Why do projects fail?

"1) Individuals are hesitant to sign on the dotted line supporting a position."

Resistance/hesitancy is as much the result of the way a position or proposal is presented as it is the content. If the way the proposal is presented fails to take into account the perspectives of the people whose buy-in/sign-off is required -- if it fails to address problems they recognize and only raises concerns, then that hesitancy is more than justified.

On the surface, this is true, but there are simple processes for dealing with concerns and complexity that can be used to take advantage of the important input that is carried in these responses. We should embrace -- even solicit -- concerns and reservations about why something won't work, or about negative side effects of a proposal for two reasons. 1) The additional perspectives will help make the solution in the proposal far more complete, and 2) Accepting and addressing them will bring the person with the reservation more into the team. They are now part of the solution and will work harder to make it happen instead of sitting on the side worrying about what can go wrong.

Two responses to this one. On one hand, simply, why are they involved? If their contribution is really not needed, why are they invited/allowed to muddy the water? On the other hand, as suggested in the previous comment, different perspectives can be powerful sources of more complete solutions and of effective risk management. Again it's a matter of the processes that are used to respond to the input.

Saving Changes...

Whilst I agree that it is vital to a project's success to assign the "right" project manager to it, I also think it is worth realising that often a Project Manager may not be given the choice of which projects he/she runs with.

Even the most experienced project manager, when faced with a project that exhibits every possible challenge, can fail.

I don't think it is fair to blame the PM entirely, purely based on their level of training, certification or experience. In many organisations PMs are given projects and told to get on with it.

Ideally, we'd all be selective about the projects we took on, but often (particularly for more junior managers) there is no "choice" involved.

You can manage risk, people, deliverables, requirements, cost, quality, scope and schedule as professionally as possible, but at the end of the day, if you've been given an unrealistic project (such as a poor team and no ability to outsource/contract, unfeasible business case, or non-comitted executive sponsor.) you can stand very little chance of "success".

Some times as a PM the best you can do is perform your role as well as possible within the project environment, and be able to prove that the project failed due to measures beyond your control. A horrible way to work, but one that I'm sure we all face sooner or later.

The last thing any of us want to do is focus on covering our asses, but that's a fact of life, when things go wrong, people only feel satisfied when someone or something is to blame.

In most of the organisations I've worked for, there has always been a mindset where the majority of sponsors and stakeholders did not take any responsibility for the project's success, it was all deemed the project managers duty.

I just wanted to speak up for all the PMs out there that might not have years of experience or formal training/certification, but can still make more than adequate project managers, often because of a diverse range of experience and being involved in projects at the "grass roots" level.

The biggest failure with Project Managers that I see regularly is a focus on technology over business benefit, reduction in scope in order to achieve deliverables at the expense of lower priority deliverables that have an impact on the overall benefit delivery, and I think if the PM applies themselves inappropriately - then that's the #1 route to project failure.