We cannot talk about project failure without first having a clear understanding of what a project is, what is deemed to be a project failure, what measures were used to assess a project as failed and the processes that culminated in the project ending up as failed.
Simply put, 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 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 why a project should be undertaken. That justification is what we call – “Business Case in Project Management.” Among several contents within a business case, the benefits that emanate from the project being undertaken and key parameters of the delivery process that enables the benefits to be achieved after its completion.
It is important at this stage to address the two perspectives from which a project can be classed as failed.
Project can be ascertained as failed either for not achieving its intended benefits or 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. Basically, a project can be successful in its delivery and not 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; it may be delivered far above its intended budget, 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, track, signalling, stations etc that constitutes a railway project conveys people from A to B creating a transportation ease, reducing travelling duration etc. Same concept can be applied vice versa where delivery is successful, but the benefits intended in terms of its delivery not being achieved. Benefits in 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 undertaking the project is defective and robust data gathering was not explored in reaching a conclusion about the benefits expected from its delivery. Failure of this nature squarely sits with the sponsor of this project. Hopefully in the future, l might write an article specifically on this perspective of failure. Failure linked to project delivery perspective hinged on parameters of time, cost and quality, which is the tripod of project management, is the focus of this article.
Why do projects fail in terms of time? It is due to lack of robust planning, monitoring and controlling of time. At the onset of a project, a duration is expected to be estimated. The estimation might be defective because the key stakeholders that might offer meaningful contribution in the time estimation process were not involved. Due consideration not given to procurement timelines, resource availability, resource criticality are some examples. When a baseline programme to sequence all activities are being developed for the project, how robust is the planning software used? Were the critical path, total float, free float, critical chain etc. correctly established? As the project progresses, what were the strategies 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 project stages, were corrective actions taken to plan based on the observed trend. These are some of the gaps that create failure in terms of time, or otherwise project duration.
Why do projects fail in terms of cost? It all starts with baseline estimate errors. Every project has a baseline estimate usually captured in the business case as part of the contents put forward for justification approval. If the estimate is not robust enough, it is basically foundational estimate failure from the onset. The typical reasons for estimate errors are but not limited to, optimism or pessimism, lack of experience on the part of who has developed the estimate, lack of inclusivity of those that can provide accurate information to support the estimating process and most common of all is poorly defined requirements. When an estimate is developed on an open-ended basis, it deviates from accuracy. Take for example if an estimate is developed for a door without defining in detail what type of door specifically is it. This can be likened to requesting a Mercedes Benz car without specifying which type. It appears simple but many undefined requirements when pulled together culminate into massive deviation of 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) but 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 onset which is developed in conjunction with end users of project output. Failure of a robust quality management system means it is practically impossible to monitor and control quality. The entire lifecycle of quality is captured under three perspectives – quality planning, quality assurance and quality control. Provided these measures are properly deployed, quality metrics can be systematically adhered to and the absence of the measures brings about quality disasters. Proactive investment in prevention, training and standards with respect to quality is a better approach compared to the cost of failure, rework etc. Even despite the existence of a robust quality management system, some things still escape the quality net, how much more when it does not exist or poorly implemented.
In conclusion, other elements such as poor risk management system, poor scope management system etc. can be contributory factors to project delivery failures outside the predominant tripod of project management – time, cost and quality.
• Anthony-Ajileye wrote through [email protected]
