In my previous post (Why projects fail?) I explained the background to the C-NOMIS Information System project initiated by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) in 2004.

In April 2009 the National Audit Office published a report that declared the failure of the original C-NOMIS and described how the project had demonstrated seven out of the eight primary causes of project failure. C-NOMIS has now been re-scoped and is earmarked for delivery in 2011. However, important questions remain regarding the way in which the project was managed, the length of time for which mis-management of the project was tolerated, and the value-for-money that can be expected from vast government programmes of this kind.

This article deals with the first of the OGC’s eight causes of project failure: the absence of any clear link between the project and the key strategic priorities of the parent organisation.

The "key strategic priority" of NOMS was to reduce the rate of re-offending in the UK, through the implementation of end-to-end offender case management. This would entail matching a single case manager for every offender and making offender information available to the appropriate individuals within both the prison and probation services.

The C-NOMIS project was set up to create a single, integrated database for all offender information. By integrating the information management systems across over 140 prisons and the 42 administrative areas of the National Probation Service, NOMS hoped to redefine how information about offenders is managed, in order to improve the continuity, consistency and efficacy of offender case management.

To this extent, C-NOMIS was clearly aligned to the strategic objectives of the organisation. However, the absence of any project-programme plan and failure to define the link between the project and the programme led to C-NOMIS being regarded as an independent IT project, rather than as a part of an IT-enabled business change programme.

As the government-standard PRINCE2 and MSP guidance makes clear, any project that is treated as independent of its programme or business context is in danger of being implemented for its own sake, regardless of whether it actually benefits the organisation’s strategy.

Furthermore, independence can also lead to insufficient external support to maximise the value of the project’s outputs. In the case of C-NOMIS, this was seen in the absence of any attempt to integrate the various information management systems currently in use. Even if C-NOMIS had delivered the expected IT solution, its benefits were automatically compromised by the difficulties imposed by the existing systems. As it was, the various systems complicated the design of the C-NOMIS database, encouraging the scope-creep that eventually led to the demise of the project.

Summary and solutions

Effective project-programme alignment is clearly crucial to project management success. But how do programme managers, business leaders and project managers make sure that their projects are strategically worthwhile and supported as such?

• There must be continued business justification via a detailed and thorough Business Case which must include a full appreciation of the expected benefits and costs involved

• The Business Case must be monitored at regular intervals throughout the lifecycle of the project (NB: this is one area covered in our PRINCE2 training courses)

• Portfolio management tools such as the Prioritisation Model can be used to evaluate the relative worth of individual projects and programmes

• An effective project management office should be established to ensure centralised support to projects and to provide a reliable source of information about an organisation’s project management activity (NB: learn more about creating a portfolio, programme and project management office through the P3O best practice model)

Looking ahead …

The ill-defined link between the C-NOMIS project and the key strategic priorities of the National Offender Management Service was one partial cause of the project’s failure. In my next post I am going to look at the next of the OGC-defined causes of project failure – the lack of clear senior management, ownership and leadership.