by are you my rik? via Flickr
Troubled projects afflict organizations worldwide in both commercial and public sectors as they regularly experience higher than anticipated costs, unmet schedules and unfulfilled requirements.. The high rates of project failure—particularly among information technology (IT) projects—often impact an organization’s essential business strategy and operations.
Study after study details bleak project results, while government reports and company case studies offer numerous specifics of unsatisfied stakeholders from project outcomes. The added pressure from the economic downturn to do more with fewer resources makes these dismal results all the more disconcerting. However, research and experience show that effective project management can save organizations untold millions in lost revenue.
Troubled Projects In the United States and Abroad
High rates of project failure have been well documented in recent years. Widely quoted studies from The Standish Group over a several year period show that:
-
More than half the projects are challenged, usually due to cost or schedule overruns.
-
Project failures account for 15 percent of all projects.
-
Project success rates comprise approximately 34 percent of all projects.
-
The lost dollar value for U.S. projects in 2002, for example, was estimated at $38 billion, with an additional $17 billion in cost overruns, for a total project waste of $55 billion against $255 billion in project spending.
And, as Greg Balestrero, Executive Director of the Project Management Institute (the largest association of project managers in the world) reports, the rate of failed projects has not changed in recent years.
Documentation from KPMG Information Risk Management found that in 2002, 59 percent of the organizations in the Asia-Pacific region experienced at least one project failure at an average cost of $8.9 million. Africa, Europe and the Americas followed suit with an average of 56 percent of the organizations reporting at least one project failure with an average cost of $11.6 million.
In 2007, the Economist Intelligence Unit published the results of their survey of 145 senior global executives from different industries on their current and planned IT projects which showed:
-
Twenty percent of the executives reported that over half of their IT projects started in the past two years were late or over budget.
-
Only 13 percent of the executives felt their IT projects had delivered the promised features and functions.
-
Poor project management was cited as the primary cause for IT project problems.
Why the Failure?
Details from organization-specific studies bring the reasons for troubled projects into clearer focus. For example, an audit of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that the FBI failed to effectively manage its IT investments and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects with little assurance they would deliver their intended benefits (U.S. Department of Justice Audit Report 2002). In GAO’s study of 226 IT projects valued at $6.4 billion from 24 federal agencies, it found more than one-third (79) of the projects, deemed critical, had a performance shortfall where they did not meet one or more of the following criteria:
establishing clear baselines, maintaining cost and schedule variances within 10 percent, assigning a qualified project manager, avoiding duplication with other projects.
Examples at the state level provide additional information on why projects fail. The state of Texas reported that, of the 48 large-scale projects reviewed, project delivery delays averaged 14 months, with cost overruns exceeding $352 million. Contributing factors included: a general lack of project-level quality control, poor project management, nicreased levels of project complexity (Texas State Auditor’s Office 2003).
The state of Wisconsin’s review of 184 IT projects valued at $292 million that have been started or completed since 2004 determined that troubled projects have cost the state more than $122 million. Lack of project management and oversight were cited as the main cause of troubled projects (2007).
A high IT project failure rate even led the Colorado State Legislature to take the highly unusual measure of passing a law requiring the state government to develop policies on best practices and the verification of project managers and analysts. The law affects major automation system development projects (Digest of Bills 2006).
Actionable Steps For Project Success
In response to these overwhelming project shortfalls and failures, companies and government entities have
· increased oversight of IT projects,
· established professional requirements for project managers,
· emphasized compliance with establishing project management procedures,
· implemented software tools.
While these actions are positive, the costs and outcomes associated with each remedial action indicate not all of them should be, or even need to be, implemented. Research from two unique sources, the PMAppraise® database and the Project Evaluation System® (PES®), strongly suggest that training on project management best practices is a solution organizations should consider to increase the probability of project success.
