Venture Capital Project Management Model

Projects fail. Big projects, arguably, fail more often and with bigger consequences. The more projects in the hopper, the more failures you will see, in absolute if not percentage terms. Government, by its very nature, has thousands of projects underway at once. Back in the 2000s when I worked on mission critical projects with the good folks at Number 10 and (Sir) Peter Gershon, I think we had 120 or so in the first list we came up with. I would be surprised if the count is any smaller now.

Venture capital (VC) investments fail. Perhaps big investments fail more often. The important differentiator is that VC investments are usually made little and often – projects receive small amounts early on (usually from Angel investors which precede VCs) and then more money is gradually invested at higher valuations, as the company/idea grows and reaches various proof points. The last few years have seen this model strained as huge investments can be put into late stage companies (think WeWork … or maybe not).

This is quite different from how most projects are run. Projects go through lengthy due diligence phases up front, sometimes lasting a year or more (longer still when the project concerns physical infrastructure – railways, bridges, nuclear power plants etc). The output of that DD is a business case – and then the go button is pressed. Procurement is carried out, suppliers are selected, contracts are signed and govenrnment is on the hook, for 5, 10 or even more years.

Agile projects can be different in that contracts are shorter, but the business case generally supposes success (hence “optimism bias” as a key metric – if it goes wrong, then it just needs more money). But they can still carry a momentum with them which means that they carry on long after failure was inevitable.

VC companies are more ruthless. They know, after years of meaurement across the industry, that only one or two of their investments in any given period will count for the vast bulk of their returns. They call this “the hit rate” (Fred Wilson writes brilliantly about this, and many other things). Poor performers are culled early on – they don’t get additional funding. Sometimes the investment is in the team, and they are able to change their business idea (that is, “pivot”) and get to continue, buf often the company is shuttered and the team scatter and move on to new ideas.

This brings a tendency to look for huge winners (or the potential for them) – the VC knows that they need to win big, so they look for ideas and teams who will produce those big returns. If they strike out, well, perhaps 8 out of 10 were going to break even or lose money anyway.

  • Data from Correlation Ventures suggests about half of investments made by VCs fail, and about 4% generate a return of 10x or greater

Is there, then, a case for treating government projects the same way. Perhaps we could back multiple, competing projects in the same space, and fund the ones that were proving the most successful? We would have to change the contracting model and include break clauses (not termination clauses as that, in the current vernacular, implies failure – we know that projects are going to fail, we just don’t know which ones).

Sure, we would “waste” some money doing it this way. But we already do – we think we are wasting it right near the end when the project has consumed all of its budget and has nowhere left to go, but, in reality, we’ve been pouring money into something that wasn’t going to success for months or years beforehand.

We could also copy the way some VCs back teams – that is, find teams who have successfully delivered and work to keep them together, moving them onto the next idea, because it may just be that success breeds success. Teams who have proven capable at £10m of project spend should get to play with £50m. or £100m and £200m. We could rotate new team members in to give them exposure to what success looks like, before splitting successful teams and giving them more to run.

The current model, even with all the agile changes in the last decade, isn’t working as well as it could. There’s a reason that VC companies manage a portfolio – they know that they have to spread their capital quite wisely. Our project management approach feels more like passive investment in an index, rather than active management of a portfolio. We need to make some changes.

10 year iterations

Opportunities for the transformation of government come along roughly once every 10 years it seems. There have been two significant efforts to drive real transformation in UK government in last two decades:

  • The early 2000s several waves of major IT change initiatives, including NHS IT, border technology, ID cards etc. Electronic government was also targetted, building on the previous administration’s “Government Direct” paper. The original 1997 pronouncement said:
    • “by 2002, 25% of dealings with Government should be capable of being done by the public electronically, that 50% of dealings should be capable of electronic delivery by 2005 and 100% by 2008”
  • 2010 brought the the creation of GDS, a big focus on agile and digital exemaplers along with spend controls. Key pronouncements there included:
    • “Government ICT is vital for the delivery of efficient, cost-effective public services which are responsive to the needs of citizens and businesses.
    • Digitising transactional services will save people and businesses time and money; by making transactions faster, reducing the number of failed transactions and simplifying the end-to-end process.

Now, it could be that big waves of change come with changes of Administration – the Blair government in 1997 and the Coalition in 2010.

Or it could be that large organisations, such as the civil service, can only handle significant change on a decade long cycle – it takes time to define goals, communicate, shed previous work, mobilise new teams, align funding and get into delivery.

At the beginning of the change cycle, there is enthusiasm and excitement, occasionally more heat than light perhaps, but nonetheless, a desire to get things done. As the decade draws to a close, everyone is tired, change is harder and less and less is done. You can perhaps see some of that tiredness in Gerry Gavigan’s “short history of government digital strategies” published in 2012.

As this decade draws t0 a close and the new one begins, we might be ready for a new approach.

One that brings a clear strategy and plan but that also recognises the need to work out how to keep momementum going over a 10 year cycle, avoiding the big bang start and the drawn out slowdown.

One that mobilises teams across government and its industry and third sector partners and that allows for inevitable fatigure, rotation of staff and the funding cycle.

One that sets long term goals, but also makes clear the steps along the way that will be required to meet those goals and that, in so doing, will demonstrate the progress that is being made on a monthly, quarterly and annual cycle.

Hockey Sticks Abound

We love our targets. By 2040 we will no longer allow diesel and petrol cars to be sold in the UK. By 2050 we will be a net zero economy. By 2030 government will be joined up and trusted (as I wrote about yesterday).

