Why do projects fail?

The Investigation

Over the past few weeks, I have been speaking with several colleagues across the globe about “why do projects fail” and how this failure has somehow almost become the norm.

This got me thinking of the many possible root causes of these project failures and my mind was suddenly filled with dozens of possible scenarios.

It also led me to think of several resumes that I have read over the many years from project managers, project engineers, estimators, cost controllers, project controls managers, planning/scheduling engineers and construction managers et al – not one had owned up to working on a failed project, rather they all opted to play safe and claim the usual mantra of ‘brought under budget and within schedule’.

My email and Zoom discussions with some highly recognised professionals from all disciplines of project delivery across the world, including a couple who have reported to board level of some companies, revealed a surprising revelation. My questions were rather loose, no underlying agenda other than to explore the notion of whether they believe or if they were aware of whether project health and project integrity checks had been done during the delivery of these large projects that are deemed to have failed. Their responses surprised me.

Some responses included

 “the fish rots from the head”

“boards are not interested in the detail”

“members of the board don’t always understand what is presented to them”

 “if a project health check is a tick in the box exercise for governance purposes then it receives no scrutiny”

“it is an expectation the management team understands it all and just pass the relevant information upwards”

“no-one is interested in project health checks, the future is drone technology, facial recognition, BIM, laser technology for As Builts”

I examined the responses and came up with three themes:

1. Information Overload;
2. Data Integrity is assumed; and
3. Technology Enablers

Information Overload

My gut instincts tells me the responses towards board and executive management not being interested in the status of the project (or portfolio) is likely not entirely true, rather I prefer to lean towards lack of true understanding of what the jargon is actually telling them.

The brushing aside, or flick of the proverbial wrist is what springs to mind when I think of the reams and reams of data that is presented to them. Let us not forget the immense responsibilities these executive and board members hold but let us also not forget that they do not necessarily have the same background understanding or knowledge of all the technical parameters required to deliver a successful project. 

That is why they have others, the management team, the technical engineers, the commercially astute contracts managers, the project services group, the construction managers et al who are all tasked with the responsibility in delivering the project for them.

Is it fair the board or executive managers understand the intricacies of earned value management or even how to calculate SPI, let alone understands what it actually means?

Data Integrity

I mentioned earlier that my line of loose questioning was around project health checks and project integrity checks. We need to fully appreciate the difference between health and integrity checks. I believe they are two different things. To put some definition around the two, I came up with the following:

Project Health Checks (sometimes called a Project Audit) is intended to provide senior management, executive management, and stakeholders a quick overview of how a project is faring and whether it is still on track to deliver on the original objectives.

Project Integrity Check is a deep dive process of inspecting the sources behind the answers delivered in a project health check or project audit. It is an integrity check to ensure the systems and processes utilised on the project are of a sound nature. It is a detailed check to ensure that what is being captured and recorded for project status reporting purposes have been done in accordance with best possible standards.

Thus, a project integrity check can be seen as an extension of a project health check.

I think it is fair to suggest that board and executive management assume the project data reported to them has come from sound systems and processes built into the delivery of the project and that the entire team religiously adhere to and follow the written word.

But should they?

Technology Enablers

I see the latest craze of technology engulfing our project reporting shoreline as simply ‘technology enablers’. Yes, we now have a plethora of fancy data gathering tools that undoubtedly make our project delivery experience so much easier (and exciting).

Over the past several years, we have spoken about using drones to fly out and capture progress on a construction site. In addition, we have heard how using technologies such as BIM and digital engineering can capture all manner of information attributed to a component or system being designed and then constructed, and we have also heard of projects having a laser scanning performed on the as built facility to capture the final built records.

There have been many reports of projects employing augmented reality, linking schedule Gantt charts to 3D enabled software so that you can visually see the development building itself out of the ground so to speak as the project is progressed (4D). There are also now several software’s available that connect cost systems to the same 3D software to show spend and forecast as the project progresses (5D).

Over the coming years there will undoubtedly be many more innovative ideas in the design and construction space, and we will all be waiting patiently to see who comes out as the dominate leader across the various markets.

But behind all this there has to be something that is sound, that is solid, something our board and executive managers can hang their hats upon. 

After all, are we suggesting our board members put on a pair of 3D visually connected augmented reality glasses to peer into the financial forecast of their portfolio of projects to give a vote of confidence to the executive team?

Core

Behind all the dazzle of tinsel and glitter (or smoke and mirrors for those negatives among us) we still need sound, rigid and strong systems and processes. These cannot be done away with. Yes, they may change over time, adapt to the technological changes described above but fundamentally they will still require to be established against a firm set of principles.

I believe we will still need the hard core documentation that describes how the project data is captured, how it is recorded and most importantly how it is assimilated and then reported. The adage of “Garbage In, Garbage Out” still remains.

The advent of sophisticated technological tools will not relieve us of having to fully understand the fundamentals of say how to calculate the percent completes across a set of engineering deliverables (3D models included), and neither will they necessarily mean our project teams suddenly become smaller. Rather our work force will gently transform. Old roles will fall by the wayside and new roles will take their place but once again the fundamentals required to deliver projects successfully will remain.

Responsibility

Those in board and executive management positions - their responsibilities to stake holders and share holders will remain, they may possibly even increase over time.

The questions they will likely be asking themselves: “How can all these reports in front of me be simplified so I can make a decision, and are the facts and figures in front of me a true reflection of what is happening on the ground?”

If you or your team are keen to understand how we can help you determine the integrity of your project, please drop me an email or give me a call.

Change the Culture

Pave the Future

About the Author

Allan is a founding member and director at Allied Projects. He is a project controls professional having managed across multi-billion dollar mining and infrastructure projects in Western Australia in the capacity of Manager Project Controls and Manager Project Services. He is the former Chair for the WA Chapter of the Australian Cost Engineers Society (ACES)