What do you do if conflicting priorities are derailing your IT Strategy projects?

It’s important to understand “why” there’s a conflict in the priorities and “what” is the impact of this conflict, before getting to “how” to (or what to do) address the conflict. Typically such conflicting priorities may come in due to change in business environment, regulatory changes, internal re-alignment etc. Some of the factors could be more manageable than others and those are the ones, that should be attempted to be addressed. A healthy and effective way could be to have a sit down with the relevant stakeholders, getting impacted due to the derailment of projects, to (re)assess and re-prioritise if needed. This helps in getting the required visibility of the impact and gets everyone re-aligned for the projects and end-outcomes.

One thing I have always found useful is look at conflicting priorities with a lens of what are the business outcomes we want to deliver using technology. The business outcomes and goals are a good north start to help sort out conflicting priorities. Second thing that helps is to envision a long term technology road map of 4-5 years that's aligned to deliver the business objectives and typically you will have your key areas like Core business platforms, digital & data, AI (now Gen AI too) & Analytics, CRM Tech as part of the road maps. One should look at conflicting priorities against this road map and do necessary tweaks to plans so the roadmap is still delivered and thereby helping meet the business objectives mentioned in first point.

Assess the impact, reprioritize tasks on hand and plan of action, articulate mitigation plan with stakeholders to arrive at consensus and work towards the agreed commitment. Lot of times we are faced with this issue and unlike a computer humans generally aren't very good in time slicing and context switching su better option might be to complete one thread before switching to another unless faced with a blocking call

It is critical to understand the real implications of the conflicting priorities on IT projects, and the impact in business strategy. This involves evaluating the potential risks, resource constraints, subcontractors and timeline adjustments required to accommodate these conflicting priorities.

The resolution of conflicting priorities should always be driven by business outcomes. There is never enough resources and things always take longer than you think, so be honest with the stakeholders and let the business outcomes drive your priority decisions, your job is to facilitate those conversations.

This is the only thing that matters - as a leader, you'll never know as much as the person at the coalface. Build trust with your leaders and if they get to the right place, they'll tell you their truth.

Understand the reason behind the shifts in priorities and engage the stakeholders to realign and recalibrate if that’s a necessary action to take. However, a constant pulse on things as a leader is important and make sure you understand these shifts early on and address them to better business outcomes.

Understanding what is driving different priorities and partnering closely with stakeholders is the key. When in doubt, get on the phone and talk thru it.

This is priority number one. Conflicting priorities come from the business and need to be addressed with the business. Get together with them and be prepared to propose creative ideas to either reduce or eliminate the conflict.

This could be a controversial statement but in my opinion conflicts are good. This means the involved departments/employees are trying to do their best in their role. I would be the bridge and get all stakeholders on a table and get them to agree on priorities. I would facilitate the conversation and ensure it is going the right way. Follow up by sending the agreed priorities to all stakeholders in writing and ask them to write back if they disagree. This is to make sure everyone is on the same page and leave no room for any misunderstanding.

It's not a strategy if you're not aligned, it's just playing out a narrow operation or tactic. You're likely introducing some technical/operational debt along the way. Take a breath, and a step back and reengage with your stakeholders. It's sad but too many organizations don't make the time to plan it right the first time but inevitably make the time to do it over again.

Misalignment is definitely the cornerstone at the origins of most conflicts, monitoring synergy between teams and creating the right environment to bring together strategies is a main asset to anticipate any deviation based on conflict. Make sure teams keep collaborating even during diverging situation will bring you to the safe side.

The misalignment challenge often lies with the ineffectiveness of the *translation* of business priorities into a portfolio of IT execution projects...portfolio management is ineffective if the IT initiatives do not result in tangible and measurable business value.

In large organizations, many technical teams operate at a distance from both customers and the business. Digital leadership should encourage their teams to link the impact of their work to overall business objectives and avoid technology for technology's sake unless there are strategic reasons for doing so. Leadership should also create an environment where failing fast is encouraged so that vast amounts of resources aren't wasted trying to make inefficacious strategies survive... something that happens way too often.

Conflicting priorities are at the root of why many projects get slowed, delayed, or ultimately derailed. Lack of clarity is often a symptom of operational silos at work. Rather than a cohesive strategy that is supported and contributed to by many areas, micro-strategies are developed across departments or business units. When this type of misalignment is observed, it's important to take a step back and readjust quickly, not only for the sake of the strategic IT projects, but also for the overall corporate culture. Running scattershot puts all strategies at jeopardy and doesn't allow for one successful implementation to inform the next and so on.

It's crucial to assess and realign based on strategic importance, resource availability and impact on business objectives. Communicate transparently with stakeholders to manage expectations and find a balanced path forward. Prioritization tools or frameworks, such as the Eisenhower Matrix, can help in decision making to focus on what's urgent and important.

Based on my experience, it is best to conduct a workshop with all stakeholders (or split them into a few groups) and use the Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) framework to define priorities. This approach is especially useful in environments where work items vary significantly in size and value. WSJF calculates priority by dividing the Cost of Delay (CoD) by the job size. This method helps teams focus on delivering the highest value in the shortest time.