The PMAppraise® database, maintained by ESI International, a global project management learning company, contains knowledge and skill assessments of IT project management professionals working for large and mid-sized companies across all industry sectors located throughout the world. PES®, developed by Independent Project Analysis, Inc. (IPA), a project benchmarking company, is a methodology that measures the effectiveness of a company’s practices and procedures in planning, defining, engineering, constructing, and initiating projects.
The previously cited research by the Economist Intelligence Unit and reports of the states of Wisconsin and Texas revealed the lack of project management skills among the IT staff to be the primary obstacle to improving IT project management performance.
Training is one of the chief methods for improving a project manager’s ability to implement a successful project and should be viewed as an investment, not an expense.
According to Mary Ellen Yarossi, Director, IPA Institute, “Best practices have been shown to reduce costs by 10 percent, reduce execution and implementation time by 8 percent, and improve performance by 10 percent. These project improvements can take a 15 percent rate of return project and turn it into a 24 percent rate of return project. That translates into a 60 percent improvement.”
The PES® database reveals that not applying proper project management techniques can result in negative outcomes in terms of significantly higher costs and substantial schedule delays. The PES® data shows, for example, that projects with a well-defined Project Execution Plan (PEP) shorten the project duration by 14 percent while decreasing cost growth by 17 percent compared to a project with a less well-defined PEP.
The PMAppraise® results show a substandard average score for each of the project management assessment areas. Not surprisingly, the lack of project practices and techniques results in high project failure rates. Increasing a project manager’s knowledge and skills base will enable him or her to apply proven project management procedures and techniques. Undertaking this proactive, cost-saving approach can lead to a higher probability of project success.
Related posts:
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Personally, I am tired of reading articles that quote the Standish study. In my opinion, it is an extremely successful publicity stunt. Google on the author Robert Glass and Standish Chaos Study, and you will find a huge number of articles challenging its figures. Here is one sample:
http://www.infoq.com/news/Standish-Chaos-Report-Questioned
Key points:
- The study was ONLY about IT projects
- The study has never been peer reviewed
- The study has never been replicated by independent researchers
- Standish has made its living off of the PR generated by the study
- Hardly anyone purchases the real, up-to-date study because it is so expensive
- Most quoted figures reflect the very first version of the study
- Their definition of “failure” is kind of silly (in my opinion)
To elaborate on the “failure” definition, a project that is abandoned for any reason is considered failed. If a company starts a project to meet a regulatory requirement and then the regulatory requirement is dropped, they SHOULD abandon the project. According to the study’s definition, that is a failure. Also, if a project overdelivers on scope, comes in early, and is slightly above its budget, it is “challenged” according to the Standish study. In my opinion, projects like Windows 95 are huge commercial successes, but they would be in the “challenged” category because it was late, over budget, and less than promised scope.
The ESI reports suffer from many of the same problems. ESI is an education company, so it should not be any surprise that they issue a report saying that education can help. They provide templates as part of their business, so I have trouble accepting their finding that templates will help.
Anyone reading these studies should question whether there is really any kind of crisis or problem. The studies and articles are written by people with a great deal of self-interest in creating the appearance of a crisis. The people writing the studies are the ones selling a solution.
I respect LeRoy Ward, and I love so much of the work that he has done. I do not want to appear to be attacking you, LeRoy. I do need to attack the foundation of your article, though, because it relies on heavily biased research. Look at academic sources, and you will generally see failure rates that are much lower than those stated here.
After all, if so many projects failed, why would businesses launch thousands of them every day?
–Alex
http://www.alexsbrown.com
Great points Alex. If we want project management to be a profession in any respect, we have to follow the same protocol established for many of the social sciences. Independent validation and avoiding potential conflicts of interest are crucial.
I also agree on the definition. A few years ago I wrote the following:
“Although I have much respect for PMI and am a member of the organization, there is a statement in the PMBOK to the effect that a project is successful if the written requirements are met, regardless of whether or not the actual customer needs are fulfilled. To me, this is lunacy and reality avoidance. Project management within any organization can not be successful in the long-term if the only goal is to meet the written requirements. The goal should be to help the stakeholders and sponsor flesh out their true requirements fully, and then meet those needs. The objective of any project is to add value to the organization, period. I have been a team member on projects where the ‘requirements’ were met, and yet the end user was thoroughly dissatisfied with the results. This is not a successful project, regardless of what PMI says.”
