Entry Criteria into Enterprise IT Projects
Participation in enterprise IT projects is demanding and complex, requiring more than basic technical skills and enthusiasm. Due to the high stakes and specialised work involved, the roles designated within these projects are not entry-level positions.
Individuals must meet specific criteria that demonstrate their readiness and capability, such as:
- An understanding of enterprise IT projects, including knowledge of project management frameworks like Agile, Waterfall, and PRINCE2, the lifecycle of IT projects, and the interactions between various project disciplines.
- Specific qualifications related to the project role are mandatory. For example, a project manager should hold PRINCE2 or PMP certifications, while a technical architect might need comprehensive knowledge of IT infrastructure frameworks and relevant certifications like TOGAF.
- Proven experience in enterprise IT project delivery, where participants have actively contributed to and managed the complexities of large-scale IT projects or at least have extensive experience in smaller projects.
Without standardised entry criteria for enterprise IT projects, organisations should establish their criteria for enterprise IT project participation. This creates a foundation for professional development and ensures participants' effectiveness in their roles, enabling projects to be staffed with qualified, skilled, and well-prepared specialists.
Setting the Bar Higher
To assess participant competencies, we will group them into three categories: project leaders, team leaders, and specialists.
Project Leaders
Project leaders are senior positions within the project's organisational structure. This group includes the following roles:
- Project Owner: The business executive accountable for delivering the product to the business and tracking benefits realisation over a defined period.
- Programme/Project Directors: Executives responsible for programme or project direction.
- Programme/Project Managers: Senior managers engaged in programme or project management.
To evaluate the competency of enterprise IT project leaders, the comparison in Table 22 below illustrates the differences in character traits between professional and underqualified individuals in these roles.
| Professional Project Leaders | Underqualified Project Leaders |
|---|---|
| Provide guidance on how work is done | Conceptually talk about how work should be done |
| Develop project team members and give credit | Utilise project team members and unfairly take credit |
| Are decisive about actions to resolve project issues | Hesitate to take action on project issues |
| Earn the respect of the project team | Fail to earn the respect of the project team |
| Lead by encouraging and motivating | Lead by instilling doubt and fear |
Team Leaders
Team leaders oversee disciplines or functional areas within enterprise IT project delivery. They face the challenge of balancing the strategic direction set by project leaders to deliver the approved scope within cost and time constraints while accommodating the nature of specialists, who strive for a seamless product that often results in increased scope.
Table 23 below compares the characteristics of professional and underqualified project team leaders to assess their effectiveness in enterprise IT projects.
| Professional Project Team Leaders | Underqualified Project Team Leaders |
|---|---|
| Qualified discipline experts by education, training, skills, and experience | Mistake self-perceived knowledge for true expertise |
| Proactively control scope creep and unfunded effort | Fail to identify and address scope creep and unfunded effort |
| Manage up and down effectively, ensuring alignment with executive expectations while supporting team needs | Primarily manage up, focusing on pleasing superiors without addressing team concerns or promoting a supportive environment |
| Coach and inspire the project team | Fail to provide guidance and demoralises the project team |
| Promote open communication and collaboration within the team | Create silos within the team, limiting information sharing and collaboration |
Specialists
Specialists, encompassing analysts, developers, and testers, are experts in their fields who produce key deliverables essential to constructing the project's final product.
Table 24 below outlines the distinctions between professional and underqualified individuals in enterprise IT projects to illustrate the disparity in competency levels among specialists in these roles.
| Professional Project Specialists | Underqualified Project Specialists |
|---|---|
| Contribute to problem definition and solution analysis within their area of expertise | Contribute to problem definition and impose solutions based on experience, often overstepping areas beyond their expertise |
| Demonstrate work processes based on best practices | Apply methods from previous experience that may not be suitable for the project |
| Collaborate with project team members and share credit | Work in isolation and claim credit |
| Take accountability | Evade accountability |
| Earn the respect of the project team | Gain a reputation that may not be positive |
Raising the bar for project leadership, team leadership, and specialist roles clearly defines the essential attributes of success and highlights the significant impact that qualifications have on performance. Recognising these distinctions enhances expertise and accountability across all project management levels.
Professional Standards in Enterprise IT Projects
By dictionary definition, a professional is someone who earns their living from a specific professional activity. This includes undergoing the necessary education and training to gain the skills and knowledge required for their role. Additionally, professionals are often bound by strict codes of conduct that uphold stringent ethical and moral standards. Professional practice and ethics within a particular field are usually established and upheld by widely recognised professional associations, ensuring ongoing dedication to integrity and quality. For example, a cardiac surgery procedure is uniformly understood by all licensed cardiologists who have gained their professional status through mandatory education, training, skills, experience, and adherence to ethical standards. Similarly, a standard brake repair is universally understood by all qualified mechanics because they have obtained their automotive certification through comprehensive training and conduct.
In contrast to medicine and trades, which require stringent educational and ethical standards, IT project roles lack uniform qualifications. Project participants earn salaries comparable to qualified professionals, yet many do not possess the necessary education or training. The open market nature of the sector allows individuals to enter without qualifications or experience, leading to the culture of the culture of 'fake it until you make it'. In this environment, individuals assume professional titles and responsibilities without having genuinely earned them, undermining the integrity of the field.
Trust Me, I’m a Professional
At the esteemed Pearly Whites Dental Hospital, a dental practitioner with thirty years of general dentistry experience offers dental implants at a discounted price. Lacking the rigorous education and specialised training of an Implantologist, the practitioner assures patients that they have mastered the procedure by watching Dr Molar Mender's dental implant series on YouTube.
Based on their self-acclaimed expertise, would you let Dr Buck Von-Shivers drill into your jawbone, navigate sensitive nerves, and install metal posts?
True professionals—such as Implantologists, Cardiologists, and Criminal Lawyers—possess postgraduate degrees and specialised training. They are fully accountable for their actions, and their fees reflect their expertise. Likewise, General Dentists, General Practitioners, and General Practice Lawyers uphold their professions through comprehensive education and training, facing accountability for their decisions with fees representing their substantial expertise.
However, the rules of engagement in enterprise IT projects are less stringent. Titles are often self-appointed or awarded without merit, and the pathway to professionalism is not necessarily paved with formal qualifications. The expectation of study and training is optional, leading to practices based on trial and error without accountability. Yet, the fees charged by these IT professionals are comparable to those in regulated fields.
This comparison highlights an important point: professionals charging premium fees must be backed by education, training, and proven skills. In medicine and law, this is a given. However, in enterprise IT projects, the lines are blurred, and the bar is set low, creating a status quo with little motivation for change.
If you wouldn’t trust an underqualified generalist with your dental health, why are organisations willing to invest millions in participants who improvise IT project delivery standards based on inadequate expertise?
