Close Menu
TechCentralTechCentral

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube LinkedIn
    WhatsApp Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    • News

      Vodacom’s Maziv deal gets makeover ahead of crucial hearing

      18 July 2025

      Cut electricity prices for data centres: Andile Ngcaba

      18 July 2025

      Takealot taps Mr D to deliver toys, pet food and future growth

      18 July 2025

      ‘Oh, Ani!’: Elon’s edgy bot stirs ethical storm

      18 July 2025

      Trump U-turn on Nvidia spurs talk of grand bargain with China

      18 July 2025
    • World

      Grok 4 arrives with bold claims and fresh controversy

      10 July 2025

      Samsung’s bet on folding phones faces major test

      10 July 2025

      Bitcoin pushes higher into record territory

      10 July 2025

      OpenAI to launch web browser in direct challenge to Google Chrome

      10 July 2025

      Cupertino vs Brussels: Apple challenges Big Tech crackdown

      7 July 2025
    • In-depth

      The 1940s visionary who imagined the Information Age

      14 July 2025

      MultiChoice is working on a wholesale overhaul of DStv

      10 July 2025

      Siemens is battling Big Tech for AI supremacy in factories

      24 June 2025

      The algorithm will sing now: why musicians should be worried about AI

      20 June 2025

      Meta bets $72-billion on AI – and investors love it

      17 June 2025
    • TCS

      TCS+ | Samsung unveils significant new safety feature for Galaxy A-series phones

      16 July 2025

      TCS+ | MVNX on the opportunities in South Africa’s booming MVNO market

      11 July 2025

      TCS | Connecting Saffas – Renier Lombard on The Lekker Network

      7 July 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E4: Takealot’s big Post Office jobs plan

      4 July 2025

      TCS | Tech, townships and tenacity: Spar’s plan to win with Spar2U

      3 July 2025
    • Opinion

      A smarter approach to digital transformation in ICT distribution

      15 July 2025

      In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

      30 June 2025

      E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

      30 June 2025

      South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

      17 June 2025

      AI and the future of ICT distribution

      16 June 2025
    • Company Hubs
      • Africa Data Centres
      • AfriGIS
      • Altron Digital Business
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Altron Group
      • Arctic Wolf
      • AvertITD
      • Braintree
      • CallMiner
      • CambriLearn
      • CYBER1 Solutions
      • Digicloud Africa
      • Digimune
      • Domains.co.za
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • Incredible Business
      • iONLINE
      • Iris Network Systems
      • LSD Open
      • NEC XON
      • Network Platforms
      • Next DLP
      • Ovations
      • Paracon
      • Paratus
      • Q-KON
      • SevenC
      • SkyWire
      • Solid8 Technologies
      • Telit Cinterion
      • Tenable
      • Vertiv
      • Videri Digital
      • Wipro
      • Workday
    • Sections
      • AI and machine learning
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud services
      • Contact centres and CX
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Electronics and hardware
      • Energy and sustainability
      • Enterprise software
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Lifestyle
      • Motoring
      • Public sector
      • Retail and e-commerce
      • Science
      • SMEs and start-ups
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Events
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home » David Walker » When IT projects go bad

    When IT projects go bad

    By Editor23 February 2010
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Email Telegram Copy Link
    News Alerts
    WhatsApp

    Dave Walker

    [By David Walker] There can be no doubt that technology has changed our lives and the way in which business operates.

    In early commercial society, one person owned and operated their business and did whatever was necessary to run that business.

    With the passage of time, businesses have become larger and more sophisticated and their owners have employed others to manage them. This has evolved to the stage where fundamental aspects of businesses are often outsourced or subcontracted to third-party service providers.

    Though these arrangements often result in efficiencies and cost savings, they also pose considerable risk. This is particularly evident in contracts that deal with the development, maintenance or outsourcing of IT systems.

    Most reasonably sized companies are fundamentally dependent on IT for key functions, including procurement, sales, orders, stock control, invoicing and payroll. When these IT systems fail, crisis ensues.

    Despite this, a significant percentage of companies outsource or subcontract the development and maintenance of these IT systems to independent third parties, without fully considering the inherent risks.

    These arrangements are normally governed by complex agreements that contain sophisticated service levels and penalties. Though there is significant merit in these arrangements, they result in a reliance on third parties for services that are critical to the success of a business. These arrangements therefore give rise to significant business risk and need to be very carefully managed.