Great discussion everyone!
Josh,
Your attitude and approach is one of the many reasons I love coming back here. You are open to new ideas and do not rush to judgment or to defend any one standard or textbook.
Thanks for keeping this place going, and for getting great writers like LeRoy Ward to start thought-provoking discussions with their articles.
–Alex
Hi Josh and Alex,
One of the most basic and fundamental tenets of management is that a person cannot be held accountable for that over which he/she has no control.
So while I can fully appreciate your definitions of satisfying the needs for which the project was undertaken, UNTIL and UNLESS the project manager is brought on board at the earliest stages of the project AND given input on the budget creation, allowed to select his/her own resources and is given a reasonable time in which to do the project, we will continue to have the rather abysmal failure rate that we see.
And I have been around long enough to realize that MANY organizations are unwilling to admit the true success rate of their projects. One client in particular stands out. A major oil company with considerable hubris, explained to me that “100% of their project finish on time and within budget”. And after working with them for 3 years, I found out the truth…. About 2 months before they finished ANY project, they revised the budget to reflect the ACWP, revised the schedule to reflect the “as built” situation and “VOILA”, true enough, 100% of their projects finished on time and within budget. Unfortunately, I find far too many clients follow this same kind of practice.
BR,
Dr. PDG, heading to bed in Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
That statement was not in MY version of the PMBoK Guide!!!!
Personally, I am tired of reading articles that quote the Standish study. In my opinion, it is an extremely successful publicity stunt. Google on the author Robert Glass and Standish Chaos Study, and you will find a huge number of articles challenging its figures. Here is one sample:
http://www.infoq.com/news/Standish-Chaos-Report-Questioned
Key points:
- The study was ONLY about IT projects
- The study has never been peer reviewed
- The study has never been replicated by independent researchers
- Standish has made its living off of the PR generated by the study
- Hardly anyone purchases the real, up-to-date study because it is so expensive
- Most quoted figures reflect the very first version of the study
- Their definition of “failure” is kind of silly (in my opinion)
To elaborate on the “failure” definition, a project that is abandoned for any reason is considered failed. If a company starts a project to meet a regulatory requirement and then the regulatory requirement is dropped, they SHOULD abandon the project. According to the study’s definition, that is a failure. Also, if a project overdelivers on scope, comes in early, and is slightly above its budget, it is “challenged” according to the Standish study. In my opinion, projects like Windows 95 are huge commercial successes, but they would be in the “challenged” category because it was late, over budget, and less than promised scope.
The ESI reports suffer from many of the same problems. ESI is an education company, so it should not be any surprise that they issue a report saying that education can help. They provide templates as part of their business, so I have trouble accepting their finding that templates will help.
Anyone reading these studies should question whether there is really any kind of crisis or problem. The studies and articles are written by people with a great deal of self-interest in creating the appearance of a crisis. The people writing the studies are the ones selling a solution.
I respect LeRoy Ward, and I love so much of the work that he has done. I do not want to appear to be attacking you, LeRoy. I do need to attack the foundation of your article, though, because it relies on heavily biased research. Look at academic sources, and you will generally see failure rates that are much lower than those stated here.
After all, if so many projects failed, why would businesses launch thousands of them every day?
–Alex
http://www.alexsbrown.com
Great points Alex. If we want project management to be a profession in any respect, we have to follow the same protocol established for many of the social sciences. Independent validation and avoiding potential conflicts of interest are crucial.