Prioritization is a key factor but should be done after understanding the real conflict in the projects. Many times a creative solution from the IT side can merge business requirements providing a better solution in a shorter timeframe

As emphasized by a past leader and mentor, adopting a rigorous prioritization strategy is essential to keep strategic projects aligned and prevent distractions caused by constant, unfocused requests—what I often refer to as "squirrels." Prioritization isn't about shutting ideas down; instead, it's a structured approach to ensure the delivery of strategically significant objectives. To handle these distractions, flip the script by engaging stakeholders in a dialogue about whether any of their strategic initiatives can be deferred due to unexpected requests not aligned with the strategic roadmap. This conversation promises to be enlightening!

Critical Path Analysis: Identify critical tasks and milestones within the IT strategy projects and prioritize them based on their impact on overall project success. Resource Allocation: Allocate resources, including time, budget, and personnel, to address the conflicting priorities without compromising the core objectives of the IT strategy projects.

I strongly advocate for empowering the team members. That is why I entrust my teams to find a solution for conflicting priorities. When the team has a collaborative culture and they are driven to achieve the same goal, implementing IT strategy, they can find the most innovative solutions in a short time. However, this will require the team where the members are all empowered and accountable.

A status report model accompanied by a financial indicator can help in evaluating the quality of IT switching decisions and their impact on achieving the company's financial goals and strategic objectives

Once all the above is taken care of , things have to be implemented. But take care during implementation , stakeholders have to be shown the developments and ask them to test the configuration. Tasks might change based on the actual outcome. Final implementation can be done after thorough testing and sign off from stakeholders

During implementation, make sure the goals are aligned and seek champions prior to roll out. Be prepared to answer questions, repeat updates, and aim to over-communicate to provide clarity.

Lo que me ha resultado es que definir las nuevas metas, se debe reasignar recursos en función de esas metas y esas tareas prioritarias. Manteniendo el foco como área de TI en esa entrega de valor a los stakeholders. Y conservar esa retroalimentación para que el proyecto este al servicio del producto del proyecto y de las metas de la empresa

In monitoring progress, it is important to continuously assess if the approach that was implemented is effective and adjust accordingly. Regularly keeping stakeholders informed is critical, and their feedback is important. Working with the project team, providing transfer of knowledge, adjusting ways-of-working to increase efficiency and providing coaching can make all the difference in the world to a successful plan.

Managing the overall portfolio (IT and business projects in a combined view) provides a holistic view of resource allocation, dependencies, risks, and strategic alignment across all projects. This broader perspective enables stakeholders to anticipate potential conflicts or bottlenecks before they arise and make informed decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Ultimately, by integrating portfolio management with rigorous project monitoring and stakeholder engagement, organizations can proactively address conflicting priorities and ensure that IT strategy projects deliver the intended outcomes efficiently and effectively.

Managing the overall portfolio (IT and business projects in a combined view) provides a holistic view of resource allocation, dependencies, risks, and strategic alignment across all projects. This broader perspective enables stakeholders to anticipate potential conflicts or bottlenecks before they arise and make informed decisions about resource allocation and prioritization. Ultimately, by integrating portfolio management with rigorous project monitoring and stakeholder engagement, organizations can proactively address conflicting priorities and ensure that IT strategy projects deliver the intended outcomes efficiently and effectively.

Sometimes we get consumed with HOW we will measure progress, but first we ought to reflect on WHAT to measure. KPIs are often well-intentioned, but without the proper "maintenance", they become either superfluous or overbearing (or both). It would be valuable to remember Goodheart's wisdom here: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" (Charles Goodheart)

I would also consider seeking insights from external experts for a fresh perspectives and simplified solutions. Regularly reviewing and adjusting strategy approaches ensure it remains aligned with the broader business goals, and adapting proactively to new developments and priorities.

Conflicting priorities can derail even the most well-designed IT strategy. I’ve seen that the best-run IT organisations do these three things well: Shift from projects to Objectives: Frame projects around strategic goals (e.g., customer experience, supply chain resilience) for better alignment. Transparency and Visibility: Fresh design thinking techniques like Priority Poker can build consensus among stakeholders. Prioritize Ruthlessly (with empathy): Communicate clearly why certain projects take precedence and connect them back to the bigger picture.

IT strategy should be in line with overall business objectives and should be aligned with both systems and management strategy. Whenever in conflict one must make a matrix and give weightage to each of these components.

It is crucial to identify how and where did those conflicting priorities arose. If it is due to business environment change or an exigency due to a broader technological change then the IT strategy itself may need to be revalidated before deciding the priority to act upon and of course this step can not and should not take too many weeks. The other reason might be personal priorities of leaders of different functions which is creating this conflict. ( Most often this is the reason ). That is when one as a leader committed to the organisational purposes should steer clearly away from the personal priority conflicts and with appropriate dialogues, support from top leadership clear the conflicts.

A true conflict of priorities for strategic projects could be the symptom of an incomplete strategic roadmap. In developing the strategic plan, the answer on how to handle prioritization should be established, agreed upon by all stakeholders and reviewed routinely. In the event a "perceived conflict" arises, it can be weighed against the existing priority , using the defined measures, to produce the necessary information to make a decision. With enough consistent practice, this should become a decision model that can be disseminated across the entire team to ensure that resolution occurs at the lowest level and those items that do bubble up are the right things leadership should be focused on.