Simon Hendery writes in the NZ Herald on efforts by the Welsh Regional Government to attract  Kiwi IT companies to set up there and some of the inducements on offer.

At the end of the article he writes:-

Perhaps just as importantly, we should be monitoring its success to see if we can win some business back in this direction.

New Zealand may not be able to offer the proximity to the huge European market that is a key selling point for IBW, but we have other selling points that are of interest to the technology industry, including our time zone (allowing overnight delivery of services to Europe during our business hours) and the “lifestyle” benefits that attract migrants from around the world.

I was disappointed with this comment. For high tech IT firms proximity for the sales people yes, but surely we can do the R&D here,especially once we have reliable heavy duty broadband, furthermore our cost structure is surely not as high. Why do we keep quoting lifestyle, we have as well the China FTA for example and the newly concluded Malaysian one.

Looking at 2025 aspirations surely we could design an investment regime that makes it attractive to set up here, rather than say in Wales. Maybe not!

I will be in Auckland again this week. Tuesday lunchtime to mid afternoon on Thursday.

So if anyone wants to catch-up or make contact

Basil Woods at Baz Practice draws attention to a report by the UK’s Public Account Committee into an appalling case of incompetence regarding a major project.

The post and the report are worth reading.

One thing that captured my attention was this statement by the Chairman of the Committee:-

“Clearly this project was handled badly, it achieved poor value for money, many of the causes of delays and cost overruns could have been avoided. I could make some grand eloquent statement about how we never expect to see this happen again in the Civil Service but I suspect I would be wasting my breath.” – Edward Leigh

Mr Leigh has looked into other projects that have gone wrong. Many of us in work in the project arena have their own war stories to tell in this regard.

In my recent ISACA presentation, PROJECTS – Key Issues in Success/Failure,  I noted:-

These figures were drawn from the Standish Group Chaos reports. These studies and others have been reporting  poor statistics regarding projects for many years now. Whilst some dispute the Standish numbers, there is generally no argument that many projects substantially under achieve in terms of costs, time line, functionaliy and benefits. Not all as spectacularly as the one cited in the UK, but in one or more of the previously mentioned areas.

Much has been written about the causes of project failure. Indeed, cynics like my self read some accounts of project success and are tempted to wonder how that success was achieved and were the judgement criteria changed along the way.

Yet still it happens, despite the methodologies and frameworks designed to stop it happening.

Indeed as Chairman Leigh stated at the outset:-

“I have had all this before and I just do not know whether there is any point really carrying on frankly…Why did these problems re-occur, the same old lessons have not been learnt; over ambitious, weak project management and all the rest.”

There we have it in a nutshell:-

Why did these problems re-occur, the same old lessons have not been learnt; over ambitious, weak project management and all the rest

That comment to a greater or lesser extent could probably be made whenever a poorly performing project is examined.

I accept that weak project management can be a factor, but based on my own experience I venture to suggest, based on my experience – including running a major Project Quality Office, that a number of  factors play a significant part in many instances, these include:-

• pro-active and committed involvement of executive management from the outset
• alignment of project objectives with business strategy and objectives
• setting objectives which are achievable within the time and budget
• providing a sufficiency of time for completion, rather than setting dealines which are not realistic
• recognition that projects are no longer in many cases IT projects, but are in fact Business Change projects which are enabled by IT and incorporating this into all aspects of the project
• rigourous and on-going assessment of benefits and costs; coupled with a willingness of all involved to take action when situations alter
• rigourous review of risk both project and business, including an assessment of organizational capability to undertake the project
• clear and unambiguous reporting of project performance, against project standards and the business case
• dedicated, trained and capable resource*
• establishing the project appropriately**
  

* as at least one commentator has noted – chopping and changing resources has significant adverse impact on projects

** major projects should be established as programmes , with a number of component projects. The interdependencies being reviewed and all parties being made aware of them. Further, projects should be broken into constituent parts which are capable of management.

If these are lacking, why should we be surprised when problems emerge. In fact if any of the above are deficient they should be warning signs. But, again many have highlighted these issues. Indeed, all the above have been written about before in various guises, blogs, academic magazines and books by gurus. So what are we to do?

To achieve an improvement will take a culture change in many organizations.

One of the reasons for ‘failure’ in many instances, and/or problems arising is I suggest the prevalence of organizational cultures where ‘bad news‘ is unwelcome and ‘shooting the messenger‘ is common. This may well be coupled with situations where senior management/executives are not closely involved. Interestingly, when I comment in this vein when giving presentations many in the audience often nod knowingly, and in conversation afterwards I have often been asked how it is that I knew that was the problem with Project X or Y. Of course I did not know,but such comments go a long way to substantiate my view on some of the siiues which exist.

In that regard, I am heartened by the advent of ISO 38500 – Corporate Governance of information technology, which may assist in creating a climate for change. This will be assisted as well by the increasing emphasis in both the public and private sectors on ensuring value is delivered for the investments made.

