Avoid tech investment’s ‘Ready, Fire, Aim’ syndrome
Make sure potential investments are on target
Current economic conditions dictate that we make prudent technology investments, and CTOs are under increased pressure to show measurable, near-term ROI. Achieving the desired results can be like navigating a minefield. There are many well-documented challenges that keep technology investments from reaping justifiable returns. These challenges include poor project management, unmanaged scope creep, insufficient or non-existent due diligence, poor resource investment, and lack of executive support.
The frustrating thing is that even where these challenges were addressed I have seen technology implementations that still did not deliver the expected returns. Some of the projects under-delivered due to changes in the market or business environment, and some failed to deliver due to immature technology. But the overwhelming majority of the technology investments that do not deliver the expected returns suffer from the “Ready, Fire, Aim” syndrome. The investment was made without first understanding how it will enable the future business processes that support the expected business results.
The most common cause of the “Ready, Fire, Aim” syndrome can be referred to as the solution looking for a problem. Vendors, trade and industry magazine articles, conferences, and in-flight reading material can get business and IT leaders excited about the potential of a technology solution. This enthusiasm, combined with the desire to reap the returns as quickly as possible, leads to firing before aiming. The implementation of the solution can be executed with great precision — “fire.” But the solution misses the mark and under-delivers or requires additional investment to realize the returns — “aim.”
As the CTO of a financial services company, I review proposed technology investments on what seems to be a daily basis. I review technology investments that range from SAN (storage area network) hardware, to CRM/SFA (customer relationship management/sales force automation) packages, to NSM (network and systems management) software, to content management software, and everything in between. It is my responsibility to ensure that each technology investment has the best possible chance of delivering its expected return. I want to eliminate the potential for missing the mark due to the “Ready, Fire, Aim” syndrome.
To help analyze and understand a potential investment, I review each investment for three critical deliverables: expected business results, future business process definition, and requirements definition. I look for these deliverables not only for business technology investments (CRM, ERP), but also for pure technology investments (SAN, NSM).
The expected business results describe the expected return on the technology investment in business terms. They set the overall target for the implementation effort. The future business process definition and requirements definition should be traceable back to the expected business results. If they are not aligned, the investment is doomed to failure.
The FBPD (future business process definition) is the most difficult and most critical deliverable. The FBPD documents the “to-be” business processes that support the expected business results. The future business processes may be newly developed processes or they may be the output of a process re-engineering effort. The processes are typically documented using process mapping techniques (simple flowcharts, cross-functional flowchart, etc.) and should highlight the role the technology will play.
The Requirements Definition is made up of two parts: functional and nonfunctional system requirements. The functional requirements are derived from the FBPD and define the functionality the technology must provide to effectively enable the future business process. The nonfunctional requirements define the service-level requirements and the technical standards that are required by the process and/or the business.
The construction of these deliverables does require some thought and up-front effort. However, this up-front effort saves significant time during later stages in the project. The deliverables allow us to make better buying decisions and help us develop implementation plans that are better aligned with the business objectives. When these deliverables are present, we can effectively evaluate the proposed technology investment’s ability to meet its expected returns.
The pressure to deliver measurable, short-term ROI on technology investment is not going to lessen in the foreseeable future. CTOs need to work with business and IT leaders early in the life cycle to ensure the investment is squarely aimed at a relevant business target before pulling the trigger.
