I came to know Professor Bent Flyvbjerg through Andre Choma of the Capital Projects Podcast. Since then, I have eagerly consumed his publications and books. And after reading his book "How Big Things Get Done," one thing became clear: the failure rate of large projects is simply alarming. The graph presented in the work leaves no doubt - 100% of projects are delayed, almost half go over budget, and very few deliver the promised benefits. These numbers should shock any professional in the field. But what is even more disturbing is to note that, despite having ample knowledge of these data, failure rates stubbornly remain high, decade after decade. Something fundamental seems to be eluding project managers. Analyzing the typical reasons pointed out for project failure - unrealistic planning, scope changes, unforeseen risks, among others - the question arises: if these factors have been known for so long, why do we keep repeating the same mistakes? One hypothesis is that perhaps project management, because it deals with so many complex and unpredictable variables, is inherently prone to failure and delays. However, when we look at other equally complex fields, such as engineering and medicine, we see that significant progress has been made. There is no reason why project management cannot also evolve and improve its results. What we need is a fundamental change in mentality and approach. More than ever, projects need to have a relentless focus on risk analysis and mitigation from day one. Scope changes need to be limited with surgical precision. Breaking down projects into smaller and more manageable phases is mandatory. Constant collaboration and communication among all parties are indispensable. And the intensive use of data and predictive analytics to anticipate problems needs to become the rule, not the exception. We should not accept as normal that practically all major projects are delayed and go over budget. The consequences for companies, governments, and society as a whole are too severe. As Professor Flyvbjerg demonstrates, with the knowledge we have today, these failure rates border on unacceptable. Isn't it time for a revolution in project management? All leaders and professionals in the field need to radically rethink their approach and mindset. But if they do so with the necessary determination, incorporating best practices and adapting to the reality of an increasingly uncertain and fast-paced world, I am convinced that we can drastically improve success rates, and finally overcome this challenge that has dragged on for decades. The numbers don't lie. Just a brief look at the graph presented by Professor Flyvbjerg gives an idea of the hole we have dug ourselves into. Digging it deeper is no longer an option. It's time to pick up the shovel and start climbing. The future of project management depends on it.
In light of Flyvbjerg's data showing that very few projects meet their original forecasts for time, budget, and benefits, what are some steps that organizations can take to change the prevailing mentality and approach to project management to one that is more data-driven and risk-averse?
Claudeen PierreSenior Program ManagerDallas, TX, United States
While project management as a career path might be ready for a revolution as you say, it is important to remember that change usually requires industry and organization wide commitment towards change. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Saving Changes...
As Claudeen has indicated, unless the senior leadership team commits to elevating organizational PM maturity and bakes that into the culture of the company, there are unlikely to be major improvements. As with any other organizational transformation there has to be a compelling sense of urgency on the part of all involved.
The challenge with this is that while project outcomes could be improved, there may be insufficient incentive for leaders to change their behaviors.
Kiron
...
1 reply by Wellinghton Pereira Barboza
Mar 07, 2024 7:07 PM
Wellinghton Pereira Barboza
...
Kiron,
I share your view on the need for senior leadership to adopt and promote project management maturity within organizations. However, given your extensive experience in various projects, contrasting with my focus on energy projects, I would still like to be more provocative.
Regarding senior management: If leaders are not ready to lead the transformation, how can we project managers take the front line by implementing changes that demonstrate the undeniable value of mature project management? Is this achievable?
Action vs. Waiting: It may sound more philosophical, but isn't it about transcending complacency and seeking alliances, adopting radical flexibility to introduce mature project management practices, even if it means directly challenging the status quo?
Change through Subversion: Could creative strategies and persistence kickstart a revolution in project management, creating such a significant impact that even the most reluctant senior leaders are forced to recognize and adopt?
Anyway, I know it may seem a bit idealistic, and perhaps I'm looking from a very particular perspective, but if we don't position ourselves as active agents of change, aren't we at risk of our projects becoming just another statistic?
As Claudeen has indicated, unless the senior leadership team commits to elevating organizational PM maturity and bakes that into the culture of the company, there are unlikely to be major improvements. As with any other organizational transformation there has to be a compelling sense of urgency on the part of all involved.
The challenge with this is that while project outcomes could be improved, there may be insufficient incentive for leaders to change their behaviors.
