Why Projects Fail? 

We cannot discuss project failure without first having a clear understanding of what a project is, what is deemed a project failure, the measures used to assess a project as failed, and the processes that led to the project failing. 

What is a Project?

A project is a change, and project management is seen as the most efficient approach to managing that change. It means there are defined processes to follow, from the conception to the completion of a project, to ensure it is delivered efficiently.  

Projects are not just embarked upon for the sake of it; there will always be a justification for why a project should be undertaken. That justification is what we call – “Business Case in Project Management”. Among the various contents within a business case are the benefits that arise from the project being undertaken and the key parameters of the delivery process that enable these benefits to be achieved upon its completion. 

It is crucial at this stage to address the two perspectives from which a project can be classified as a failure. The project can be considered a failure for the following reasons:

• Not achieving its intended benefits
• Not meeting its success criteria in terms of delivery.

Benefit realisation and successful delivery are two different things, which those not in the profession struggle to comprehend. Essentially, a project can be successful in its delivery but fail to deliver the expected benefits. Also, a project can fail in its delivery but achieve its expected benefits. A simple example can be a railway project, which may be delivered far above its intended budget, with a longer duration than specified, and a deviation from the specified quality. Any of these three, two of the three or all the three is termed a failure from a project delivery perspective because that is the tripod of project management – time, cost and quality. However, when it is eventually delivered, it can still deliver the intended benefit, as the trains, tracks, signalling, stations, and other components that constitute a railway project convey people from A to B, creating ease of transportation, reducing travel duration, and so on. The same concept can be applied in the opposite direction, where delivery is successful but the intended benefits of the delivery are not being realised. Benefits in the same example might be the project benefit intended was to steer people from air travel to train travel, which might not be the case, or the intended benefit might be to steer people from road travel to train travel, etc 

Failure linked to benefit realisation can be traced to feasibility studies justifying the undertaking of the project being defective, and robust data gathering was not explored in concluding the benefits expected from its delivery. Failure of this nature squarely sits with the Sponsor of this Project. Hopefully, in future, I might write an article specifically on this perspective of failure. 

Failure linked to the project delivery perspective hinged on parameters of time. Cost and quality, which are the tripod of project management, are the focus of this article. 

Why do Projects Fail in Terms of Time?

This is due to a lack of robust planning, monitoring and controlling of time. At the onset of a project, a duration is typically estimated. The estimation might be defective because the key stakeholders who might offer meaningful contributions in the time estimation process were not involved. Examples include failing to give due consideration to procurement timelines, resource availability, and resource criticality. When a baseline programme to sequence all activities is being developed for the project, how robust is the planning software used, and were the critical path, total float, free float, critical chain, etc., correctly established? As the project progresses, what the strategies are deployed to monitor and control? Was the concept of EVM (Earned Value Management) deployed from the perspective of SPI (Schedule Performance Index) to track project performance in terms of time? At various stages of the project, corrective actions were taken to adjust the plan based on the observed trend. These are some of the gaps that lead to failure in terms of time or project duration.  

Why do Projects Fail in Terms of Cost?

It all starts with baseline estimate errors. Every project has a baseline estimate, typically captured in the business case as part of the contents submitted for justification approval. If the forecast is not robust enough, it is basically a foundational estimate failure from the onset. The typical reasons for estimate errors are, but not limited to, optimism or pessimism, a lack of experience on the part of those who have developed the estimate, a lack of inclusivity in those who can provide accurate information to support the estimating process, and, most common of all, poorly defined requirements. When estimates are developed on an open-ended basis, they deviate from accuracy. Take, for example, if an estimate is created for a door without defining in detail what type of door it is. This open-ended estimate can be likened to requesting a Mercedes-Benz car without specifying the exact model. It appears simple, but when many undefined requirements are pulled together, they culminate in a massive deviation from the project estimate. The other perspective is how cost is monitored and controlled. EVM also comes into play here, and a strong control mechanism is CPI (Cost Performance Index). However, some projects don’t utilise this cost control mechanism to track cost performance and make necessary adjustments as the project progresses. 

Why do Projects Fail in Terms of Quality?

Every project has defined quality criteria at the outset, which are developed in conjunction with the end users of the project output. The failure of a robust quality management system means it is practically impossible to monitor and control quality effectively. The entire lifecycle of quality is captured under three perspectives: quality planning, quality assurance, and quality control. Provided these measures are correctly deployed, quality metrics can be systematically adhered to, and the absence of the measures can lead to quality disasters. Proactive investment in prevention, training, and standards with respect to quality is a more effective approach than the cost of failure, rework, and other consequences. Even with the existence of a robust quality management system, some things still escape the quality net; how much more when it does not exist or is poorly implemented. 

Conclusion

Other elements, such as inadequate risk management systems and poor scope management systems, can be contributory factors to project delivery failures outside the predominant tripod of project management – time, cost, and quality.