IT woes when project management doesn't listen

Not a question

Didn't find your answer?

Although written a week ago, I've only just seen this:
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366587393/How-poor-IT-project-manage...

A portent for MTDfIT?

Replies (4)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By FactChecker
10th Jun 2024 18:57

"A portent for MTDfIT?" ... very likely unfortunately.

The tone of despair is because I've been reading very similar stories in CW for over 40 years ... and the central points remain unchanged, as per:

"These .. point to a desire of the programme board, and in particular the programme manager, to go live in April 2022 regardless of the state of the build, the level of testing undertaken and challenges faced by those working on the programme.
The notes reveal concerns that the programme manager and steering committee could not be swayed, which meant the system went live despite having known flaws."

In other words it's nothing inherent in the software ... but human incompetence, greed and stupidity - resting on a foundation of incomprehension and bolstered by a vacuum of any sense of responsibility, morality or accountability.

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By paulwakefield1
11th Jun 2024 07:41

FactChecker wrote:

In other words it's nothing inherent in the software ... but human incompetence, greed and stupidity - resting on a foundation of incomprehension and bolstered by a vacuum of any sense of responsibility, morality or accountability.

But, apart from that, all good. :-)

Thanks (0)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By NotAnAccountant2
11th Jun 2024 08:42

FactChecker wrote:

In other words it's nothing inherent in the software ... but human incompetence, greed and stupidity - resting on a foundation of incomprehension and bolstered by a vacuum of any sense of responsibility, morality or accountability.

Agreed, although I'm not sure it's stupidity. The Bank Reconciliation Process doesn't work. There is absolutely no way the people who actually do the work could have been unaware of that unless they weren't allowed to try out the system before it went live. And there's absolutely no way there weren't people who were aware of how important that is who knew it didn't work.

So we're left with the senior management at the top being unaware of a critically important process, and willing to ignore/suppress objections from their staff and force through the go live.

This reminds me of Venables saying she was unaware that the post office ran it's own prosecutions.

The law might disagree but I'm struggling to understand why these behaviours aren't criminally negligent.

Thanks (1)
Replying to NotAnAccountant2:
avatar
By FactChecker
11th Jun 2024 12:01

The 'stupidity' (along with all the other personality traits / character defects listed) was being attributed by me specifically to the cadre of professional managers ... those with the power to call a halt but who instead force through the 'go live'.

Like many others before her, Venables relied on the age-old 'my hands weren't on the trigger (you won't find my fingerprints)' routine ... which is not far removed from those that hire assassins to do their dirty work for them.
The key word for this kind of senior management (politicians, hospital bosses, big 4 auditors, et al) is 'deniability' ... the very opposite of 'the bucks stop here'.

Occasionally they're careless and leave a breadcrumb or two that can be traced back, but one of the things they are most trained in and experienced at is in NOT doing so ... as per so much of the PO enquiry where almost anyone can read between the lines of the many emails, but few constitute direct evidence of the malfeasance that was operated.

Thanks (2)