Ever since 2000 when the goal was to get “100% of government online by 2005” these hockey stick goals (I’m quite sure I didn’t coin the term, but someone in the Office of the e-Envoy likely did) have become prevalent. They’re called hockey stick because the implementation plan looks – for all of them – like this:

The current set of goals are no different. Such long term goals are loved, mostly by those pronouncing them, because they’re thought to be visionary and inspiring. Send a man to the moon, bring him back alive, do it by the end of the decade and all that.

The trouble is they’re not inspiring and they’re not visionary. Not unless they come with a plan and some actions that will take place week to week, month to month and year to year to make them so. I don’t mind if the target is missed – anything far enough away has significant uncertainties in both the dimension of the goal and the timing – but I do mind when the goal is just thrown out there as a sound bite without any thinking about what it will take to achieve it and certainly when there’s no plan.

Transformed: Digerati to Deluderati

This is the week that agile truly died in UK government. GDS has been stumbling along with very limited impact for many months, perhaps even as long as two or three years. That was triggered by a failure to manage the inevitable turnover of leadership, both in the executive and ministerial ranks. See my previous writing, not least the emperor’s new clothes.

It’s one thing to stumble, it’s another to fall and not be able to get up. And that’s where we’ve arrived. The interim head of GDS, Alison Pritchard, announced the new plan for digital government at the Sprint 19 event. I say sprint, but it’s increasingly clear that we’re moving at waddle speed, at best. She said, according to Mark Say at UK Authority:

“Government in 2030 will be joined up, trusted and responsive to user needs … This is the closest I have seen for quite a while to articulating the end goal for what we are trying to achieve”

Close but not actually the end goal? No different from the joined up, citizen focused government of 2000 some would say. Or of the goal set in many other iterations of e-government, transformation or digital government.

What this isn’t is clear thinking, iterative, ambitious, useful or, in any way, likely to succeed. What will we get next month? Or in 6 months? Or in a year? A tiny step closer perhaps. But seemingly we need 10 more years to get “close” to our “end goal”. As if there’s an end. Where did we lose agile and iterative? Where did the recognition that the goal shifts as you progress go?

What’s the single thing that we can predict about 2030 as I write in September 2019? It’s that none of the people currently in post in government, let alone in GDS, will be in post when that time rolls around.

The greek temple model makes an appearance, with 5 pillars. Legacy systems will, apparently, no longer be a barrier to transformation – notwithstanding that there will doubtless be new ones by 2030. Oh, and ubiquitous digital identity. Verify rises from Valhalla.

This isn’t Alison’s fault. She’s just arrived. She sees no way ahead in the short term. No sponsorship. Better to play the long game.

Oliver Dowden went on to say:

“It’s starting with key life events such as having a baby or setting up a business, or what do when a loved one has passed away. It enables government to deliver smarter public services by getting things right from the start.”

Forgive me for thinking it’s 1999 all over again. Somehow the digerati have become the deluderati.

I’m WORN out

We’ve gone through a lot of acronyms for storage – ROM, RAM, EEPROM, CD-ROM, WORM etc.

How did we, then, manage to get to a place where the lessons learned in delivering, and failing to deliver, projects are in the WORN format?

Write Once, Read Never.

All Apple

As a long time Apple user and someone fully wrapped into the ecosystem with both no prospect and no desire to leave it, I find myself with a proliferation of monthly debits that could do with consolidation.

Where is the “All Apple”, “Apple Always”, “Always Apple”, or “Apple All The Time” service, something a little like Amazon Prime that wraps those services into a single monthly, or even annual, payment?

I have

  • Music (tried Spotify, preferred Apple)
  • iCloud (have dropbox, but phone and photo backups go to icloud)
  • Arcade (just trying the 1 month free period now but it looks interesting and, well, Oceanhorn 2)
  • TV+ (will doubtless become a free 1 year deal for me at some point soon but if it’s good I will extend it)
  • and there will be more

Surely there are frictional costs in this that Apple is incurring that it would suit them to consolidate (and reduce) too?

Wading Through Treacle

Long ago, a wise and experienced civil servant cautioned me upon my arrival at the Inland Revenue that my job would often feel like “wading through treacle.” He wasn’t wrong, though he posessed the supreme skill of somehow skating over that treacle and so got things done.

I often think back to that quote. It’s not unfair to say that the civil service is heavily driven (some would say constrained) by bureaucratic and cumbersome processes that, if anything, are designed to contain change rather than enable it. “Governance” is the thing – slow down the ability to do things and certainly the ability to spend money and thus keep everything on an even keel. Of course, all of that governance and process designed to slow the spending of money has not prevented eye watering project failures and associated write-offs.

More recently the move to more agile methods has resulted, in some places and in some ways, those processes being thrown away. More lightweight processes have replaced them with the aim of giving product owners and developers more freedom to get things done.

The trouble is, the new and old processes usually come together at key points – most obviously at the business case sign off stage. There, it’s more like two strips of velcro coming together and interlocking so perfectly that nothing moves – forwards, backwards or sideways.

I recently wrote a standard “5 case” business case for an iterative and highly experimental project (at a relatively low spend – certainly one of the smallest projects I’ve ever worked on, in public or private sector). It’s tough to write such a thing when you’re not sure what the final outcome will be – on the basis you’re running an experiment and will certainly have to change course during the project, and probably several times. It’s also tough to evaluate competing options in such an environment. And yet such documents are part of the rite of passage for a project.

“We must demontrate Value for Money” is the mantra. Technically, you can only do that in the past tense – show what value you have delivered, not show what value you will deliver.

Business cases for such projects can’t be done of course, at least not in the expected supposedly gold standard 5 case way. Efforts have been made to update the templates, but they are still far from adequate where spend certainty increases with the time spent on the project (subject to good management) but scope certainty can remain high throughout.

I fear whilst this is a process that is ripe for, ahem, transformation, it’s not likely to be on the list of processes successfully transformed any time soon.