Report: 16% of (Swedish) Projects Succeed (2018) - now down to 14% (2020)

For the past few years, KPMG and PMI Sweden have jointly produced the Swedish Project Review (see 2018's report here and the 2020 report here , see bottom left of page 15 for the 14% number) and have shared the results each year at PMI Sweden's annual conference (Passion for Projects, this year's location for PfP2018 was Gothenburg, Sweden). There is an interview with one of the team members here (in Swedish) . The report is very professional and well done.

To sum up the results of this year's Swedish Project Review, only 16% of projects are "successful"

Success is defined in the 2017 and 2018 reports as the project achieves 80% of the scope (i.e. 80% of the benefits are realized); and, that the project was on-time and on-budget as well.

The team also shared at the conference that the percentage of successful projects in last year's report was 14% (2017 ). But, I had a faint memory that the percentage of successful projects was actually 15%. A quick search of Google shows that it really was 15% for the 2017 report (my memory was correct):

Either way, both of these reports (for 2017 and 2018) mirror the statistics shared by Dr. Jeff Sutherland back in 2013 at the Scrum Gathering in Las Vegas. He shared, from the Standish Chaos Report, that only 14% of all projects succeeded (vs. 42% for Agile projects). While Agile may still fail more than half the time in delivering the anticipated benefits, it is still almost three times better than traditional / waterfall methodologies at delivering value.

If whatever you are doing isn't profitable (or adding value), then it is not sustainable

In one of my previous LinkedIn articles, The Art of Agile Portfolio Management using a Fund Manager's Approach , I relate what one of my mentors shared with me: that for every seven companies (projects / products), you should have at least one "star" performer, hopefully. You will also probably have 3 or 4 companies (projects / products) that will "perform" and be profitable. And, you will usually end up with 2 or 3 companies (projects / products) that "under-perform" or fail.

My mentor pointed out that the stars usually end up offsetting the losses created by all of the other efforts (both performers, under-performers and failures). That's a 1-to-7 ratio; and, that works out to a "success" rate of around 14%. This starts sounding like a familiar number; and, is potentially directly applicable to the current state of project management.

So, if the rate of improvement that PMI is observing here in Sweden is sustainable (1% per year), then it will only take PMI 26 years to catch-up to where the Agilists were five years ago in 2013. One of my favorite quotes (that is attributed to Einstein, Ben Franklin, et al) is:

Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again; and, then Expecting Different Results the Next Time Around

Fortunately, PMI is changing and has taken a step in the right direction. It was very encouraging that the focus of this year's conference was Organizational Agility. Also, PMI's PMBoK (Project Management Body of Knowledge) has become "Agile" with help from the Agile Alliance. While this is great news, my concern is that it feels like we are only about a decade late to the party. It is not too surprising that it has taken this long to begin the transformation, though.

For example, I vividly remember one of my friends (who works in technology) mocking me when I put the CSM certification I earned on my LinkedIn profile back in 2008. His merciless response was forgivable since the handwriting was already on the wall back then. But, it's clear that not everyone could see it (like my friend). During 2007 through 2008 I was tasked with putting together, for first time (from scratch), an Agile PMO; and, doing that is what precipitated the beginning of my journey to becoming Agile.

At this year's PMI conference there were at least two sessions (including a keynote) on Agile PMOs. Again, it feels like we (PMI) are a little behind the curve a decade later. But, the Agile side of the equation (with SAFe, LeSS, Nexus, DAD, et al) is also behind the curve. I believe that one reason for that is that almost every MBA trained during the past 25 years is familiar with (Toyota) Lean, Kanban, Theories-of-Constraints, etc. So, from that perspective, it feels like the Agile community is also behind and a little late to the party.

What I learned in my MBA program 25 years ago still echoes in my head and I can still see the innovation bell curve my professors shared (similar to the one below) in the program regarding Innovators (First Movers) -- Early Adopters -- Early Majority -- Late Majority -- Laggards:

Yes, all paradigm shifts take time to mature; and, 85% of the users will be lagging behind the innovation and thought leaders. But, at this point in time (17 years after the initial publication of the Agile Manifesto ), it appears that many of my colleagues that are active in PMI are in the "Late Majority" or even "Laggards" category. We need to significantly up our game in the PMI community if we desire to retain any shred of credibility with the future generations of project leaders, Lean practitioners and Agilists that are beginning their professional journeys now.

While Project Management, Lean and Agile are all valuable, none of those are enough anymore

Speaking of handwriting-on-the-wall, I've been tracking the market demand for Agile and PM roles now for almost half-a-decade. Just shared the updated numbers today here on LinkedIn: Which is more valuable and in demand, PMP, CSM, PMI-ACP or ?

While the PMP is no longer at the top of the list demand-wise (it is firmly in the number 2 position for now), it still is out-pacing Agile certification in terms of compensation / pay. So, a case can be made that the market perception of the value of the PMP makes it the most attractive certification in the project leadership and Agile arenas (the pay for a certified Scrum Master is around 7% below a PMP).

Ultimately, those of us that are in the forefront of Flow, Agile and project leadership need to do some deep soul searching. We need to examine the hard trends and confront some painful (and brutal) facts. For example, incrementally improving traditional / waterfall at a rate of 1% per year probably isn't the best trajectory for achieving and sustaining high-performing projects, products, services or results.

Individuals, teams and organizations need to quickly become anticipatory if they are to have any hope in navigating the stormy waters ahead and/or leapfrogging the competition. Dr. Daniel Burrus shares more in Flash Foresight and the Anticipatory Organization (can highly recommend both books).

And, if you'd like to know more about how to quickly become anticipatory (and implement it using Flow), see Ted's and my blog post here .