Expert observers of IT trends say organizations waste time, money, and credibility on IT because of a few fatal mistakes. They either buy the wrong technology for the job, or they buy the right technology but do not implement it effectively. They allow technical experts to design systems without the substantive, ongoing involvement of system users. They build systems that ignore the way people and processes really work. They don't take into account the other systems that are already in place. They start investing resources in an IT solution before they really understand their needs and options. They are overconfident that they will get it right and don't plan or budget for the inevitable post-implementation refinements that any system needs. They don't attend to environmental realities such as workforce limitations, election or business cycles, rapidly changing technologies, political processes, and competing priorities.

Clearly, IT innovation is risky business in every organization. Repeatedly, organizations abandon IT projects because these initiatives fail to accomplish the objectives they were intended to meet. In both the public and private sectors, a well-documented set of risks attends IT innovation.

Unrealistic expectations

Organizational perceptions of new technology are critical to achieving success. Positive expectations help lead to success, but too often overly optimistic expectations cause serious trouble. All the people involved in an IT initiative, from sponsors to users, need to have realistic goals and must share a common understanding of potential benefits, required policy and process changes, and the financial and organizational costs.

The technology is only a part, and often a small part, of the story. We've seen projects delayed or even halted due to unrealistic expectations about how quickly a project can be completed, about the human resource requirements, about how much collaboration was necessary and how costly it can be, and about how much and how many kinds of new learning and training would be required to build and use a new system.

Lack of organizational support and acceptance

Adoption of a new way of doing business or of a new technology is unlikely to succeed if it does not have widespread organizational support and acceptance. Much has been written about the critical importance of top management support and this is surely necessary. But, we've learned that success depends on many other organizational factors as well. It also takes skilled and committed team members and support and acceptance throughout the organization, especially among the people who will use the new processes and the new technology. Often this is the most important level of support, and often the most difficult to achieve.

Failure to evaluate and redesign business processes

IT management expert Michael Hammer says systems may not meet performance expectations because organizations "tend to use technology to mechanize old ways of doing business. They leave the existing processes intact and use computers simply to speed them up."

Meeting the needs of customers, employees, and decision makers means carefully studying and evaluating business processes. In most organizations, new processes are added as needed, but old processes are rarely evaluated to determine if they still make sense.

When new technology is brought into the picture, a cumbersome and inefficient process may be automated "as is." The results are systems that do not serve business needs, systems that are too expensive for the small productivity gains they provide, and systems that are not flexible enough to meet changing demands. This leads to poor performance in individual organizations and even worse problems when the system is expected to connect multiple programs or agencies, as is often the case in government.

In order to make system design work more manageable, we often ignore the ways in which one system affects related work processes. For example, an accounting system needs to factor in the ways in which accounting is related to budgeting, revenue collection, and financial management. The accounting function does not stand alone, and a system that supports accounting cannot behave as if it does.

Often organizations are not willing to invest the time and money necessary to do comprehensive process mapping and analysis. Many organizations see this as an unnecessary effort; in place of it they share procedures manuals (typically outdated and not reflective of what is going on) with system designers. Unfortunately, this sets up a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition. Ineffective or incorrect processes become embedded in the new system causing need for costly revisions or manual "work-arounds" that defeat the purpose of applying technology in the first place.

Lack of measurable alignment between organizational goals and project objectives

Another risk factor involves the alignment (or lack of alignment) between organizational and project objectives. The goal of IT adoption should be to enhance or improve an organization's ability to carry out its main mission or business objectives. For instance, it should improve customer service, reduce manual record keeping, speed up transactions, increase revenue, prevent errors, or support good and timely decisions. All of these kinds of improvements should be represented by baseline measures and target levels of performance. Without them, the technology tends to take on its own independent course, and fails to have its intended impact on how real people use information to accomplish real work.

Failure to understand the strengths and limitations of new technology

Information technology is constantly changing and improving. No one is able to keep up with the details of all new developments or to understand comprehensively how each new technical tool works. Add to this the fact that most new technologies must work in tandem with others, or must be incorporated into existing older systems, and the possibility for trouble mounts rapidly. Since most organizations are not in the IT evaluation business, they may rely on word of mouth, vendor claims, and trade publications for the bulk of their knowledge about which tools may be right for which jobs. There is little opportunity to learn first-hand before making expensive, irrevocable decisions.

Projects that are too specialized or ambitious to manage successfully

For years, oversight organizations like the US General Accounting Office (GAO) have warned against information technology initiatives that some characterize as "grand designs." These are the projects whose scope is so large, time horizon so long, or design so unique that they will almost certainly falter or fail. Such projects invite delays, unexpected complications, gaps in funding, management nightmares, and other problems. Instead, most experts recommend that systems be designed and deployed in modules and be built on standard technologies using well-tested methodologies. This risk is relative and applies to large and small organizations. A town or county system with a price tag of $15,000, in an overall budget of $400,000, with an IT staff of one is just as ambitious as a multi-million dollar project in a large state or federal agency.