Given these risks, it makes perfect sense for government IT projects to undergo a rigorous review process before they are approved. Those responsible for approving IT projects need to understand the problems identified, consider IT and non-IT options to meet business needs, weigh risks and rewards and prioritize limited resources. This is no easy feat.
While rigor and analysis are essential for thoughtful review and approval of IT projects, often we find this comes at the expense of speed. Some IT project justifications result in hundreds of pages of narrative and documentation and require multiple layers of approval. This review process can take years to complete. And once approved, these IT projects may require budget authorization, which itself can take another year or two for approval. Only then can the RFP be issued.
There must be a better way — one where we can speed up the process without sacrificing rigor and putting taxpayer dollars needlessly at risk.
We could take some lessons from Shark Tank, a TV show where entrepreneurs make their business pitch to five investors with different subject matter expertise who proceed to ask a series of questions before they decide whether to invest in the proposal.
Seriously!
Now, I don’t mean to suggest that government should approve complex IT projects after a one-hour meeting. Nevertheless, we can adopt some concepts from Shark Tank:
- Pitch format: Rather than spend months writing hundreds of pages of narrative, let’s get departments in front of project reviewers quickly like they do on Shark Tank. The department’s business sponsor should prepare a pitch to succinctly state the business problem and why they feel an IT solution is necessary. Together the departmental business sponsor and project team members respond to panelist questions. The department’s project team will still be required to provide written justification, and the pitch may take several hours or days, but the decision whether to pursue an IT project or not can be made relatively quickly. With the department’s business sponsor required to do the pitch in person, they will have more “skin in the game” and so may prepare accordingly.
- Cross-disciplinary review: Shark Tank includes investors with different areas of expertise whose collective knowledge and lines of questions help zero in on issues and determine whether the entrepreneurs have what it takes to proceed with their idea. Similarly, the panelists reviewing the proposed IT project could be subject matter experts in different areas — IT programming, project management, service delivery, fiscal expertise, etc. Their collective wisdom can help discern whether IT project proposals are ready for the next stage or need more work.
- Immediate feedback: IT project approval review typically takes months and sometimes years, often because project reviews among control agencies happen sequentially rather than concurrently. A Shark Tank approach, however, offers immediate, cross-cutting feedback. The reviewers can score each pitch according to pre-determined, shared criteria. These scores should be immediately shared with the IT project proposers, with the panelists providing detailed, in-person feedback on their scoring. The five panelists can decide immediately after the pitch to approve the project for the procurement stage, hold until additional justification or supporting information is provided, or deny the IT project altogether.
- Consistent approach to review and approval: The Shark Tank format is no mystery. The entrepreneurs know what the investors care about, what types of questions will be asked and how their pitch will be judged. Similarly, an IT project approval process should strive for consistency so proposers know what to expect. This predictability further increases transparency and builds credibility into the approval process.
- Refine details together: The Shark Tank investors quickly determine whether a problem needs solving and whether the proposed solution can address the problem. The successful entrepreneurs then make a handshake agreement with an investor to invest funds for a stake in the company. However, before any contracts are signed, the investor conducts more thorough due diligence. A similar approach may be useful when approving IT projects. That is, let’s quickly approve or deny the IT project concept. Then let’s get at least one of the review panelists (or representatives) to work with the department to address shortcomings identified in the pitch presentation. These refinements may take months, but they are done together with a panelist or panelist’s representative who can independently review and offer continuous feedback to help the IT project proposer refine the solicitation.
This Shark Tank approach may not work for all IT projects, but I’ve seen it work in practice. When I was director of the California Department of General Services (DGS), I recognized that the IT demands from our DGS divisions exceeded the staff and funding available within our IT division. We had to prioritize and do so quickly. To this end, we established an IT governance committee comprised of the CIO and deputies from each division.
Each year, the deputies would submit their top IT project proposals to the IT governance committee. Some IT projects were approved immediately based on a set of criteria (i.e., self-funded, off-the-shelf, limited IT resources required, etc.). Most, however, required IT governance committee review. In these cases, the deputy proposing the IT project would go through a Shark Tank process, pitching the IT proposal while responding to questions from IT governance committee members. At the end of these sessions, the IT projects were either approved, held over or denied. The committee then collectively prioritized the projects. Our department CIO would then work directly with the IT project proposer to refine requirements and prepare a solicitation. This process took roughly a couple of months to complete.
While this approach worked for DGS, it may be challenging to scale at the statewide level. But it could work for a subset of lower-risk projects. For example, IT projects that are self-funded by departments or have a relatively low costs or lower IT staff development hours could qualify. In any case, I think it’s worth reimaging the IT project approval process and using Shark Tank for inspiration. A more cross-disciplinary, interactive and consistent approach to IT project approval will help generate a culture and train both reviewers and proposers to know what they should do to get IT projects approved for the solicitation phase.
Daniel C. Kim is director of procurement for the Weideman Group. His 25-plus years of experience in state and local government includes serving as director of California’s Department of General Services and a term as president of the National Association of State Chief Administrators.
