Why do projects succeed?

We've all seen "top ten" lists and read "why projects fail" rants. Here, we've discussed project failure as well as on Twitter #pmot, and LinkedIn. It may be (creating another "top ten") the number one item of discussion among project professionals. If not, it's certainly near the top.

Projects fail for every reason... all reasons. At some level there may be value in knowing what all those reasons are but--let's face it--when the list is written, it is everything.

Question is: When we have the list in front of us, what do we do with it? How valuable is that data? How do we know which particular item on the failure list is applicable to any given project... and especially the project we're starting now?

A lot of effort and analysis can go into crafting answers to that question. The answers are largely project specific. The answers are treated like any other project risk. If we're good at risk management, that effort might be useful. If we're bad at it, the effort is wasted.

The biggest obstacle (e.g. risk, failure point) we will face in a project is the one we did not anticipate. If we're good at handling unanticipated obstacles, we may go on to succeed. If not, we won't. The list won't help if the biggest threat is something not on the list.

So... Why do projects succeed?

That may be the more important question. The answer may lie in how well we handle unanticipated events.

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Subscribe

Similarity and Success

In my consulting work withing large, complex organizations, I began to realize remarkable similarities among organizations. In fact, there were more remarkable similarities among successful, large organizations than remarkable differences.

In smaller organizations I found this not to be the case at all; quite the opposite. The differences among younger, smaller organizations and particularly between them and their larger cousins are considerable.

After decades of monitoring innovation, progress, and outcomes within businesses of all sizes, I came to understand that the successful outcomes were more closely related to those similarities than the differences.

At the organizational and meta-process level, the more attributes you have in common with other successful enterprises, the higher your chances of success.

Posted by: William W. (Woody) Williams

Subscribe

People or Process

Committed, engaged, talented people may succeed despite deeply flawed processes but it is incredibly difficult and they burn out rapidly. Even the best--world class--processes may deliver flawed outcomes without committed, engaged, talented people. It is not "one or the other," it is "both."

Process Improvement Opportunity

Common business plan: Hare-brained Idea > Foregone Conclusion = Instant Wealth

Contact with the enemy...

Planning is often followed by blind adherence to a plan. The first leads to success; the second to failure. Plan accordingly.

Friday Epiphany

Friday Epiphany: The biggest obstacle you will face is the one you never expected.

Engage

Talk isn't cheap when it leads to understanding. Engage.

Complexity and risk

As system complexity increases, predictability--even of a small change--decreases while probability of its harm increases.

People Problems

"People problems" are caused by people, not technology. People are also the solution.