I also agree on the definition. A few years ago I wrote the following:
“Although I have much respect for PMI and am a member of the organization, there is a statement in the PMBOK to the effect that a project is successful if the written requirements are met, regardless of whether or not the actual customer needs are fulfilled. To me, this is lunacy and reality avoidance. Project management within any organization can not be successful in the long-term if the only goal is to meet the written requirements. The goal should be to help the stakeholders and sponsor flesh out their true requirements fully, and then meet those needs. The objective of any project is to add value to the organization, period. I have been a team member on projects where the ‘requirements’ were met, and yet the end user was thoroughly dissatisfied with the results. This is not a successful project, regardless of what PMI says.”
Great discussion everyone!
Josh,
Your attitude and approach is one of the many reasons I love coming back here. You are open to new ideas and do not rush to judgment or to defend any one standard or textbook.
Thanks for keeping this place going, and for getting great writers like LeRoy Ward to start thought-provoking discussions with their articles.
–Alex
Hi Josh and Alex,
One of the most basic and fundamental tenets of management is that a person cannot be held accountable for that over which he/she has no control.
So while I can fully appreciate your definitions of satisfying the needs for which the project was undertaken, UNTIL and UNLESS the project manager is brought on board at the earliest stages of the project AND given input on the budget creation, allowed to select his/her own resources and is given a reasonable time in which to do the project, we will continue to have the rather abysmal failure rate that we see.
And I have been around long enough to realize that MANY organizations are unwilling to admit the true success rate of their projects. One client in particular stands out. A major oil company with considerable hubris, explained to me that “100% of their project finish on time and within budget”. And after working with them for 3 years, I found out the truth…. About 2 months before they finished ANY project, they revised the budget to reflect the ACWP, revised the schedule to reflect the “as built” situation and “VOILA”, true enough, 100% of their projects finished on time and within budget. Unfortunately, I find far too many clients follow this same kind of practice.
BR,
Dr. PDG, heading to bed in Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
That statement was not in MY version of the PMBoK Guide!!!!
Hi LeRoy,
Have you seen the research by Professor’s Brian Hobbs and Claude Besner, over at the University of Quebec, Montreal. There research says that even most PMP’s do NOT use the very tools and techniques that the PMBOK recommends.
Another very fine piece of research on project failures in the CONSTRUCTION sector, which is generally considered to be more mature than the IT or Telecommunications, was done by investment banker and consultant, FMI. http://www.fminet.com/
The part I liked most about the FMI research (which I cite frequently in almost all my courses) is that the project manager MUST be more of a businessperson. It is not only the technical skills, and the soft skills, but without business acumen- a sense of being able to make sound and rational business decisions, project managers will continue to fail.
Enjoy!!!
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Hi LeRoy,
Have you seen the research by Professor’s Brian Hobbs and Claude Besner, over at the University of Quebec, Montreal. There research says that even most PMP’s do NOT use the very tools and techniques that the PMBOK recommends.
Another very fine piece of research on project failures in the CONSTRUCTION sector, which is generally considered to be more mature than the IT or Telecommunications, was done by investment banker and consultant, FMI. http://www.fminet.com/
The part I liked most about the FMI research (which I cite frequently in almost all my courses) is that the project manager MUST be more of a businessperson. It is not only the technical skills, and the soft skills, but without business acumen- a sense of being able to make sound and rational business decisions, project managers will continue to fail.
Enjoy!!!
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Hi LeRoy,
I wonder why Greg stated “the rate of failed projects has not changed in recent years”.
After close to 50 years of PMI’s dominance over the world of project management, isn’t this saying we are doing something wrong?
But on the positive side, at least PMI is beginning to admit that things ARE wrong. That is a refreshing change.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Paul –
PMI was founded in 1969, so it falls a bit short of 50 years of dominance. In addition, its rapid growth only began in the mid-1990s with the release of the original PMBoK Guide. Until that point, PMI was slightly smaller than IPMA.
So you can only credit them with something less than 15 years of dominance.
Duncan
While technically you are probably correct, I’d say relatively speaking, you may not be……. I remember from 1988-89, PMI and AACE were almost exactly the same size, at ~5-6,000 members, and while they were the same size, PMI was by far the more aggressive, dynamic organization……
And even now, IPMA has only started to flex their muscles in the past 10 years or so….