Kiron
Kiron,
I share your view on the need for senior leadership to adopt and promote project management maturity within organizations. However, given your extensive experience in various projects, contrasting with my focus on energy projects, I would still like to be more provocative.
Regarding senior management: If leaders are not ready to lead the transformation, how can we project managers take the front line by implementing changes that demonstrate the undeniable value of mature project management? Is this achievable?
Action vs. Waiting: It may sound more philosophical, but isn't it about transcending complacency and seeking alliances, adopting radical flexibility to introduce mature project management practices, even if it means directly challenging the status quo?
Change through Subversion: Could creative strategies and persistence kickstart a revolution in project management, creating such a significant impact that even the most reluctant senior leaders are forced to recognize and adopt?
Anyway, I know it may seem a bit idealistic, and perhaps I'm looking from a very particular perspective, but if we don't position ourselves as active agents of change, aren't we at risk of our projects becoming just another statistic?
...
1 reply by Kiron Bondale
Mar 08, 2024 7:13 AM
Kiron Bondale
...
Wellinghton -
While I have seen some improvements made through grass roots PM advocacy and demonstration of effective delivery, the bigger challenge is that the types of changes needed in the "system" surrounding project delivery are usually well outside of their jurisdictions and hence what works better is to have one highly influential executive who values disciplined delivery and is willing to coach and influence their peers into changing their behaviors including how much project work is concurrently taken on by the overall organization.
Thank you very much for your insight. Indeed, a significant change in project management requires a joint effort from the industry and organizations. I greatly appreciate this exchange of ideas. Saving Changes...
I share your view on the need for senior leadership to adopt and promote project management maturity within organizations. However, given your extensive experience in various projects, contrasting with my focus on energy projects, I would still like to be more provocative.
Regarding senior management: If leaders are not ready to lead the transformation, how can we project managers take the front line by implementing changes that demonstrate the undeniable value of mature project management? Is this achievable?
Action vs. Waiting: It may sound more philosophical, but isn't it about transcending complacency and seeking alliances, adopting radical flexibility to introduce mature project management practices, even if it means directly challenging the status quo?
Change through Subversion: Could creative strategies and persistence kickstart a revolution in project management, creating such a significant impact that even the most reluctant senior leaders are forced to recognize and adopt?
Anyway, I know it may seem a bit idealistic, and perhaps I'm looking from a very particular perspective, but if we don't position ourselves as active agents of change, aren't we at risk of our projects becoming just another statistic?
Wellinghton -
While I have seen some improvements made through grass roots PM advocacy and demonstration of effective delivery, the bigger challenge is that the types of changes needed in the "system" surrounding project delivery are usually well outside of their jurisdictions and hence what works better is to have one highly influential executive who values disciplined delivery and is willing to coach and influence their peers into changing their behaviors including how much project work is concurrently taken on by the overall organization.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Joseph RussellPartnership Project Manager| FNBOOmaha, Nebraska, United States
Sadly, I think the PM world is in a vicious cycle. Projects fail causing senior leaders in the organization to doubt the veracity and capability of PMs. Valuing them less then leads to under-resourcing and spreading folks too thin within their work centers (i.e. you've got your day-to-day job, but you're also being tasked to work on a litany of other projects....this is what we refer to in the military as poor/ineffective Crew Resource Management). This subsequently leads to poor project resourcing and/or advocacy which then contributes to project failure.
My recommendations:
1. PMI and seasoned project managers need to focus on 'getting back to basics. Focusing on teaching the fundamentals of basic concepts vs. thought leadership ideals is a good start...perhaps in a more presciptive way. The human (soft) skill articles I see on sites like these outnumber the practical methods, processes, and standards by a wide margin.
2. Change often is a grass-roots issue where the need for change has to be felt by those doing the work in order to get senior leaders to back it. Thus, local PMI chapters should be more geared toward sharing best practices among their members, new or rarely discussed concepts (e.g. Critical Path Drag) and communicating/collaborating with other chapters in the same way.
...
1 reply by Wellinghton Pereira Barboza
Mar 08, 2024 6:04 PM
Wellinghton Pereira Barboza
...
Joseph,
I share the perception that projects are caught in a challenging cycle, with various factors contributing to this situation, which alone could fuel a rich debate in another forum. As project managers, we have a voracious appetite for innovative methods, expanding our arsenal with good practices, methodologies, and frameworks. Yet, we often stumble on the basics, on the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle.
