The Problems that Cause Projects to Fail

My life has been largely spent in affairs that required organization. But organization itself, necessary as it is, is never sufficient to win a battle. —Dwight D. Eisenhower

In many industries, including government, no matter what the economy is like, no matter how many hours are devoted, and no matter how bright the people on the team are, a certain percentage of projects will fail to realize the success of on-time, within-budget delivery. Many may terminate without reaching the (originally) intended goal.

What is it about all these ventures that causes such disappointing results?

I have studied the patterns and circumstances surrounding project success and failure for over twenty years, mostly in the financial services industry. I looked at big projects, small projects, global projects, multimillion-dollar projects, and mission-critical projects. What I found was a specific set of characteristics linking those undertakings that deliver on time, come in within budget, and achieve what's anticipated at the project's inception.

• Accountability among project team participants is essential.

• End-to-end communication must remain open and flow without extended downtime.

• Achieving a proper level of transparency for all levels of management is a must.

• A consistent governance and compliance model is key to repeatable success.

• Proper project control is always needed to provide early assistance to troubled areas.

• Active leadership is essential, combining an effective style with proven tactics to understand how to unlock the talent and expertise of the team in cohesive fashion.

• The right tools can make all the difference, but there is no silver bullet. Understanding how to employ the right toolset, including methodology, is a critical component to success.

Accountability

Accountability is maintaining responsibility for all aspects of delivery for a project, a program, or the effectiveness of a project management office. We all like to think that our team of professionals—most of whom carry impressive certifications—are and remain accountable to the mission, the sponsors, and the overall initiative. Most project management offices (PMOs) have little choice but to rely on said professionalism or on threats to ensure that everyone maintains their accountability.

The underlying reason for this lack of choice is that most project participants don't feel a sense of urgency to communicate their statuses. When and if they do, the updates are sanitized to ensure nothing is communicated or published that could reflect negatively on themselves or their group. There isn't a great conspiracy at work. It's human nature, but that doesn't remove the need to achieve the highest degree of accountability from all project team members throughout the life cycle.

Communication

Communication is conveying necessary information to needed parties at the right time and in a way that leaves little room for misunderstanding. Many years ago—and it may still hold true today—one of the two hundred questions on the Project Management Professional (PMP) exam was "Which percentage of a project manager's day is spent on communication?" Ninety percent was the correct answer.

When executing a project of any size or importance, it's difficult to overcommunicate to the project team. When everyone is aware of the big picture, knows what's going on, and feels connected to the decision makers, there is simply better participation and teamwork. However, when project members feel out of touch or out of the loop, productivity and morale suffer.

Most projects are managed through e-mail and spreadsheets. Ironically, many believe this is the very epitome of communication, when in fact these are some of the most inefficient methods to manage a project or a team. It is the project manager's job to ensure communication remains open and available to all the project participants. This includes access to appropriate documentation, such as the project plan and schedule, as well as meeting minutes and risk action plans. E-mail is a wonderful tool, but it does not replace the need for well-run meetings, a central repository for project documentation, and informal, personal interaction among project team members to share ideas.

Transparency

Transparency, in the context of project management, refers to the ability of project participants, including sponsors and stakeholders, to maintain awareness and understanding of project details (issues, risks, dependencies, and constraints) as the project is executed and circumstances change. Without adequate transparency into the day-to-day operations of a project, project managers are at a disadvantage. They are unable to monitor items closely enough to ensure corrective action is taken early, when it is needed most. Senior management, as well as sponsors and stakeholders, are also at a disadvantage because their reliance on the project manager to raise risks and issues is compromised. Most PMO staff react to issues and manifested risks because they did not have sufficient forewarning of developing issues to position the team to take proactive action.

The benefit of increased transparency is the ability to take corrective action early, when it has the best chance of positively impacting project results. No one enjoys reporting bad news, but as the adage says, bad news early is good news. PMO staff, stakeholders, and managers need a better strategy to ensure everyone has the necessary transparency, rather than hope project team members provide all the needed details in a timely manner.

Governance

Governance is sometimes a scary word. In this context, governance refers to a set of standard practices, procedures, rules, definitions, and nomenclature that everyone within a team, logical unit, business area, or organization agrees to adopt. The benefit of a governance model is standardization, which permits everyone to speak the same language across different businesses, departments, or geographical regions.

Project managers, especially the seasoned ones, are sometimes reluctant to adopt a new governance model for fear it will introduce different, untested tools or methodologies that offer nothing more than a lot of overhead and little assistance to get things done. Fair enough. Most governance models do seek to impose standards, but this doesn't mean governance is a bad thing.

When properly administered, a good governance model is as simple as standard values. For example, Green = No Issues, Red = Major Issues. A governance model allows different project managers to use different tools but maintain an agreed vocabulary that doesn't require translation from one project to another or one region to...