On a related note, our mutual friend, John Hollman, from AACE, has been researching Cost Engineering and he has traced it back to 1910, even though the organization itself dates back to 1953 as I recall.
So here again, first in time does not necessarily translate into first in place……
So if we look at it in terms of relative influence, I stand by my claim that despite the fact they were not first, PMI has been the DOMINANT organization, even though the world they dominated was much smaller.
Hope that makes more sense?
BR,
PDG, Jakarta
Hi LeRoy,
I wonder why Greg stated “the rate of failed projects has not changed in recent years”.
After close to 50 years of PMI’s dominance over the world of project management, isn’t this saying we are doing something wrong?
But on the positive side, at least PMI is beginning to admit that things ARE wrong. That is a refreshing change.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Paul –
PMI was founded in 1969, so it falls a bit short of 50 years of dominance. In addition, its rapid growth only began in the mid-1990s with the release of the original PMBoK Guide. Until that point, PMI was slightly smaller than IPMA.
So you can only credit them with something less than 15 years of dominance.
Duncan
While technically you are probably correct, I’d say relatively speaking, you may not be……. I remember from 1988-89, PMI and AACE were almost exactly the same size, at ~5-6,000 members, and while they were the same size, PMI was by far the more aggressive, dynamic organization……
And even now, IPMA has only started to flex their muscles in the past 10 years or so….
On a related note, our mutual friend, John Hollman, from AACE, has been researching Cost Engineering and he has traced it back to 1910, even though the organization itself dates back to 1953 as I recall.
So here again, first in time does not necessarily translate into first in place……
So if we look at it in terms of relative influence, I stand by my claim that despite the fact they were not first, PMI has been the DOMINANT organization, even though the world they dominated was much smaller.
Hope that makes more sense?
BR,
PDG, Jakarta
Hi Alex,
Businesses launch thousands of project each and every day because project management is now, and always has been, an integral part of development of new assets and in support of operations since the beginning of time.
And I’d make a bet that if we could somehow find the records of the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, we would find those projects too went over budget and/or were behind schedule.
The challenge is not what WAS, but what should be. As I have been saying for some years now, the primary problem so many of our projects “fail” (defined to be late, and/or over budget and/or not in substantial conformance to specifications and/or failing to fulfill the purpose for which they were undertaken) is because the software we are using does NOT allow for feedback loops. Meaning, we need to consider moving BEYOND MSP and Primavera and start looking into the world of Systems Dynamics.
I honestly believe that is the future of project management, and I for one will be attending the Systems Dynamic Society meeting in Albuquerque New Mexico this coming July.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Paul,
As a user of SD through SAS applications development, I can atest that while the SD model was a powerful analytical tool for the management of launch vehicle development, without a good set of requirements, proper risk management with mitigation, and retirement, capable engineering and development, stable funding profiles, and the myriad of other “pre conditions” for success, SD was just anouther solution looking for a problem to solve.
As well the notion of being late and over budget in the absence of the allowable error bands and not in substantial conformance to specifications without the techncial performance measures provdied no value to the conversation about corrective measures. As well, the measure of change within the “failed” project is almost always missing as well.
It in IT domain it would rare that sure detail is maintained over the life of one project, let alone a collection of simialar projects. The Standish approach of ancedotal interviews is of course not only poor experimental processes, it is just plain bad statistics. That said, I know of only a few data bases that have tracked project performance in ways that are statistically sounds. One is owned by NASA, another by NAVAIR, and the last from the Swedish Defense Agency. In the absence of statistically sound baseline data all discussion of “the problem” and “the solution” are nothing but untested ancedotes. Not that useful for policy makers.
Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Planning and Controls
Aerospace and Defense
Do you or can you access the statistically sound baseline from NASA or NAVAIR?
