These types of risk require that the project manager be cognizant of them even if she can do nothing to prevent their occurrence. Thus we suggest the behavior Monitor to represent keeping abreast of the environmental risks in order to maximize the possibilities for response. The monitor behavior is relatively straightforward.
Unfortunately, it can also be time consuming. Under the Environment risks (see Exhibit 2) we see those things that relate to the industry, the company, and the company’
s position in the industry. This monitoring responsibility requires the project manager to be knowledgeable about what is going on “out there” and how it might affect the company and hence the project. For example, the IS project manager should be aware of the potential of a corporate takeover, assess possible impacts, and establish strategies to deal with those impacts. One way of gaining this knowledge is to read the industry trade press rather than the computer trade press.
Industry conferences are another excellent source of monitoring information. Many companies have internal industry and marketing seminars. If a project manager can
understand the product and market from the perspective of the company’
s own
marketing force, it will enhance the project managers understanding of the environment at large.
Client Relationships
Relate is the behavior required to handle that category of risks denoted Client. The Client project risks are those associated with the people internal to the company with whom the project manager deals. These are the people who are essential to the successful outcome of the project. They are also the people who define what constitutes a successful outcome. It is essential that the project manager establish relationships with these individuals and groups, preferably before the project is initiated.
The term Client is used here advisedly. It encompasses that group of people who fund, as well as that group who will use, the system and, therefore, such groups may be defined as the project manager’
s market. A key marketing philosophy propounded
by both practitioners and academics is that of Relationship Marketing, or Relationship Management. This philosophy espouses building and maintaining long-term relationships with clients (customers) regardless of any current sales activity. In other words, the sale is made within the relationship, as opposed to the traditional approach of building the relationship around the sale. For a particular project, top management commitment and user involvement are easier to obtain if there has been a strong relationship between the parties built up over time.
It is not the purpose of this chapter to describe relationship marketing and relationship management; there is a wealth of material available elsewhere. The important lesson for project managers is to realize that marketing themselves and their departments in the context of long-term relationships is a fundamental responsibility of IS management. It is equally important that the client community also subscribes to building strong relationships with IS management.
The activities discussed under Monitor now acquire an additional role. To establish this relationship with a group (e.g., top management), the project manager must demonstrate an interest in, and knowledge of, those things that interest the group.
Monitoring will provide the project manager with the initial knowledge to gain access to each group that constitutes a target market. The relationship can be enhanced by information sharing and establishing bonds of common interests. However, this act of sharing is not solely the responsibility of the project manager. It requires the active participation of the investing executives, as well as the user management, to ensure that the IS project manager is fully cognizant of the effects that the changing environment is having on the organization as a whole, and the resulting potential impacts on the needs the system is supposed to fulfill.
Clients may also be considered to have different levels of sponsorship of the project.
In many studies, including that by Keil et al., failure to gain top management commitment is seen as a key determinant of project failure. Top management commitment represents the active sponsorship of the project. This notion of sponsorship however, extends beyond top management. It is needed throughout the ranks of management and users affected by the project. It is here that the IS project manager can look to the sponsorship strategies and processes of sponsor-dependent sports such as motor racing, events such as the Olympic Games, or sponsor-dependent organizations in the arts. These organizations must actively seek sponsors
and continuously work at maintaining that sponsorship. The IS project manager must do the same.
To many, the strategies outlined may seem obvious but, obvious or not, they do not seem to get executed effectively. As a case in point, consider now Sullivan’
s dilemma,
using the proposed model as a vehicle for discussion.
[11 ]Watts S. Humphrey, 1995, A Discipline for Software Engineering, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
SULLIVAN’
S DILEMMA: A CASE IN POINT[12]
A brief synopsis of the case follows. In this case, a CIO, Sullivan, has “fulfilled to the letter the role of CIO that Bennet [CEO and president] had described.” In particular, for our analysis, Sullivan was charged with developing an information system called Lifexpress that was supposed to provide the company’
s insurance agents with a
competitive advantage. The system took three years to develop and is being rolled out at the time of the case. Unfortunately, the company’
s competitors have launched
similar systems. Moreover, these competitor systems seem to be better than Lifexpress. Thus, the multi- million dollar system will not have the hoped-for impact, which is a great concern to the company’
s executives. “To Sullivan’
s distress, her
boss was clearly trying to hold her accountable for more than the creation and implementation of the system — he was putting her on the hook for the results of the system, too.” The case further notes: “She had delivered the system on time and on budget, and had met all the specifications that Bennett and the other senior managers had agreed to.” Sullivan had been trying to explain to her boss what she could control and what she could not. This merely resulted in her boss’
s becoming
impatient. Bennett tells Sullivan: “We have to figure out how to get this thing fixed and back on track fast. We’
re losing a lot of momentum. I don’
t think you have kept
us properly informed.” Here we have a case of a project manager delivering on what she thought were her commitments and yet the project is clearly falling into the
“failing” category. Sullivan has done an excellent job of risk management within the traditional confines of IS project management. She has delivered a project according to her “contract.” It met the agreed specifications for the agreed price and the agreed schedule and yet it is, for all intents and purposes, a waste of money. After all the time and expense, the system does not meet the needs of the business.
Perhaps the first thing to note is that Sullivan was trying to establish that there were things over which she had control and things over which she did not. In the proposed model, the things over which she had control are have described as Task (e.g., schedule, budget, process, and technology). She exercised the appropriate behavior: control. Now, consider Sullivan’
s behavior regarding Self, the other Inside risk
category.
Sullivan is described as “wondering how she could begin to separate what she was responsible for from she wasn’
t (sic).” On the one hand, Sullivan wishes to be
evaluated only on that which she can control, and on the other, her management wants her to take responsibility for the project’
s outcome. Furthermore, she failed to
understand the true requirements of the project. She understood the technical requirements as described to her three years ago, but failed to realize that the real requirement was for a “first-to-market” system that would give the company’
s
agents a competitive advantage over all other agents of all other companies. These
characteristics, responsibility and misunderstanding the requirements, fall into the category Self. The act of “wondering” to which the case refers is an example of Assess behavior. It is only now that she is becoming aware of the Self that is needed.
It is only at this point that she is becoming aware of the true requirements. Lack of the proper assessment behavior has put both the project and her career in jeopardy.
The model uses two other risk categories: Client and Environment. Had Sullivan been properly monitoring the Environment, she would have been cognizant of the activities of the competition. She would have known how the competition was forcing changes to the scope and objectives of the project. Again, failure to monitor the environment and act accordingly placed the project at risk.
Finally, there is the client category of risk. Here is a case that had top management commitment, but the project still failed in the eyes of senior management. The case tells us that Sullivan started with a good relationship with Bennett, the CEO. He had high hopes for her. The case also tells us she obtained an initial management commitment to Lifexpress. It appears she then reverted to focussing on task risks, the ones she could control. In so doing, she ignored maintaining, and further strengthening, her relationships with her clients, the company executives. As a result, executive concerns, even displeasure, come as a complete surprise to her. Had she exhibited relationship management behavior, she would not have been surprised and the executives would not have been surprised. In fact, she probably could have delivered a successful project in the first place, because she would have had executive guidance as to evolving needs, and furthermore, she could have managed client expectations of what could be delivered and when. Failure to actively seek and maintain sponsorship from her client community was a major contributor to her failure.