Top reasons why projects & programs fail and how to overcome them
Programs and projects are a means to drive organizational strategy. Failure of the initiatives not only results in loss of investment but also impacts the organization at a larger scale. (For the purpose of simplicity and to maintain consistency, in this article programs and projects are collectively addressed as initiatives .)
Several reports have highlighted the failures of organizational initiatives. A careful look at these reports does not speak very good about the scale of reported project failures.
The common cause of project failures like improper planning, lack of communication, lack of skills and poor-risk management has been reported earlier in the literature. However, as the domain of project and program management is growing new learnings are being documented.
This article is an attempt to discuss those failure modes which go beyond the common causes of project/program failure reported earlier.
However before I dwell further into this article, I would like to discuss an important point.
How to identify the reasons for failure?
Answers to this critical question will form the further body of this article.
How to identify the reasons for failure?
I have always emphasized to consider initiatives as a journey. It starts with a purpose and ends when the purpose is met. In simple words, this journey is the life cycle of initiative. Project management practitioners call it project life cycle or program life cycle.
In this article, I am considering the initiative life cycle as a basis for identifying the reasons for failure. Let’s scan the initiative life cycle where failure modes can appear.
The life cycle of an initiative
A typical initiative follows the following life cycle
- Evaluation of initiatives for strategic alignment
- Authorization of the initiative
- Delivery
- Closure
- Post closure activities
Please note the life cycle discussed here does not refer to any proprietary frameworks like PMI, APMG or Axelos. This is a very generalised representation routinely used by project management practitioners.
Mapping of project failures reasons along the life cycle
A good way to identify reasons for project failure is mapping them along this life cycle. As I go along discussing the failure modes, I will also keep mapping them along the life cycle of initiatives.
Poorly defined linkage of strategic objectives with the initiative
I would rate this as the number one reason for project failures.
Initiatives are undertaken to implement a change and take the organization from the current state to the desired future state. The desired future state is a means to meet the organization’s strategic goals. Investment funding decisions, therefore, should be based on the objective evaluation of initiative confirming its linkage with strategic goals. Organizations not spending enough time to establish this relationship either results in early termination of the initiative or translating the investment as a sunk cost. In both cases, the initiative is a failure.
To overcome this failure mode, asking a simple question will help.
Why do we need to invest in this project?
Answers to this question will provide insights to assess the fitment of the initiative with the priorities of the organization. Choose initiatives which deliver benefits that directly or indirectly support the organizational goals. It is also worthwhile to investigate if the proposed initiatives complement some other ongoing initiative or not. While seeking answers to this question, you may also get insights on the right timing when the initiative should be initiated. A wrong timing to start an initiative may also result in strategic misalignment.
Probing these aspects are most relevant at following stage of initiative life cycle.
Poorly defined success criteria
While it is important to deliver the initiative on time and within cost constraints, it may not be the right definition of its success. The success of an initiative should be measured by evaluating if the initiative is meeting the purpose for which it was initiated. If we do not know what to measure, then we don’t know if we are heading towards success or failure.
A few proactive measures can help in fixing this.
An initiative is considered a success if it delivers the intended benefits and outcomes.
The key to defining success criteria is to define it from the perspective of the users, customers and direct beneficiaries of the initiative. Involving appropriate stakeholders who understand the users, their needs and how they perceive value can help in defining appropriate measures of success criteria.
Probing these aspects are most relevant at following stage of initiative life cycle.
Poor problem statement and limited solution approaches
This one is hard to find and explain.
There are two interlinked aspects here. Defining the problem statement and then identifying the right solution.
Let’s talk about the first aspect – the problem statement
Projects primarily fail because the requirements are not properly defined. It’s not clear what is needed. While it’s very common for the stakeholders to put across everything and anything they need, it is important to asses whether the project should deliver everything that is identified. This means it is important to identify what can be taken out of the scope. A lean scope can still make a solid case for the initiative to get funded, as long as it justifies it contributes to strategic goals.
The key thing to note here is – big is not always good. Being lean may still serve the intended purpose.
Now let’s talk about the second aspect – the solution approach.
For a moment lets assume, the identified scope is good enough. The second aspect still holds significance. Have you observed instances where final solutions are proposed without identifying potential options that can solve the problem with equal effectiveness? Then you are not alone. Talk to your known contact, they will share similar experiences. The right thing to do here is creating a range of options helps in informed decision making. For instance, consider the following illustrative options
- Investing time in a feasibility study before committing to the full scope. Choose a proven technology to meet the business need, with very less risk but at a high cost.