There's a strong argument for focusing on people, as they undoubtedly are the engine that generates value for both projects and organizations. Yet, we find persistent failures. I agree that the validity of the numbers and statistics we discuss should be questioned (which is a challenge in terms of methodology by itself), but the data are, at the very least, alarming and deserve our attention.
One of the most intriguing aspects is the apparent difficulty in significantly involving senior leadership in projects. I recognize I'm generalizing, as there are exceptions, but these are scarce. The central issue you raise about the need for a return to the basics of project management is critical. We need to redirect our attention to the fundamentals of project management, prioritizing both the development of technical competencies and the improvement of interpersonal skills.
Additionally, the idea that effective change often starts at the grassroots level, with those doing the work needing to feel the need for change to get senior leaders to back it, points to a way through which we can potentially galvanize the support of senior leaders. The role of local PMI chapters in fostering an environment of sharing best practices and new ideas is also crucial in this context, don't you think?
Sometimes it seems we are facing a critical moment in which, as project management professionals, we must lead by example, committing ourselves to review and strengthen our foundations (as you said, back to basics), while working to build effective bridges with senior management, demonstrating the undeniable value of robust project management.
Who is really failing, and why? What does it mean when a project fails? What actually failed?
I don't remember the exact data, but it was 2006 the first time I read the CHAOS report, and I recall thinking, "That's not why projects fail." I'm not saying I'm smarter, or that I had access to more data, it just felt like they were interpreting the data wrong, possibly because the people reporting the reasons for failure either weren't completely forthcoming or didn't have all the data. Over time, the reasons for failure changed, but if it was as simple as needing better project management we'd have seen more improvements.
When you say "100% of projects are delayed, almost half go over budget, and very few deliver the promised benefits" regarding large projects, are you talking about schedules, budgets, and benefits that are "defined" at the beginning of the idea of a project and set in stone before anyone has a chance to learn what it's really going to take? It's easy to say that a project fails when it fails to deliver a quality product on time and within budget, but was it a good idea to begin with? Did management have unrealistic expectations? Were they willing to listen to anyone telling them something they didn't want to hear?
I get it, it's management's job to execute, to drive and motivate people to deliver. But you can deliver a quality product on time and within budget (a so-called successful project) and the product can still fail. You can also deliver a product later than desired, at more cost, and it can be wildly successful.
You cited medicine as an example of a complex field where significant progress has been made. Has it, or does it just have good press and better marketing? I was coaching a PM that worked at a biotech company. The PM was running a project where they were bringing a medical device to market. There were significant delays and cost overruns, but in the end it was called a success. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. How many prescription drugs have been "successfully" launched that require additional prescriptions to manage the side effects? The field of medicine spends significantly more time on research, in most cases, and they still don't always get it right. You might also be overlooking the years, and decades in some cases, that it takes the medical field to do more than just treat symptoms.
I think a bigger question is why does management still have the same expectations, today, that they did 20 years ago? Why isn't it obvious that when you don't know everything about what you're trying to produce, you can't know exactly how long it will take or how much it will cost, and that when you get it wrong you are learning, not failing (unless you fail to learn)? We know that if you do a lot of upfront planning, you're still not going to cover every detail, and if the actual project work takes more than a month or two, there is a risk of the market changing enough that some of your planning/design is no longer relevant, and it can't always be avoided.
Three weeks ago, my father was going to sit in his chair in the family room and fell. He couldn't get up, so my mom called 911. An ambulance came out and the EMT checked his vitals. He said my dad's lungs sounded like he had pneumonia, so they took him to the hospital. 5 days later, the doctor called my mom into the hospital. His vitals were falling. My mom held his hand as he died in his sleep.
Who failed?
Nobody. My dad had a DNR. His body failed. There's nobody to blame. If we want to understand why projects fail and how to improve things, we have to stop looking for someone to blame because that distracts us from the root cause, and we need to realize that not achieving an arbitrary estimate is not necessarily a project failure. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Let me bring over some comments from a recent discussion on this subject:
George Freeman:
- Are failures (of all definitions) occurring due to: The lack of “good project management practices” or the fact that “good project management practices were followed when creative contextually appropriate non-standard measures were needed”?
- Is it the definition/re-definition of success or the definition/re-definition of failure that drives the opinions and conversations surrounding these statistics? Stated differently: Success/Failure is ambiguous.
