While reading up on critical chain project management which was mentioned in another thread, I came across a Wiki article that mentioned the following:
According to studies of traditional project management methods by Standish Group and others as of 1998, only 44% of projects typically finish on time. Projects typically complete at 222% of the duration originally planned, 189% of the original budgeted cost, 70% of projects fall short of their planned scope (technical content delivered), and 30% are cancelled before completion.[2] CCPM tries to improve performance relative to these traditional statistics.
These figures seems representative based on my personal experiences, but I was wondering what others would have to say, and perhaps where I could find other statistics on this subject. Saving Changes...
Standish usually focuses on technology projects so unless this survey happens to go across other domains, it might only be representative of that segment. As we look at large & complex projects, these statistics seem reasonable to me and is one of the justifications for using adaptive approaches (where applicable) on those.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Steve Ratkaj
Dec 03, 2019 8:43 AM
Steve Ratkaj
...
Yes, it seems these stats were related to IT projects, and that is why I'm asking for any additional data. It would be especially nice to see if there is any correlation with projects completed on time, on budget, within scope that utilized a formal PM approach and those that did not. My guess is that unfortunately, there would be no difference. If so, it then it begs the question as to what has the PM discipline has brought to the table over the last 20 plus years.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Project ALWAYS end in the time that they were estimated. But it is not the time that were published.
...
2 replies by Sjors Jansen and Steve Ratkaj
Dec 03, 2019 8:48 AM
Steve Ratkaj
...
Yes, ultimately planned project cost and project schedule merge with the actual project cost and schedule, but that is not the point. As you alluded to, it is really about project performance of planned vs. actual, which despite much effort to move in this direction, I believe there is a concerned effort at higher management levels to avoid. This is due to the transparency this brings, and ultimately the accountability that follows, which many would rather avoid at all costs. It is actually an interesting paradigm.
Sep 22, 2021 10:56 PM
Sjors Jansen
...
This reminds me of a quote from the movie 'Lord of the Rings' in which Gandalf reminds Frodo that: "A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to."
Standish usually focuses on technology projects so unless this survey happens to go across other domains, it might only be representative of that segment. As we look at large & complex projects, these statistics seem reasonable to me and is one of the justifications for using adaptive approaches (where applicable) on those.
Kiron
Yes, it seems these stats were related to IT projects, and that is why I'm asking for any additional data. It would be especially nice to see if there is any correlation with projects completed on time, on budget, within scope that utilized a formal PM approach and those that did not. My guess is that unfortunately, there would be no difference. If so, it then it begs the question as to what has the PM discipline has brought to the table over the last 20 plus years.
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Dec 03, 2019 10:37 AM
Kiron Bondale
...
PMI had published some statistics a few years ago in PM Network or PMI Today about the difference in performance between organizations who used consistent principles & standards from those who didn't. I don't recall when exactly it was but perhaps a search on PMI.org might reveal that...
Project ALWAYS end in the time that they were estimated. But it is not the time that were published.
Yes, ultimately planned project cost and project schedule merge with the actual project cost and schedule, but that is not the point. As you alluded to, it is really about project performance of planned vs. actual, which despite much effort to move in this direction, I believe there is a concerned effort at higher management levels to avoid. This is due to the transparency this brings, and ultimately the accountability that follows, which many would rather avoid at all costs. It is actually an interesting paradigm. Saving Changes...
Yes, it seems these stats were related to IT projects, and that is why I'm asking for any additional data. It would be especially nice to see if there is any correlation with projects completed on time, on budget, within scope that utilized a formal PM approach and those that did not. My guess is that unfortunately, there would be no difference. If so, it then it begs the question as to what has the PM discipline has brought to the table over the last 20 plus years.
PMI had published some statistics a few years ago in PM Network or PMI Today about the difference in performance between organizations who used consistent principles & standards from those who didn't. I don't recall when exactly it was but perhaps a search on PMI.org might reveal that... Saving Changes...
Sjors JansenPrincipal Consultant| ATRAXX Energy SolutionsHouston, Tx, United States
Dec 02, 2019 5:14 PM
Replying to Sergio Luis Conte
...
Project ALWAYS end in the time that they were estimated. But it is not the time that were published.
This reminds me of a quote from the movie 'Lord of the Rings' in which Gandalf reminds Frodo that: "A wizard is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to." Saving Changes...