Having been around a long time (probably the only advantage of getting old) I have a suspicion that the anecdotal research by Standish is probably correct, and worse yet, I suspect that the larger and more complex the project, the more likely it is to be late and over budget and missing important features. And even worse yet, the larger and more complex the project, the WORSE it will run over budget, be late or fail to deliver what was expected. So not only probability of “failure” but also the magnitude “failure” are a function of size and complexity.
My fundamental concern lies with the fact that the very tools we rely most on- CPM Scheduling software- does NOT allow for the very thing that forms the core of SD modeling software- those pesky feedback loops.
Surely in the foreseable future, SD software will almost certainly replace CPM software. And I think we are seeing the early stages of that using 3D, 4D, 5D CADD software. (Applying what is known in the Built Environment as Building Integrated Modeling or BIM) This is already here and being used, so while it still may be in the fledgling stage, I would hope leaders will embrace it.
Dr. PDG, Jakart
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Paul,
Yes I’ve used those databases for calibrating our risk ordinal values.
The Standish reports cvan not be considered credible for several reasons:
1. No project baseline is provided showing that the orginal plans were credible. Without a credible baseline all projects will be over budget and behind schedule by default.
2. There are no calibrated definitions of troubled
Could you provide references to the use of SD for project management on a non-trival example. Say 5,000 activities?
Hi Glen,
Your request that I provide references “for a 5000 activity schedule” indicates you are confusing risk analysis simulation with process modeling. They are not one and the same…
I will send you a very good paper by Jim Lyneis and Dave Ford that explains SD applied to project management……
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Hi Alex,
Businesses launch thousands of project each and every day because project management is now, and always has been, an integral part of development of new assets and in support of operations since the beginning of time.
And I’d make a bet that if we could somehow find the records of the Pyramids or the Great Wall of China, we would find those projects too went over budget and/or were behind schedule.
The challenge is not what WAS, but what should be. As I have been saying for some years now, the primary problem so many of our projects “fail” (defined to be late, and/or over budget and/or not in substantial conformance to specifications and/or failing to fulfill the purpose for which they were undertaken) is because the software we are using does NOT allow for feedback loops. Meaning, we need to consider moving BEYOND MSP and Primavera and start looking into the world of Systems Dynamics.
I honestly believe that is the future of project management, and I for one will be attending the Systems Dynamic Society meeting in Albuquerque New Mexico this coming July.
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Paul,
As a user of SD through SAS applications development, I can atest that while the SD model was a powerful analytical tool for the management of launch vehicle development, without a good set of requirements, proper risk management with mitigation, and retirement, capable engineering and development, stable funding profiles, and the myriad of other “pre conditions” for success, SD was just anouther solution looking for a problem to solve.
As well the notion of being late and over budget in the absence of the allowable error bands and not in substantial conformance to specifications without the techncial performance measures provdied no value to the conversation about corrective measures. As well, the measure of change within the “failed” project is almost always missing as well.
It in IT domain it would rare that sure detail is maintained over the life of one project, let alone a collection of simialar projects. The Standish approach of ancedotal interviews is of course not only poor experimental processes, it is just plain bad statistics. That said, I know of only a few data bases that have tracked project performance in ways that are statistically sounds. One is owned by NASA, another by NAVAIR, and the last from the Swedish Defense Agency. In the absence of statistically sound baseline data all discussion of “the problem” and “the solution” are nothing but untested ancedotes. Not that useful for policy makers.
Glen B. Alleman
VP, Program Planning and Controls
Aerospace and Defense
Do you or can you access the statistically sound baseline from NASA or NAVAIR?
Having been around a long time (probably the only advantage of getting old) I have a suspicion that the anecdotal research by Standish is probably correct, and worse yet, I suspect that the larger and more complex the project, the more likely it is to be late and over budget and missing important features. And even worse yet, the larger and more complex the project, the WORSE it will run over budget, be late or fail to deliver what was expected. So not only probability of “failure” but also the magnitude “failure” are a function of size and complexity.
My fundamental concern lies with the fact that the very tools we rely most on- CPM Scheduling software- does NOT allow for the very thing that forms the core of SD modeling software- those pesky feedback loops.
