“We know why projects fail, we know how to prevent their failure -- so why do they still fail?”
There's a tremendous opportunity to increase organizational performance and value by improving our projects' success rates.
Technology isn't rocket science anymore. The Millennial and Gen Zer generations have a pretty good grasp of technology and are comfortable with it.
“We learn from history that we learn nothing from history.”
History tends to repeat or mirror itself when it comes to projects. Industry research points to the same general reasons as to why projects fail. Yet, we never learn our lessons. Why?
Three critical actions before a project begins are to:
Shift your mindset about projects from noun to verb. Projects propel your organization from its current state to a future state of compelling business benefits.
Projects are about effectively managing:
Most projects fail as a result of sociological issues, not technology.
Traditional project thinking addresses three constraints:
Time can't be replenished. Manage time first and aggressively; the other two will work out just fine.
Business teams must stay engaged throughout the project, not just the initial planning and requirements activities.
Design, development, testing, and deployment are critical business engagement cycles to increase outcome quality.
Establish aggressive but achievable milestones to track project progress and health.
Missed milestones are warning signs that your project has deeper troubles to address ASAP.
Projects are more a sociological process than a technical one.
Most projects fail because of people (used collectively in this context to mean teams, constituents, leaders, organization, and culture) and their inability to influence the System they're working within, not technology.
Projects have too many transitions that create knowledge "traps."
Transitions cause knowledge to be:
Minimize the number of transitions by:
The approach selected for your project should mirror the known facts of your problem domain understanding.
Many organizations approve more projects than leadership can effectively and efficiently manage.
Project fiascos have been reported, studied, researched, and analyzed for decades.
Failed and troubled projects continue to occur at alarming rates despite well-documented, consistent reasons for failure.
Organizations keep repeating the same thinking, organizing, behavior, and actions that trigger failure and trouble.
As Martin Cobb, former Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, said:
"We know why projects fail, we know how to prevent their failure -- so why do they still fail?"
Pursuing aggressive goals, leading-edge change, and differentiated innovation may occasionally fail. That failure is good as long as lessons learned benefit future initiatives.
Most failure is bad, enabled by:
No organization is immune from failure. Public, private, large, and small organizations have experienced project failures, some well-documented by the news media.
Collectively, the annual global cost of project failures exceeds $1 trillion. Some analysts estimate the cost of project failure could be as high as $6 trillion when indirect costs, such as staff turnover, health, new learning curves, and opportunity costs, are added.
Projects fail to deliver expected outcomes for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps the biggest reason is not dealing with or facing reality. Not facing and resolving "unpleasant realities" promptly is the downfall of many project teams.
Law/Principle | Description |
---|---|
Brooks's Law | Adding staff to an already late project may make it even later. |
Pareto's Law | A minority of causes, inputs, or efforts usually lead to the most results, outputs, and rewards. |
50/5 Law | Typically, 50 percent of an organization's projects will add less than 5% to its revenues and profits. |
Glass's Law | Increasing the functionality of an application by 25% doubles its complexity. |
Institutional Imperative | Rationality frequently wilts to meet the cravings of leaders or imitate peer companies' behavior, aka best practices. |
Time is the Scarcest of Organizational Resources | Capital is replenishable in well-run organizations. Scope is easy to add. Organizations can't replenish time. |
The Law of Proximity | An organization can't create value unless it's engaged in and influencing its System. |
Unfortunately, there aren't any easy fixes or silver bullets.
Project failures are more complex and deep-rooted than industry pundits proclaim.
Catastrophic failures are usually enabled by more than problem, action, behavior, event, or circumstance, regardless of industry and product.
Over the past several decades, industries have invested in software development life cycles, professional certifications, management consultants, and undergraduate and graduate education programs.
Those investments have had a nominal impact on increasing project success rates and delivering business outcomes cost-efficiently.
Historically, the relationship between business and IT teams in many organizations has been tenuous.
Today, many business professionals and teams hesitate to engage their IT teams in business initiatives.
Nurturing relationships between those teams is a critical behavior promoted by Capability Thinking® to increase the performance and value of technology investments.
Poor discipline practices in many organizations and teams may be the most significant barrier to realizing consistent project success.
Here are just a few examples.
The real reasons many projects fail may be related to what Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger call the institutional imperative.
