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?
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.
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. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Mar 08, 2024 4:09 PM
Replying to 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.
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.
George Saving Changes...
William M Hayden JrAdjunct Assistant Professor| University at Buffalo, School of Management, Operations Management & StrategyBuffalo, Ny, United States
Q. "Why Do We Keep Failing Despite the Data?"
A. Because "The Data" is not being "Unbundled" to get to the "Why?"
Bill, you raise a very valid point. Although Professor Bent Flyvbjerg provides robust data showing that most large projects fail to deliver within the expected timeline, budget, and benefits, he also demonstrates that the root causes go beyond the data itself.
Some key reasons that I recall the book points out:
1. Psychological biases such as optimism and overconfidence often lead to unrealistic estimates and plans from the outset. I'm currently seeing a project like this myself.
2. Political factors and "strategic misrepresentation" (lying) frequently distort estimates to make projects appear more attractive and gain approval.
3. The "uniqueness bias" causes most people to view their project as special and unique, ignoring lessons and data from comparable past projects.
4. The lack of relevant experience and the "Eternal Beginner Syndrome" waste accumulated knowledge.
5. Failure to identify and mitigate risks of rare but high-impact catastrophic events (black swans).
So you're right that data alone is not enough - it needs to be understood, shared, and applied wisely to overcome these deep-rooted obstacles to project success. Saving Changes...
Program Manager, PPM&PMO Specialist.| Coppel, Mexico.Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico
Hi Wellinghton,
When the PMI's "Pulse of the Profession" publication first began, it identified the common factors among organizations that were successful in implementing projects: on time, on target, and on budget. This information has been updated over the years, and it shows improvement. One of the recent publications shows variables such as: Governance, Integration and Alignment, Processes, Technology and Data and People. (https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse)
In the publication you mentioned, it would be interesting to know if this information has changed (improved or not) from a baseline and the difference between industries and maturity of organizations with project management.
I believe that publications that indicate the good practices of successful organizations can help improve the practice, because the transfer of knowledge and good practices is something that is encouraged in project management.
With these practices, we can replicate them in our projects, and improve their success.
While mostly unintentional, it can be advantageous to manage failure discreetly rather than striving for success.
In the software industry, for instance, we refer to Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law." Such notions percolate through the ranks. Who hasn't seen team members picking up on it and reciting items from the excuse register - ah, sorry - risk register when missing a deadline? Whatever the exact mechanism, the bottom line is that improvements in project management best practices can be (ab)used either way for the better or worse.
To conclude and since PMs aren't exactly a neutral party in the quest for project resources, we need a more strategic approach to incentives and meeting stakeholder expectations that is resilient to an excessive focus on change management, variance reporting, risk management, and improving performance metrics. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