Surely in the foreseable future, SD software will almost certainly replace CPM software. And I think we are seeing the early stages of that using 3D, 4D, 5D CADD software. (Applying what is known in the Built Environment as Building Integrated Modeling or BIM) This is already here and being used, so while it still may be in the fledgling stage, I would hope leaders will embrace it.
Dr. PDG, Jakart
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Paul,
Yes I’ve used those databases for calibrating our risk ordinal values.
The Standish reports cvan not be considered credible for several reasons:
1. No project baseline is provided showing that the orginal plans were credible. Without a credible baseline all projects will be over budget and behind schedule by default.
2. There are no calibrated definitions of troubled
Could you provide references to the use of SD for project management on a non-trival example. Say 5,000 activities?
Hi Glen,
Your request that I provide references “for a 5000 activity schedule” indicates you are confusing risk analysis simulation with process modeling. They are not one and the same…
I will send you a very good paper by Jim Lyneis and Dave Ford that explains SD applied to project management……
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta
http://www.getpmcertified.com
Thanks for all your collective and individual thoughts on my article. I really appreciate your taking the time to respond. Let me start with Alex’s comments. I, too, am tired of referencing Standish (it does get a lot of play), although many seem to place a high value on their findings. That’s why, in this article, I went to a number of other sources as well, to show that there’s a lot of work being done on many fronts, and by many organizations, to “get to the bottom” of the problem of project failure. And speaking of the definition of failure, it means different things to different people. If we look past the “shock value” of the findings, which, granted, are great marketing “fodder,” the real value of Standish, or any other report is that it should cause us to define what we mean as “failure” in our own organization. By doing so, we can then establish baseline metrics for our own use. We shouldn’t care that failure rates for an industry are “this, that or the other” should we? We should only care about our own failure rates. You’ve raised an excellent point, to be sure.
Fair enough on the “ESI as education company” remark. It is not just our business, but our real focus, but not exclusively, We believe for strong project management to exist in any organization people definitely need to know how and what they’re doing (that comes through training among other things), but there needs to be an environment that surrounds the PM that helps promote good practice. I’m not entirely clear how you reached the conclusion that we promote a template approach to project management; in fact, templates are very helpful, but if templates were all that is required we’d have absolutely no problems, yet we know that’s not the case. Competent project managers bring a host of resources to getting the job done, with templates being just one form of “ammo.” Sorry, if I misled you in my article.
Thanks for weighing in Alex. I do not feel personally attacked at all. You’ve definitely given me a lot to think about.
Josh:
Agreed on all fronts. Meeting requirements is not the definition of success. Meeting the needs of the stakeholders is, and as anyone who has been in the business a while can attest, you can meet all the requirements and still have a less than successful project.
Paul:
I have not seen that specific study by Hobbs and Besner. I just recently read his work on Global PMOs which, in my view, was quite revealing. We have witnessed, in the past 8 years, by certain of our more “mature” clients a definite focus on improving the business skills of project managers; and, we have been adding offerings and assessments in this regard. In particular, my personal background in program management, as well as work done by the U.S. Federal Government, the U.K. government, PMI, and a handful of our key clients, strongly suggests that a program manager is actually more of a business manager than a project manager.
Thanks, all.
Thanks for your great reply, LeRoy. I love working with and talking with true professionals like yourself. I have learned so much from you over the years, and I am glad I could post some ideas that make you think.
My advice: drop references to the Standish studies in your future papers. You have more credible sources to cite, and you cited them well.
I love your point that it is only our own rate of success and failure that truly matters. It took me a decade of managing projects and reading about project management to understand that point. I encourage everyone reading to think about how they would personally define “failure” or “success” and think about their own track record within their own projects.
Finally, I love Paul’s example of an “on-time, on-budget” company that resets their budgets two months before completion. I have seen that happen as well. It is one of the many issues that make it so hard to define failure and success rates within a single organization, let along across many organizations.