Here are some examples of practices that promote project success:
Employ 12 proven practices on your projects:
Transition from traditional project thinking to creative and pragmatic actions that are:
Examples include:
Strong business engagement and ownership are often the difference between project success and failure.
Contrary to popular thought, there are many differences between building a house and developing a software application.
Physical and Visual
Building a home is a much more physical and visual process than building an application.
Maturity
The process, experience, and standards of building “dwellings” are much more mature than building applications. That results in repeatability, predictability, and success rates not found in application building.
Competency
Another key difference is the competency and skill development approach used for building houses versus applications.
Methods and Standards
One more area of difference is in methods and standards. Building construction methods and standards are much more mature and consistently applied than in software building.
BOM Complexity
Another takeaway is that the bill of materials (BOM) used to build application software is more voluminous than the BOM used for home construction.
Pre-built Components
Another takeaway is home building leverages pre-built components and solutions, whereas many software initiatives opt to develop everything from scratch, including knowledge.
Comparing a project to drama may seem an odd analogy to use about achieving successful project outcomes.
“Casting a film is the most crucial decision any director makes.”
The aviation delivery system is more complex than technology project delivery. Yet, it's far less failure-prone than technology projects.
The aviation industry has significantly reduced its failure rates since 1959.
Technology project failure rates have remained generally the same since the early 1990s.
Perspective
Aviation safety impacts human life. Most technology projects also impact humans, though many not from a life-threatening perspective. So the aviation industry must engage in stringent and expensive risk mitigation, investigation, and learning.
“Safety: The Foundation of Everything We Do.”
Improvement Opportunities
With that said, industries can invest more in reducing technology failure rates.
More broadly, sharing experiences and lessons is one-way industries can improve technology success rates.
The transition to prognostic analysis requires a greater emphasis on acquiring, sharing, and analyzing project success data across industry communities.
Organizations should establish and work closely with their peers to leverage data from across industry communities to identify emerging and changing risks and proactively adopt thinking, organizing, behavior, and action enhancements to mitigate them.
It's good project practice to reduce the problem and solution complexity to the extent possible, but we can manage complexity using the right structures, processes, learnings, and people.
The organization and roles between corporate staff and line business teams are similar to franchisor and franchisee.
Franchising is a mechanism to rapidly scale a concept, such as product, retail, service, or other.
Attributes of franchising include:
Projects are like a franchising concept within an organization.
Top Ten Reasons why Franchises Fail
Here are the top reasons why franchises fail (sources: allBusiness; Franchise Advisory Centre).
Do any of those sound familiar?
Most of us think of golf as an individual sport. But it's also a team sport.
Many American players have historically emphasized individual aspects more than the team. I don't blame them. They earn their livelihood in the sport as an individual, not team athletes.
The most talented, modern-day American players have been challenged to engage in the sport as team players.
European players have shown more adeptness and camaraderie at team play than their American counterparts. European teams have been regularly winning Ryder Cups against USA teams, even though USA players are higher ranked and generally recognized as better individual golfers.
Recent U.S. teams of new and younger players are shifting the trend by winning. Are Millennials and Gen Zers more adept at being team players?
Takeaways
“You cannot play a symphony with one instrument.”
"Dream with your team. Strive with your team. Conquer with your team. Rise with your team."
Don't forget that application projects must produce great software to deliver differentiating and impactful business outcomes.
Conceptually, software development life cycles have four cycles of work:
The difference between structured, aka waterfall, and agile is how those cycles are organized, sequenced, executed, and staffed.
Organizations and projects that value predictability and risk mitigation use structured approaches.
Organizations and projects that value responding to change use agile approaches.
Structured | Agile |
---|---|
Progress in top-down, serial sequence | Progress using spiral, iterative sequence |
Deliver full functionality and features over time | Rapidly deliver slices of functions/features |
Deliver large-scale enterprise initiatives over more extended periods, making accommodating change more challenging | Deliver rapid value and quickly respond to change |
Use the following dimensions when deciding between structured and agile approaches:
There's more to a life cycle than just the four work cycles:
Structured software development life cycles are like trains:
Project movement is constant, iterative, and fast-paced using agile methods.
Improvisation and pivots are critical competencies for success.
Agile frameworks are similar to an aircraft powered by a jet engine:
Capability Thinking promotes new thinking, organizing, behavior, and action paradigms integrating structured and agile frameworks/methods to create agile business capabilities.
Reduce the risks associated with project work by educating yourself and your team on basic project fundamentals.