The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 November 2007 bespoke systems, reduction in overheads, civilian spin-ins, streamlining headquarters (HQs) and decision making, and NEC.’ 2. Military capability requirements ‘In response to meeting capability requirements the underlying factors were named as developing more effective solutions, introducing new technology, responding to battlespace transformation requirements (i.e. scale, intensity, timeliness <strong>of</strong> response, coalition interoperability), depth to which technology meets requirement, undertaking new tasks with legacy systems, speed at which technology is needed and system obsolescence.’ 3. Procurement A number <strong>of</strong> procurement factors were given as drivers <strong>of</strong> technology insertion. Although the RAO report does not fully explain how these aspects are seen to drive technology insertion, aspects such as ‘industrial capacity and sources <strong>of</strong> supply; manufacturing readiness for production; advances in manufacturing technology, interoperability and integration with other systems’ are given. This procurement driver <strong>of</strong> technology seems similar to the forces <strong>of</strong> ‘technology push’. New technologies, providing reduced supply and manufacturing costs that <strong>of</strong>fer increased capability, are attractive to those involved in the procurement <strong>of</strong> technologies and equipment. 4. Knowledge ‘Maintaining the MoD knowledge base’ is another important driver for TI according to the RAO’s report. A thorough understanding <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> new technology is seen to be essential if the UK is to maintain its position on the world stage [12]. This can be realised by noting the importance <strong>of</strong> the academic scientific evidence base; regularly reviewing advances in underpinning technology; keeping pace with current developments and appreciating the opportunities TI <strong>of</strong>fers. 5. Legislation <strong>The</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> new equipment and technology in the UK ‘is restrained by laws and regulations and the MoD issues further restraints’. Legislation such as ‘the control <strong>of</strong> vibration at work regulations’, amongst others, is seen as a driver for technology insertion programmes. <strong>The</strong>se programmes are undertaken with the aim <strong>of</strong> ‘ensuring that existing platforms and new systems meet new and existing legislation on issues such as health and safety, protection and duty <strong>of</strong> care.’ <strong>The</strong> above list suggests that individuals within the MoD have identified similar reasons for the introduction <strong>of</strong> technologies as have been found in the literature. Indeed these views suggest that ‘technology push’ is a key driver and that reduced costs and increased capabilities <strong>of</strong> new technologies prove attractive to procurers. That the same drivers exist within the MoD as other organisations is unsurprising, however, as will be discussed later in this report, procurers should be wary <strong>of</strong> inserting new technologies as a result <strong>of</strong> the forces <strong>of</strong> ‘technology push’. <strong>Technology</strong> push can cause problems, as by definition it involves technology development that is driven by ideas or capabilities in the absence <strong>of</strong> any specific customer need. As well as this, in many instances, the promised capability increases and cost reductions <strong>of</strong> new technologies do not emerge. <strong>The</strong> reasons for this will be discussed in the following section <strong>of</strong> this report. 9
HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 November 2007 4 <strong>The</strong> Problem <strong>of</strong> <strong>Technology</strong> <strong>Insertion</strong> 4.1 A Background <strong>of</strong> High Risk <strong>Technology</strong> insertion projects and technology projects as a whole are notoriously prone to failure. Clegg et al [13] estimate that only 25 to 50 per cent <strong>of</strong> projects successfully integrate new technology with the business goals <strong>of</strong> the organisation. Moynihan [14] describes the implementation <strong>of</strong> an Information <strong>Technology</strong> (IT) system as a stressful experience, 'it can be the most time consuming, expensive and frustrating part <strong>of</strong> any IT project'. Similarly, Lyytinen and Hirschheim [15] found that more than 50 per cent <strong>of</strong> technology system development projects are either partial or complete failures. Hochstrasser and Griffiths [16] found that risk levels are ‘heightened when working with new technology as effects on timing, costs and delivery deadlines are exacerbated’. <strong>The</strong>re are numerous different types <strong>of</strong> technology, and technology insertion challenges, as well as failures, are by no means limited to IT projects. In fact the evidence suggests similar patterns and rates <strong>of</strong> failure occur across many types <strong>of</strong> technologies, from computers to telecoms, materials, transport and bio technologies to name a few. <strong>The</strong> emphasis on IT, especially in this section <strong>of</strong> the report, is simply a consequence <strong>of</strong> the volume, availability and quality <strong>of</strong> research that has been published in the area <strong>of</strong> IT failure. <strong>The</strong> wide-ranging experience that people have with IT failure (itself a consequence) would appear to be a good place to start with this investigation. Looking at IT failure more specifically, a 1998 review <strong>of</strong> 100 failed IT projects revealed that 87 per cent exceeded their budgets by more than 50 per cent while 45 per cent <strong>of</strong> the projects failed to produce the expected results [17], [17]. In fact it is not unusual for IT projects to be abandoned before a product is delivered [19]. Sometimes IT artefacts are not used [20] and there is evidence to suggest that there is a greater risk <strong>of</strong> failure in IT projects than any other aspect <strong>of</strong> business [21], [22], [23]. Indeed a range <strong>of</strong> studies show that the IT component adds a different dimension <strong>of</strong> risk which ‘all too <strong>of</strong>ten can tip the balance towards project failure, rather than towards project success’. Interestingly, amongst all <strong>of</strong> the early predictions <strong>of</strong> technology’s impact on organisations, the high level <strong>of</strong> system failure was not widely predicted [24]. Consistent figures on the rate <strong>of</strong> failure are hard to come by, with some, such as Gibbs [25] reporting that the level <strong>of</strong> operational failure is up at 70 per cent. However, in a review <strong>of</strong> the literature Eason [24] states that: ‘<strong>The</strong> rate started at around 40 % and, despite vast improvements in the technology, has stubbornly refused to decrease through the many surveys conducted in the past 30 years.’ As Eason also states, these figures hide many variations in success <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> application but one safe general conclusion can be drawn; the bigger and more expensive the project, the more likely it is to fail. As well as outright failure, the evidence points to high risk <strong>of</strong> deadline and budget overruns in technology programmes. Many IT projects, for example, greatly exceed their budgets and planned development schedules [26]. Similarly, a study performed in 1995 [27] found that only 26 per cent <strong>of</strong> all Information Systems projects are completed on time and within budget, with all requirements fulfilled. Research by Legris, Ingham and Collerette [28] found that 46 per cent <strong>of</strong> technology projects were over budget, late, and 10
Page 1 and 2: The Impact
Page 3 and 4: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 13: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 65 and 66:
HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87:
show all

The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?