Aleister Hellier的动态

Maybe Cobb was wrong? We *think* we know why projects fail and dont realise that what we think are 'solutions' are actually causes? I am not convinced there is much rigorous evidence for the root causes of failure. There is some good evidence relating the the quality and quantity of "front-end" work. That is something that still seems to challenge many organisations - for some reason project managers start project execution with insufficient preparation work. The common reason I hear is senior budget managers wont spend money up-front. Likewise inappropriate procurement practices, and oversimplifying projects by assuming they just need a main contract put in place and the job is done. Awareness of the procurement issues is at least 100 years old. Maybe the answer is in Pfeffer and Sutton's "The Knowing-Doing Gap"? At least that shows the problem is not unique to projects.

A lot of good suggestions here Aleister Hellier, so to offer a slightly different perspective - a lack of democratisation of the business case and its underlying assumptions in a manner that allows all of those with a role in its delivery to meaningfully engage with it. Not doing so means that as risks develop, they are not sufficiently understood or escalated in time to prevent rather than mitigate (for threats) or maximise (for opportunities).

Anything to do with short memories?

3 things are wrong. 1. if they know why they fail then why haven't they changed it? 2. if they did teh change it didnt work so they were wrong in what they thought and 3 they are asking the wrong question you want to know why projects succeed so you can repeat that

How about Mauvais foi (Sartre) or Akrasia (Aristotle)?

Excellent reach out, thanks. I read standardised project management improves ‘failure’ rate by 25% and yet we know this is a governance activity (after Hart, 1975/1985), we also infer by common sense and what happens in familiar social groups that quality is in the bottom up domain.? For debtors (buyers) in firms, the institution to match is deficient by design of the firm that the brilliant Coase set out in his seminal paper in 1937. We ask, what is the outcome as if no transaction cost, and from this is your answer? The question is reliably answered in my forthcoming paper planned to be published later in 2025 with a remarkable building example and long historical precedent.

Hubris, strategic dishonesty, and lack of integration

My initial thoughts went to two things the world war 2 bomber damage study were experts reinforced the areas with damage rather than the inverse (the ones with damage in the other areas didn’t comeback). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias ) We only hear about projects when they go wrong, because this sells. The second the story by Robert Updegraff, ‘Obvious Adam’ were the most obvious answer is over looked.

Thank you Aleister, EY and Oxford University Said Business School has considered this in detail across multiple sectors and concluded that specific focus on a series of complex human factors can increase the probability of success to more than 70%. I am pleased to say this work is ongoing but the original publication can be found here: https://www.ey.com/en_uk/insights/consulting/how-transformations-with-humans-at-the-center-can-double-your-success

Who is “we”? A number of industries succcesfully deliver mega projects. The “we” in the the statement is government, and the answer to that question is easy; deliberate misrepresentation from the outset.