At the end of the day though, there can be no substitute for rigour at all stages from the moment when a project is conceived to the point, possibly many years later when the application/process or other deliverable is ‘retired’. This requires the inculcation in an organization of a set of core values where good practice, rigour, integrity and transparency and communication are the natural order of things rather than the exception.

I heard Don Brash on National Radio in an interesting discussion about the 2025 Taskforce with Kathryn Ryan. Last weekend I read articles on the Malaysian FTA, yesterday I listened to Lord Patten speak at the Wellington Regional Chamber of Commerce on trade and FTAs amongst other matters. We appear to be making progress with our ambitions to eventually achieve FTAs with India and Japan.

Yet I must admit that whilst this is all very good, it will be for nought if NZ companies do not take advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. In that regard as I noted the other day there are some grounds for concern.

Thus it was with considerable interest that I read Bridget Liddell’s timely and relevant article in Thursday’s NZ Herald.

Her article begins:-

Short-term thinking is undermining the ability of New Zealand’s businesses to make a serious impact internationally.

Kind of gets your attention.

Rightly she identifies:-

Our most successful companies overseas build constituencies across every aspect of their business, including governance, management, branding and marketing, channel partnerships, funding partnerships, media, interest groups and communities, online and off. All these pieces of the networking puzzle combine to build significant equity value over time.

Patient cultivation of networks is also important in building shareholder value

The key thrust is that business should build equity value and have that as their key objective, rather than revenue growth. Note also the emphasis in the comment on networks on which she has some very useful comments elsewhere in the article.

I might be inferring too much from the article, but I thought Mrs Liddell suggests that many NZ companies do not prepare properly to expand overseas; coupled with a revenue/commodity mind set rather than a value based one.

I agree fully with her closing statement:-

Now is the time for our companies to get smart about pulling the strategic levers that generate long-term gains in the United States and around the world.

It is by taking account of the points made in this article that NZ companies could begin to close the gaps not just with Australia, but with other countries. Smarts, strategy and focus are most likely to aid achievement of the 2025 objective, not the tired nostrums of the past.

From Geekzone – Xero to tackle the personal/consumer market.

Xero have decided to enter the personal financial package market. In this regard they are challenging some very big players such as Intuit with Quicken. It will be very interesting to see how they fare and the reaction of competitors. Can they craft a compelling proposition? Will people accept having their personal finance data on line?

On the information at the link the tie-in for information import with just one partner in NZ may render the proposition less appealing in NZ, but maybe in other markets they will offer the facility with multiple partners?

If they make inroads will they be bought out? Is that the plan?

Disclaimer:- I have no connection with Xero, nor any investment therein. I am not making any investment recommendation, nor providing any other form of advice, merely passing comment on a news item.

To complement my Human Capital Assessment post and related form, I am now posting a template for the next step a simple SWOT, using information gathered from the Human Capital Assessment Exercise.

Like the Human Capital Assessment this tool is an aid to implementing Peter’s Tips #6.

Download the document at Slideshare, let me know how you fair with it, if you want to.

From the New Yorker a little bit of humour in respect of the economic crisis, at the expense of Hank Paulson and Ben bernanke, with supporting cast of Alan Greenspan and an homage to Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

Governance can be fun!

Brian Fallow has an interesting article today in the NZ Herald on the divergence in growth and income between Australia and NZ. One of the more interesting tidbits was the URL for the 2025 Taskforce website where many of the submissions are being released to the public.

Fallow suugests that a number of the submissions make gloomy reading, apart from anything else we lack:-

• intellectual capital – lack of R&D and commecrcialized innovation
• human capital – lack of skilled people and increasingly so
• monetary capital – financial resource

The Institute of Management notes that NZ management has”plateaued at a level of mediocrity”.

Fallow’s article is pessimistic in tone.

Perforce I have to agree with his closing comments:-

Business New Zealand’s recommendations are a pretty unprepossessing wish list.

It includes the repeal of Working for Families, “simplifying” labour law as it relates to dismissal and collective bargaining, allowing the private sector into accident compensation, and including property rights in the Bill of Rights Act.

A lack of vision, thought as to what we might be , indeed totally uninspiring and rooted in the past to my mind. Tackling pimples on the problem, rather than the problem.

As Fallow says:-

Let’s hope Dr Brash’s committee can come up with something better than that

Amen to that.

Today I attended the Wellington Chamber of Commerce’s lunchtime session where the featured speaker was Dr Alan Bollard. Dr Bollard gave a very interesting presentation, which proved a considerable amount to reflect on. This link is to a NZ Herald article on the Reserve Bank announcement this morning.

The other day I posted on some basic steps to undertake in the context of Getting Business and Keeping It. I undertook then to place some tools to assist the suggested analysis online.

This tool is a format for the suggested and to my mind very necessary Human Capital Assessment.

Obviously you can put the data into a database if you wish, but the form gives you the basic schema, which you can elaborate on. Personally, I tend to find the essentially free form entry helps and then consolidation can be effected by putting them all on a wall and working as a team with close colleagues to achieve the consolidation; plus this approach helps to stimulate thought for the Human Capital SWOT analysis of which more in my next post.

Download the document at Slideshare, let me know how you fair with it, if you want to.