    SA’s King Committee on Corporate Governance acknowledges the fundamental impact of IT systems. The upcoming King 3 codes on corporate governance state that although a board should delegate to management the implementation of an IT governance framework, the board must be responsible for IT governance and must monitor and evaluate all significant IT projects.

    In fact, King 3 goes so far as to state that IT must form an integral part of a company’s sustainability and risk management strategies and processes.

    It is therefore imperative that companies give proper attention to their IT arrangements and the agreements that govern them. It is not sufficient for board members to rely on IT managers to fulfil this role.

    Though software development agreements contain detailed specifications and acceptance criteria, the very nature of these agreements implies that it is difficult for the company or the service provider to know exactly what the final IT system will “look like” before work begins. These agreements are therefore inherently risky from the perspective of the company that is engaging the software developer.

    Many companies adopt a “tick-the-box” approach to these contracts, in the sense that they check very carefully to ensure that the legal agreements contain appropriate clauses regarding the availability of key resources, intellectual property ownership, and so on. However, experience has shown that a substantial proportion of these transactions “go wrong”, in relation to there being significant cost overruns, migration or integration failures and delays in completion.

    Once a company has decided to contract a third party to develop software or perform a key IT function on an outsource basis, it should understand that it is entering into an inherently risky contract.

    Even if a software developer is required to document fully all development and make all documented source code available, this is often cold comfort if a dispute arises and the software developer or outsource service provider is unable or unwilling to continue to provide the service, or even to assist with a transition period.

    Companies frequently find themselves in a situation where they are required to accept substantial project cost increases and delays, or terminate an IT project and begin again. Though the company could have a damages claim, this is difficult to enforce and it is of little help when the business is in a crisis situation.

    It is therefore important for companies to evaluate the track record of any outsource partners or software developers at an early stage. Thereafter, any significant IT projects must be properly evaluated, documented and managed on an ongoing basis.

    As part of the evaluation process, companies should have contingency plans in place to ensure that their businesses are not substantially prejudiced if things “go wrong”. Though this may appear to be a negative approach, one should bear in mind that a significant proportion of these arrangements do in fact “go wrong”.

    One must therefore consider the worst-case scenario before embarking on any significant IT project.

    Once appropriate contracts have been negotiated, senior representatives of the company should ensure that they are aware of all significant progress — or lack thereof. Though it is imperative to involve IT departments in these processes, it is equally important for senior managers and directors to be fully involved.

    Directors should be aware that it is not sufficient for them to rely on IT departments for the management of these arrangements. If the IT arrangement in question results in a significant aspect of a business being outsourced, or the development of software on which a company will be fundamentally reliant, directors should be fully involved in the selection and evaluation of the contractor.

    They should also conduct appropriate due diligence on that contractor and be involved in the management of the relationship. If this is not done, and the company suffers a loss as a result, directors could face personal liability under the Companies Act.

    This act states that a director must, as part of complying with their duty to the company, make sure they are reasonably informed and that there is a rational basis for believing that each decision is in the best interests of the company.

    Directors must ensure that they have access to all relevant facts, and make all reasonable enquiries, in respect of each significant IT project. If they do not, they run significant business risk, as well as the risk of personal liability under the Companies Act.

    • David Walker is a director at Werksmans Incorporating Jan S de Villiers
    • Subscribe to our free daily newsletter
    • Follow us on Twitter or on Facebook


    Dave Walker King 3 Werksmans
    Subscribe to TechCentral Subscribe to TechCentral
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleExclusive Books to launch online e-book store
    Next Article Eskom tariff announcement sparks anger

    Related Posts

    ‘Afrikaans Uber’ sparks controversy

    27 January 2025

    Why South Africa needs to develop an AI framework

    29 October 2024

    How Neotel buckled to Gupta corruption

    2 February 2022
    Company News

    Vertiv to acquire custom rack solutions manufacturer

    18 July 2025

    SA businesses embrace gen AI – but strategy and skills are lagging

    17 July 2025

    Ransomware in South Africa: the human factor behind the growing crisis

    16 July 2025
    Opinion

    A smarter approach to digital transformation in ICT distribution

    15 July 2025

    In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

    30 June 2025

    E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

    30 June 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2025 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.