Great comments and ideas here.
–Alex
Thanks for all your collective and individual thoughts on my article. I really appreciate your taking the time to respond. Let me start with Alex’s comments. I, too, am tired of referencing Standish (it does get a lot of play), although many seem to place a high value on their findings. That’s why, in this article, I went to a number of other sources as well, to show that there’s a lot of work being done on many fronts, and by many organizations, to “get to the bottom” of the problem of project failure. And speaking of the definition of failure, it means different things to different people. If we look past the “shock value” of the findings, which, granted, are great marketing “fodder,” the real value of Standish, or any other report is that it should cause us to define what we mean as “failure” in our own organization. By doing so, we can then establish baseline metrics for our own use. We shouldn’t care that failure rates for an industry are “this, that or the other” should we? We should only care about our own failure rates. You’ve raised an excellent point, to be sure.
Fair enough on the “ESI as education company” remark. It is not just our business, but our real focus, but not exclusively, We believe for strong project management to exist in any organization people definitely need to know how and what they’re doing (that comes through training among other things), but there needs to be an environment that surrounds the PM that helps promote good practice. I’m not entirely clear how you reached the conclusion that we promote a template approach to project management; in fact, templates are very helpful, but if templates were all that is required we’d have absolutely no problems, yet we know that’s not the case. Competent project managers bring a host of resources to getting the job done, with templates being just one form of “ammo.” Sorry, if I misled you in my article.
Thanks for weighing in Alex. I do not feel personally attacked at all. You’ve definitely given me a lot to think about.
Josh:
Agreed on all fronts. Meeting requirements is not the definition of success. Meeting the needs of the stakeholders is, and as anyone who has been in the business a while can attest, you can meet all the requirements and still have a less than successful project.
Paul:
I have not seen that specific study by Hobbs and Besner. I just recently read his work on Global PMOs which, in my view, was quite revealing. We have witnessed, in the past 8 years, by certain of our more “mature” clients a definite focus on improving the business skills of project managers; and, we have been adding offerings and assessments in this regard. In particular, my personal background in program management, as well as work done by the U.S. Federal Government, the U.K. government, PMI, and a handful of our key clients, strongly suggests that a program manager is actually more of a business manager than a project manager.
Thanks, all.
Thanks for your great reply, LeRoy. I love working with and talking with true professionals like yourself. I have learned so much from you over the years, and I am glad I could post some ideas that make you think.
My advice: drop references to the Standish studies in your future papers. You have more credible sources to cite, and you cited them well.
I love your point that it is only our own rate of success and failure that truly matters. It took me a decade of managing projects and reading about project management to understand that point. I encourage everyone reading to think about how they would personally define “failure” or “success” and think about their own track record within their own projects.
Finally, I love Paul’s example of an “on-time, on-budget” company that resets their budgets two months before completion. I have seen that happen as well. It is one of the many issues that make it so hard to define failure and success rates within a single organization, let along across many organizations.
Great comments and ideas here.
–Alex
There is a fundemental problem with the statistics of project management success.
A measurement of failure – say 27% of project over budget or behind schedule – there is not assessment of the credibility of the schedule or cost basis.
Without this baseline, all measures are meaningless. This is a failure to understand the very basis of engineering measurement. From Standish to ESI to anyone making the claim of “failure rate” measurements.
In the absence of a credible baseline and the continued improvement of the Estimate to Compleete and the To Complete Performance Index – all discuss of failure rates is nonsense.
There is a fundemental problem with the statistics of project management success.
A measurement of failure – say 27% of project over budget or behind schedule – there is not assessment of the credibility of the schedule or cost basis.
Without this baseline, all measures are meaningless. This is a failure to understand the very basis of engineering measurement. From Standish to ESI to anyone making the claim of “failure rate” measurements.
In the absence of a credible baseline and the continued improvement of the Estimate to Compleete and the To Complete Performance Index – all discuss of failure rates is nonsense.
{ 3 trackbacks }