I’ve had the opportunity to work with many asset management firms undergoing technology transformations from legacy systems, platforms, tools, and infrastructures. These initiatives range from targeted functional areas to cross-functional and enterprise-level transformations. Whether large or small, there are some basic transformation practices and principles that need to be established to ensure successful outcomes. Failure to properly implement these basic tenets will detract from your strategic objectives.
Based on my experience, I’ve seen four major themes which led tech transformations down unintended and unproductive paths. In no particular order, they are:
- Lack of strong program/project governance
- Inappropriate or absent use of project methodologies
- Poor executive sponsorship with unclear priorities
- Lack of appropriate program/project resources
While any one of the above themes can derail your project, oftentimes there is a combination of topics leading to bad outcomes. Some basic steps and conversations should take place in the initial planning stage of your tech transformation to prevent these common pitfalls. The following section provides additional color for each of the four themes, along with practical tips to avoid pitfalls.
Lack of strong program/project governance
All transformation initiatives require a clear structure that details roles and responsibilities, in addition to oversight and escalation mechanisms. At times, the governance structure may not be fully understood, it may be poorly communicated to relevant parties, may lack key stakeholders, or it might be over-engineered. Without an effectively defined and implemented program governance structure, your tech transformation will eventually go off course.
Practical tips: find the right-sized governance structure based on organization size and program/project complexity, ensure cross functional/team alignment, secure executive and leadership governance buy-in at the onset, and effectively communicate the structure and roles and responsibilities, ensuring all key stakeholders are represented.
Inappropriate or absent use of project methodologies
Project methodologies provide a needed framework to manage and complete the work. There can be a single methodology employed on technology programs or multiple (hybrid) methodologies can be leveraged across specific activities. Choosing the wrong methodology based on your objectives and requirements can derail your project and negatively impact stakeholder expectations. For example, using a Waterfall methodology when more ‘rapid and iterative’ deliveries are expected, or an Agile methodology where a more formalized structure and documentation are required. Having no consistently followed methodology is also a recipe for disaster.
Practical tips: ensure the organization can leverage the chosen methodology from both a training and cultural perspective. For example, don’t implement Agile unless the project team and stakeholders are aligned on the principles and concepts. Secondly, consider the option to customize the methodology and add/delete activities and checkpoints as needed. Methodologies don’t have to be cookie cutter steps. Lastly, leveraging hybrid methodologies can be an effective way to balance needs across different stages and phases of a transformation initiative. For example, analysis and requirements stage could be Waterfall approach, with development taking on Agile methods (note: in a prior blog, I referred to this approach as wagile).
Poor executive sponsorship with unclear priorities
A tech transformation journey requires strong executive leadership throughout the engagement and is critical to ensuring the ‘roadmap’ stays current and aligns with evolving business priorities. Sponsorship also provides a boost to team morale and demonstrates commitment and importance of the program. When leadership is disengaged, oversight and objective decision-making weakens the overall governance model, and issues and risks can get deferred or swept under the rug. Without executive sponsorship, a program can also become overly siloed—not evolving alongside changing business priorities.
Practical tips: confirm sponsors clearly understand their role and associated responsibilities. Ensure project sponsors remain ‘visible’ throughout the transformation via communications and update meetings. Agree on process to ensure constant alignment of business priorities and the transformation’s objectives and key results.
Lack of appropriate program/project resources
Tech transformations need dedicated and capable resources across numerous roles including project managers, business analysts, functional SME’s, solution architects, developers, etc. Oftentimes, teams face budget constraints in securing the full set of appropriate resources. Additionally, available resources on hand may not have the appropriate skillsets or bandwidth to satisfy the program’s demands. A lack of sufficient and properly skilled resources will hinder the quality and pace of work, which ultimately impact timelines and deliverables.
Practical tips: perform an upfront and honest assessment of resource needs and secure a combination of the right internal resources along with budget for external resource assistance. Internal resources should have a substantial allocation dedicated to the program and not be mired in BAU responsibilities. All resources must meet role capability requirements which may include industry/function/technical knowledge, project management and analysis capabilities, and communication and soft skills. ‘Available’ resources are not always synonymous with the ‘right’ resources.
In summary, taking time at the beginning stage of your tech program to discuss these four common pitfalls will prevent unproductive consequences down the road. Taking action to implement strong executive sponsorship, governance, methodology, and resources will help set a positive tone for your strategic initiative. Failure to act at the onset will increase the risk of your transformation swaying off course.
