But in short, I would like to open up the discussion to get your view on this question -
"Should a project manager be fully accountable for the success or failure of a project?" Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Don KimPROJECT-TO-PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT EXPERT| Seeking opportunitiesSacramento, CA, United States
In general, I think the very essence and rationale for having a project manager is to have a single point of accountability and responsibility for the success and failure of a project.
The deeper question is whether this is realistic and fair, especially for large projects where there can be so many complex tasks and interactions as well as circumstances outside a PM's control that when failure occurs, it is not always justifiable to solely blame it on the PM or solely credit the person if the project succeeds greatly.
But when I took the job of PM, I understood this to come with the territory and have felt the sting of failure as well as the highs of success. Being the center of the latter has made working as a PM worthwhile. Saving Changes...
Headlines, Standish Group Reports and personal PM experiences will all tell you that a project can fail for many reasons. It is the PM's responsibility is to deliver a project on time, within budget and meets or exceeds customer needs. Of course, along the way down the yellow brick road a PM runs into roadbloacks, pebbles, waterfalls, hills and mountains. Sucess and Failure are a leaders stepping stones to the next big project success. It is what you learn along the way and apply to your future projects that will aide in your leadership sucess whether the project fails or succeeds. Saving Changes...
Wai Mun KooPMO Director| Intergraph PP&MSingapore, Singapore
Very good point Don.
Few years back, a CIO once told me, "If the project fails, it is the PM's fault" The CIO is very adamant on this point and it has become a culture in his organization. Two side effects,
1. The PMs have become paranoids and extremely risk adverse. They manage projects with a mindset of 'Not to fail' instead of 'Make it successful'. The style is more towards conservative, negative, play-safe mode and even to the extent of cover-your-a** attitude.
2. The PMs are more on the ball and hardworking as they are afraid that the projects they are managing will fail.
So is this a healthy culture? I have my reservation. Saving Changes...
Elizabeth HarrinDirector| RebelsGuideToPM.comLondon, England, United Kingdom
There is a lot more that goes into project success (or failure) than just the project manager, but the project manager does have a lot to do with it. After all, why do we employ project managers if not to get things done and deliver projects? I believe that the project manager should have accountability, but they also have to work in an environment that supports success, which means engaged stakeholders and a strong sponsor.
The culture you described is not a good working environment for anyone. It sounds as if it is very much a blame culture so project managers are not able to act for the good of the project or organisation. I also doubt that in that environment anyone recommends that projects are stopped before they complete, even if they no longer contribute to the corporate objectives! Saving Changes...
Wai Mun KooPMO Director| Intergraph PP&MSingapore, Singapore
Naomi, what you have said is a good way for PMs to learn to accept project failures and successes. Looking at it from a sportsman's perspecitve, I don't think there is anyone that has never lost a game. The important point is to keep going and learn from your failures. Below is a nice quote by Michael Jordan that sums it up.
“I’ve missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I’ve lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I’ve been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.”
~ Michael Jordan Saving Changes...
Wai Mun KooPMO Director| Intergraph PP&MSingapore, Singapore
Elizabeht,
Agree with you that the environment I have described is bad, that's why I was out of it long ago :-).
Now let's take a step back and think. If PM is not (or not fully) accountable for the success or failure of the project, then who else in the team or organization will be accountable? Who will be the one that will stand up and say "Team, I'm sorry, it's my fault." or "Let me lead you to another big success like this one"?
We all are well aware of the importance of accountability and the consequence of lack of it. Someone has to take the lead and shoulder the entire accountability.
Let's look at this from another perspective. If a company fails to do well, will we think that has to do with the CEO? Is the CEO going to be fully accountable for it?
I think the key point along the topic on accountability is to have the right authority granted. I believe you can't make someone accountable for something that he or she has no authority over it. Below is a simple comparison I have made between accountability vs. authority.
1. No accountability and no authority => Coordinator
2. Given accountability but no authority => Scapegoat
3. Given accountability and authority => Project Manager
4. No accountability but give authority => God Saving Changes...
Peter WrightProgramme Manager| BAE SystemsSouthport, Merseyside, United Kingdom
On a similar thread to Wai Mun Koo
Are there many businesses where the PM or PgMr has been given the accountability for all aspects of a project along with the management of all budgets, resource and quality for that project?
Many Businesses now run Matrix teams where accountability for delivering certain aspects falls to a manager/HOD/Director with far superior responsibility, decisions making and steer than the lonely PM.
In a Matrix solution the accountability has to be shared by the project team/key stakeholders who will ultimately be able to make decisions that will benefit or oppose the projects objectives.
Without this transfer to those key stakeholders your project starts with a significant potential risk of failing to meet it's time-scale or cost as those deciders may get more focused on a different projects/operational change and not feel they have to think of and help resolve issues with the Project in question.
Ideally they should be fully accountable if they have the authority to make business decisions to benefit the project. Otherwise you put in place communication and escalation roots to mitigate this risk so those PgMr/managers/HOD's/Directors can make those decisions on the PM's behalf. Saving Changes...
Peter WrightProgramme Manager| BAE SystemsSouthport, Merseyside, United Kingdom
There are some additional comments and post can be found here
Interesting debate, but let's remember that the project manager is not the decision maker - the project sponsor is, so the ultimate responsibility and accountability lies with them.
Having said that it is up to the project manager to provide the information to the project sponsor so they can make informed decisions aware of the downstream impacts. So it could be said that key to a successful project is good communication and decision making.
On the other hand if a project fails because of poor management it could also be the project sponsor's responsibility to replace the poorly performing project manager before the irreparable damage was done.
Provided the project manager does their job, and documents and controls change, risks and issues and the project fails anyway then the cause of that failure is perhaps not under the control of the project manager. Often times this is due the external factors and vendors.
A project can be a failure even when delivered on time, scope and budget if the business need has changed during the life of the project. Prince2 tries to keep this risk to a minimum by using the business case as the guiding light in the project and a checkpoint to keep an eye on the project benefits. i.e. There is no point in delivering a project to produce widgets if during the life of the project there is no longer any demand for widgets! Again it the responsibility of the project sponsor to ensure that the business case remains sound especially in a dynamic market place.
"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again, and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."