- If project success factors are genuinely in the percentage brackets indicated for a given sector/organization, why would organizations keep returning to the “poisoned well” only to repeat the pattern which, by generalized statistics, has remained relatively static over the decades?
- Success is floating, not fixed at the beginning but determined at various points in the project lifecycle, even long after the project has ended (examples: Sydney opera, Hamburg philharmony, Edinburgh parliament, and Olympic games)
Summary:
I especially appreciate Thomas Walenta’s statement as it aligns with our profession’s real-world corporate-political and project management economies. Do you agree with this premise?
...
1 reply by Joseph Russell
Mar 08, 2024 4:09 PM
Joseph Russell
...
I think the concept of sliding scales of success or failure are certainly more applicable in some industries than others. However, the ultimate determinant of what success looks like should come from the customer/sponsor with inputs from all relevant stakeholders. Projects should be treated like investments; with value from the deliverable being measured at different levels based on the standards set forth by the customer/sponsor. We can’t truly know the long-term value of a project, sometimes, till WAY down the road (e.g. those projects you mentioned)…sometimes after several years of use. All we can really do is provide reasonable estimates on immediate value (success) and cost at the end.
My overall concern with these sliding scales is that it can be used ‘nefariously’ to justify gaps in knowledge and application of standard practices and concepts, causing projects to hit budget overruns, etc. “Sure, we didn’t deliver 100% of what we said we would, but we delivered 60%…and that’s a success because it’s more than half”. I’ve seen this happen before on federal government projects.
Often times, I’ve seen sponsors call projects failures when what they really mean is that the program in which they reside failed for some reason. I agree that projects can be a project management success story and still miss the mark overall.
Saving Changes...
Joseph RussellPartnership Project Manager| FNBOOmaha, Nebraska, United States
Mar 08, 2024 2:48 PM
Replying to George Freeman
...
Let me bring over some comments from a recent discussion on this subject:
George Freeman:
- Are failures (of all definitions) occurring due to: The lack of “good project management practices” or the fact that “good project management practices were followed when creative contextually appropriate non-standard measures were needed”?
- Is it the definition/re-definition of success or the definition/re-definition of failure that drives the opinions and conversations surrounding these statistics? Stated differently: Success/Failure is ambiguous.
- If project success factors are genuinely in the percentage brackets indicated for a given sector/organization, why would organizations keep returning to the “poisoned well” only to repeat the pattern which, by generalized statistics, has remained relatively static over the decades?
- Success is floating, not fixed at the beginning but determined at various points in the project lifecycle, even long after the project has ended (examples: Sydney opera, Hamburg philharmony, Edinburgh parliament, and Olympic games)
Summary:
I especially appreciate Thomas Walenta’s statement as it aligns with our profession’s real-world corporate-political and project management economies. Do you agree with this premise?
I think the concept of sliding scales of success or failure are certainly more applicable in some industries than others. However, the ultimate determinant of what success looks like should come from the customer/sponsor with inputs from all relevant stakeholders. Projects should be treated like investments; with value from the deliverable being measured at different levels based on the standards set forth by the customer/sponsor. We can’t truly know the long-term value of a project, sometimes, till WAY down the road (e.g. those projects you mentioned)…sometimes after several years of use. All we can really do is provide reasonable estimates on immediate value (success) and cost at the end.
My overall concern with these sliding scales is that it can be used ‘nefariously’ to justify gaps in knowledge and application of standard practices and concepts, causing projects to hit budget overruns, etc. “Sure, we didn’t deliver 100% of what we said we would, but we delivered 60%…and that’s a success because it’s more than half”. I’ve seen this happen before on federal government projects.
Often times, I’ve seen sponsors call projects failures when what they really mean is that the program in which they reside failed for some reason. I agree that projects can be a project management success story and still miss the mark overall.
...
1 reply by George Freeman
Mar 08, 2024 11:20 PM
George Freeman
...
Hi Joseph,
The perspective stated is not one of a “sliding scale of success”; instead, it represents one that allows success to be more appropriately described based on the knowledge gained through the due diligence of the project.
As you represented, standard practices and concepts are the foundation for success in our profession. However, project knowledge exists as an infant in the beginning stages of a project, and as that infant grows, so does our understanding of our project universe. Hence, success can “float” to correspond with project knowledge at given points in the project life-cycle.
"Anyone can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy."
Community Champion
