Welcome to this blog post about leading projects. Projects are becoming increasingly complex, and it is important to have the appropriate strategies to manage them effectively (Bates, 2014; Conway et al., 2017; Watt, 2014). In the book “Project Management”, Watt (2014) referenced the Standish Group CHAOS report to define project success as being on time, on budget and meeting the required features and functions. Standish Group International has released the CHAOS report for many years and provides a success scale to increase the probability of a project’s success (Musings, 2020). The 2009 Standish Group CHAOS reported a 68% project failure rate across various industries (Watt, 2014). I did a cursory search to find more current success and failure rates in the context of implementing new technology. The Standish Group reported that 83.9% of information technology projects failed in 2021 (Open Door Technology, 2021). I work in a higher education organization in BC, where colleges and universities are operating in budget deficits as we recover from the financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (Fletcher, 2021). Considering the historical project failure rates and the current budget deficits in higher education, I see effective project management as particularly critical for implementing learning technologies. In this blog post, I will reflect on a recent project management experience in higher education in BC and articulate the valuable insight I gained from the course readings to improve my practice.
I was recently part of a project to implement a new faculty development initiative that aimed to enhance teachers’ digital literacy capacity and competence. Watt (2014) outlined the considerations to attend to in project planning — I followed many of the processes and practices outlined in the readings. Through my planning experience and the course project management readings, three factors emerged as critical to project success: planning, agility, and user and stakeholder involvement. My planning began with discussing with other institutions that had developed similar initiatives, reviewing data to estimate registration interest, and then surveying faculty to gain insight into interests, delivery mode preferences, and preferred schedules. I created a Gantt chart to sequence the planning process and set a reporting structure with weekly updates to communicate progress and challenges. A Gantt chart is a graphic schedule that illustrates a critical path noting work breakdown with dates associated with key tasks (Watt, 2014). Reflecting on my experience, the planning was well done as I managed time, costs, scope and resources well. However, I think that risks, particularly barriers to participation or resistance to participation could be better managed with user involvement.
The user or stakeholder input is important because it ensures that the project functions as intended and meets expectations (Open Door Technology, 2021; Watt, 2014). I considered users and stakeholders in the project planning by consulting the department involved (users) to document needs and define goals; and outlined the scope of the work and resources available with administration and registration (stakeholders). However, there were stakeholders that I did not identify in the early stages of planning and may have created a barrier to participation because some faculties did not perceive the value. While I have general project management skills with experience in the design and construction industry, I have little experience in project management in educational contexts. As described by Watt (2014), understanding the project environment in terms of culture and social influences is often misunderstood. What I have learned from the readings is that the probability of project success increases with user and stakeholder involvement and with an understanding of the project environment. As I am new in my current role, I will plan for more consultations with leadership to help motivate individuals and to help me to better understand the unspoken influences at work within my institution (Watt, 2014).
References
Bates, T. (2014). Is the ADDIE model appropriate for teaching in a digital age? | Tony Bates. https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/09/09/is-the-addie-model-appropriate-for-teaching-in-a-digital-age/
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From design thinking to systems change. RSA Action and Research Centre, July, 32. https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf
Fletcher, T. O. M. (2021). B.C. colleges , universities allowed to run COVID-19 deficits. Victoria News. https://www.vicnews.com/business/b-c-colleges-universities-allowed-to-run-covid-19-deficits/
Musings, P. M. (2020). My theory on why IT projects fail. https://pmhut.com/my-theory-on-why-it-projects-fail
Open Door Technology. (2021). The Standish Group reports 83.9% of IT projects fail – How to Save Yours. Opendoor, 365. https://www.opendoorerp.com/the-standish-group-report-83-9-of-it-projects-partially-or-completely-fail/
Watt, A. (2014). Project management 2nd edition. In Engineer (Vols. 24-MAY). https://opentextbc.ca/projectmanagement/.