- Chose a new and unexplored technology which comes at a very small price bt greater level of uncertainty
- Try A mix of in-house development and outsourcing.
- Explore various workflows that lead to the same outcome
A careful investigation of all the options shall help to choose the one which delivers intended benefits and meets project success.
Probing these aspects are most relevant at Evaluation of initiatives for strategic alignment but can be done throughout the project life cycle.
Lack of coordination among various units, departments responsible for delivery
I remember one of my school teacher telling me this – If you can’t do this, it means you don’t know it.
No matter how good a plan is. if it’s not well-executed, the outcomes are mediocre. In complex projects where several units, departments and sellers need to work together, successful delivery requires continued alignment and coordination.
In big organizations, where departments and teams are working to meet their own goals and objectives, bringing them together to align for the successful delivery of projects is no mean task. Failure to do so is a good recipe for disaster.
To overcome this failure mode, the following measures can help
- Make people part of the problem. Yes, you heard it right. Bring the right people in the discussion and make them own the delivery. Engaging stakeholders right from the strategic assessment will hold the key for their continual support.
- Make key decision-makers part of the governance team. This will provide the initiative with the much-needed steering towards its goals. The governance teams by its very purpose are responsible for ensuring a project meets its objectives.
This applies throughout the delivery phase.
Inconsistent approaches and methodologies to project/program management
I see this problem from three perspectives.
- Incorrect choice of delivery methodology (it is also referred to as development life cycle)
- Inconsistency in methodologies practised by departments or units within an organization.
- Mismatch of methodologies of the buyer and seller.
Let’s discuss each one of them
Incorrect choice of delivery methodology
Whether the initiative requires a predictive approach, an agile approach or a hybrid approach purely depends on the characteristics of the initiative. I am not discussing here which approach works well in which situation. Readers should understand that a delivery approach is specific for an initiative. Choosing an incorrect or non-suitable methodology for your initiative shall pose you several problems in its entire life cycle.
Overcoming this failure mode is simple. Choose an appropriate life cycle.
Inconsistency in methodologies practised by departments or units within an organization
Typically for a large organization, this is a very common problem. When every departments or unit has a different meaning of terms, different templates for reporting, and different life cycles for managing initiatives, misalignment is a common symptom.
Educating the teams and units and bringing inconsistency is perhaps the only option to deal with this failure mode.
Mismatch of methodologies of the buyer and seller
This problem is similar to what I elaborated in the earlier paragraph. A mismatch of methodologies among the buyer and seller surely going to affect the delivery of the initiative. I have seen in many cases that buyers and sellers do invest time in training themselves in project delivery methodologies. But the real problem is the team members from the buyer and seller take training independently. In this approach, the chances of creating misalignment among the people from both sides and very high. Especially if a hybrid approach is chosen, it has a specific context. In such cases, people from both sides need to align on the hybrid approach.
If you want to get over this failure mode, bring everyone in the same room. It’s that simple.
Selection of sellers based on the least-cost model
While there is a growing realisation among business that sellers should be chosen based on their capacity and capability that offers a long term value, there are still reports that show sellers are selected based on the least cost model. The seller who offers the least price for services is offered the contract.
We have already entered the world of 4th industrial revolution. Technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning are all around us. In this new world, the old ways of doing business, developing products, interacting with customers are being challenged. The changing business models are forcing large organizations to integrate their sellers into the value chain as ling term partners rather than one time suppliers.
Several reports have provided evidence of project failures attributed to improper seller selection.
The progressive management thinking advocates for integrating the sellers considering their long term impact on the value creation and its sustenance.
Summary and final thoughts
As the domain of project and program management is growing, we shall be gaining more and more insights on the reported failure modes. It is imperative for us as a practitioner to keep ourselves abreast about this development and learn from the project/program management community.
This article, not necessarily speaks about all the failure modes but makes a point to think beyond what we already know.
About the Author
Ravi Kumar is the practice lead of Agile and Project Management at RxAgile. His experience spans in the areas of strategic management, new product introductions, and general business management. Ravi is the course advisor of Program Management Professional Exam Prep Course offered by RxAgile.
Ravi is also a contributor to the Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBOK) 7th Edition.