  • Over half of the medium and large software projects either fail completely (management pulls the plug) or require big recovery efforts to get them to completion.

Software projects, due to their scale and scope present special problems.  Management often over estimates the business improvements with optimistic delivery dates before there is a good understanding of the cost and time it will take to complete the project. User needs change, staff members move on, and the scope, schedule and budget begin to grow. The software development project soon becomes a black hole, into which the organization pours dollars and people. Agency management hears nothing but good news from project management and contractors until it is too late.  The problems start to surface and “blame game” begins; management blames the project staff, the project staff blames the contractor and the contractor blames the project staff.  The end result is a software project that is over budget, delivered late, and the business needs and quality expectations are not met.

So what to do?

This is the first in a multi-part series of posts analyzing the causes of  failures in public sector software projects and proposing some pragmatic solutions.

No Comments

January 25, 2010

Now that you don’t have money you can get something done

Should budget shortfalls mean you cancel that project you’ve been planning? Counter intuitively (and with a few conditions) we say no. In our experience lack of funds actually leads to more successful projects. Without money you:

Focus on simplicity – you’re not likely to look for the “Cadillac” solution, you can’t afford it. Simple solutions tend to be easier to implement.

Encourage staff participation – you won’t be able to afford, nor will you need, an army of consultants to implement your simple solution. Your staff will have to take on added project responsibility to get things done. There’s nothing like having skin in the game to make your staff fight for success.

Use the wisdom of your own people – you can’t buy your way out of the problem so your approach likely has to be home grown. You’ll be relying on the creativity that exists within your organization to complete this project. When solutions are home grown they are easier to sell internally and generally a better fit for your needs.

Better utilize the funds that do exist – when resources are scarce you pay greater attention to them. You are forced to track every dollar spent on the project which in turn means you are likely to spend your money where it will do the most good.

Of course lack of funds will limit the kinds/size of projects you take on. You’re not likely to re-engineer your entire Medicaid system. But…what about rewriting those out-of-date procedures manuals? How about revisiting your policies? What if you could re-engineer a few of those inefficient processes? Lack of funding, while not ideal, is the reality we all now face. It shouldn’t stop your projects and can even help them to be successful.

No Comments

January 13, 2010

Playing Fast and Loose with Independence on IV&V Projects.

More States are recognizing the value of having an unbiased, outside, opinion expressed about their systems development projects.  Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V – for more information reference the IEEE-1012-2004 specification) is a standardized approach to providing these opinions that States are beginning to request contractor’s use. A key tenet of IV&V is “Independence”.  That is the ability for your IV&V contractor to give you an opinion about your systems project without being biased or unduly influenced.

We have seen many “IV&V” contractors play a game with Independence.  They avoid procurement conflict of interest rules by partnering with a systems integration (SI) vendor in one State on the construction or implementation of a project and bid in another State to provide IV&V over the same SI vendor.  Technically they aren’t working for the systems integration contractor in your State but in the larger picture they do receive money from the contractor they are charged with overseeing on your behalf.  This, obviously, negates the independence they profess to bring to your project.

IV&V vendors do need to remain technically smart about system integrators, system developers, software solution vendors, and fiscal agents offerings so we’re not suggesting there be no communication.  Just that no financial relationships exists between your IV&V vendor and these entities.

So what do you need? You need a consultant who does not contract with or have an obligation to system integrators, system developers, software solution vendors, and fiscal agents that will likely bid on your projects.   You need language in your IV&V procurements that guarantees this independence.

No Comments

State Budget Crisis: Perspectives from Around the Nation

Last night’s New Hour show on PBS had an excellent segment on the budget issues facing a diverse range of states.  This is worth the 10 minutes it will take to view: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/budgets_01-12.html.

The video shows a few things: States ended up with budget shortfalls from similar causes and solutions involve draconian cuts to services.

No Comments

January 6, 2010

New Proposed Regulations of “Meaningful Use” and EHR Incentive Program

A proposed rule was issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on December 30, 2009 that outlines proposed provisions governing the EHR incentive programs, including defining the central concept of “meaningful use” of EHR technology.

CMS’s proposed rule would phase in more comprehensive criteria for demonstrating meaningful use in three stages.  Stage 1 would begin 2011 and focus on electronically capturing health information and using that information to track major clinical conditions, increasing communication between care providers, and initiating the reporting of clinical quality measures and public health information.  Clinical quality measures would need to be directly submitted to CMS starting 2012.

CMS will build upon findings in Stage 1 to propose two additional Stages of meaningful use.  Stage 2 will likely add criteria in the areas of disease management, clinical decision support, medication management, patient access to their health information, transitions in care, quality measurement and research, and increased communication with public health agencies.  Stage 3 may further expand on Stage 1 and 2 to focus on achieving improvements in health care quality, safety and efficiency, decision support for national high-priority conditions, providing patient access to self-management online tools, and improving overall population health outcomes.

In addition, an interim final regulation (IFR) issued by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) proposes an incremental approach to adopting initial standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for EHR technology to support meaningful use.  Subsequent rules will contain standards with greater detail to achieving interoperability.

Both CMS and ONC encourage public comment on each regulation.

For more information on the proposed rule, visit:

CMS: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/Recovery/11_HealthIT.asp

ONC: http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=1153&mode=2

No Comments

Read More →