Governments embark on enterprise initiatives with the aim of achieving diverse outcomes. However, realizing these goals, mitigating project risk, and effectively addressing issues require an effective governance framework. Often, government organizations fail in these initiatives because some agency heads or stakeholders do not prioritize the intended results. Gartner predicts that by 2027, 80% of governments will attempt a new enterprise application initiative, but more than 50% will fail due to poor governance.
Succeeding with an enterprise initiative is almost always challenging due to several factors. Needs and business processes often differ across programs or agencies, leading to conflicting mission-siloed priorities. CIOs must satisfy multiple stakeholders, including elected officials and citizens. Additionally, many program leaders focus independently and are unwilling to commit the necessary resources, causing the time, resources, and efforts required to execute an initiative to often exceed available commitments. The benefit-to-effort ratio and the initiative’s perceived importance will vary for each program or agency. Furthermore, affected programs or agencies may be reluctant to relinquish control over the business outcomes influenced by the initiative.
Government CIOs must implement the following governance strategies to align expectations and structure decision-making, ensuring that policies, business processes, business rules, and compliance expectations are clearly defined for each program or agency.
Empowering the Right Decision Maker
The leaders of agencies are not only given ultimate responsibility but also considerable autonomy and funding to make decisions and deliver results aligned with their individually assigned objectives. When agency heads are asked to choose between the needs of the many and those of their own agencies, their response is often driven by whose agenda they are satisfying. To ensure enterprises achieve their initiatives’ objectives, government enterprise leaders must establish the right governance framework. This involves appointing a sufficiently empowered senior responsible owner (SRO) and an executive committee with the accountability and authority to:
- Determine the organization’s strategic priorities and align them with the initiative objectives using a planning horizon of 18 to 24 months.
- Resolve any conflicts that may rise to the executive committee from lower levels of the governance structure.
- Adopt consensus-based decision-making within a defined decision rights matrix.
- Make the initiative effective, sustainable, and accountable.
- Hold other stakeholders accountable for participation.
- Resolve conflicts between enterprise needs and individual agencies’ needs as they arise during development.
Ultimately, success hinges on incorporating conflict resolution within the governance structure so that there is no need for someone with the authority to “break the tie” between a whole-of-government need and an individual agency need.
Define Your Destination Before Starting the Journey
One of the most common critical mistakes made by governments in their approach to enterprise initiatives is the lack of clear agreement on goals and intended outcomes. The second mistake is failing to update and adjust the planned future state as the initiative progresses. Delivering a successful initiative is easier when everyone agrees at the outset on the goals, outcomes, and how business processes will evolve through thorough and effective communication. A structured decision-making process, using a well-understood format such as a responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed (RACI) chart, is also essential before embarking. However, instead of taking the time and effort to negotiate and reach consensus in advance, many governments turn immediately to the vendor community. They start buying services with the hope that a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) product will resolve business rules and process conflicts, or that integrators can build some magic to make organizational and business process conflicts disappear. This anti-agile approach frequently hinders the desired outcomes.
A better practice involves bringing stakeholders together to design the future state of business outcomes before selecting a vendor. This includes conducting a gap analysis between the future state and available COTS products, creating composable capabilities, and using a product approach that allows each product to exploit the capabilities that best fit its needs. Resolve conflicts through a consensus-based decision-making process rather than customization and enable course correction changes as needed. Ensure the internal product board provides for continuous improvement and enhancement.
Establish Enterprise Initiatives as a Set of Products
Initiatives often aim to conceive and build new capabilities but frequently fail to meet expectations. When a project-based initiative concludes, the project team disbands, and future maintenance becomes a series of random user requests for customization. To avoid this, all initiatives—whether project-based or product-based—must be business-led and governed by accountable senior government leaders with clear agreement on projected outcomes. Product owners and stakeholder boards should be empowered to make necessary decisions, create a future state through a product roadmap, and remain engaged in deciding which feature and function enhancements are needed. This approach ensures the sustainability of the product or service throughout its lifecycle, up to and including its decommissioning.
Author bio: Todd Kimbriel, VP Analyst at Gartner
Read next: Top 10 technology trends for Government CIOs – Gartner
