The outcomes of IT projects can be stymied by the very process that brings them into life, according to KCOM, which has called for an urgent review of IT Request for Proposal (RFP) processes which are all too often tilted towards IT matters rather than taking into consideration the wider business goals.
KCOM claims this skewed approach stifles partner innovation and fails to meet an end user's future requirements.
KCOM bases its argument on its own examination of RFPs it received in 2016 and 2017 for strategic IT projects. The aim of the study was to determine whether the RFP process encouraged innovation and functioned as a platform for future technology developments which support overall business goals such as an improved customer experience.
The upshot is that just 14% of RFPs showed evidence of collaboration between IT and the wider organisation.
A lack of input from external sources such as suppliers is also a block to innovation, along with a reluctance to form strategic partnerships that might deliver better long-term results.
Only 30% of RFPs for consumer-focused projects required a measurement of how the IT project would improve the customer experience, with the remainder focusing on IT metrics.
More than half of the RFPs examined failed to ask vendors how they would ensure their proposal was future-proof.
"Our analysis reveals that the overwhelming majority of RFPs were developed in 'IT isolation', with measures of success being IT-centric rather than focused on broader business or customer outcomes, even where project objectives were specifically to improve customer experience or improve service delivery," stated Stephen Long, EVP at KCOM.
"This, combined with a common failure to encourage technology providers to propose solutions that are innovative and future-proofed, has led KCOM to conclude that the traditional approach to enterprise technology projects needs an overhaul. It is a process that has barely evolved in decades.
"Business strategies that focus on collaboration, customer centricity and future proofing are remarkably rare in a typical RFP. The process is too rigid, restrictive and defensive for business ambitions to be reflected, or for the supplier to act as an innovative partner, jeopardising the ultimate success and commercial benefit of the project.
"For many industries, customer experience is one of the last differentiators available to them, so enterprises can ill afford to limit the potential of technology projects intended to enhance this service delivery.
"The current enterprise IT RFP process is not fit for purpose. Realistically, the process is unlikely to be replaced wholesale, but it can be improved.
"Over specifying technical requirements, restricting dialogue with prospective partners and an over reliance on a scorecard procurement process does not demonstrate innovation and thought leadership."