Yes, I see what you're saying and have probably worked within it!
It's a kind of encapsulated thinking; a problem being seen as having an 'IT solution', handed over to IT, and then thereafter seen only in IT terms. You then get talk of project life cycles - where it all goes underground (outside of the IT dept), perhaps with project reports, until such a day when this messiah is born unto the business. The margin for error is immense.
Time and cost overruns are, I think, part of any project; IT or otherwise. Though the infamous 'scope creep' is probably there too, I suspect it's primarily a failure of project management in not correctly analysing the issue nor the time needed.
I read the other day of a new nuclear reactor (French built, in Finland??) where they're something like 2 years into a projected 4 year build and they reckon they'll need something like another 5! You'd wonder how you could get it SO wrong! Someone didn't listen to someone else somewhere along the line!
It's a kind of encapsulated thinking; a problem being seen as having an 'IT solution', handed over to IT, and then thereafter seen only in IT terms. You then get talk of project life cycles - where it all goes underground (outside of the IT dept), perhaps with project reports, until such a day when this messiah is born unto the business. The margin for error is immense.
Time and cost overruns are, I think, part of any project; IT or otherwise. Though the infamous 'scope creep' is probably there too, I suspect it's primarily a failure of project management in not correctly analysing the issue nor the time needed.
I read the other day of a new nuclear reactor (French built, in Finland??) where they're something like 2 years into a projected 4 year build and they reckon they'll need something like another 5! You'd wonder how you could get it SO wrong! Someone didn't listen to someone else somewhere along the line!
