Fail to plan, plan to fail!

Take a moment to think about a recent project. Did it come in on time, on budget, and deliver the stated benefits? If you answered ‘no’ to any of those questions, you’re
not alone. Numbers from the Project Management Institute and others seem support the claim that ~70% of projects fail (or, to put it another way, just 30% succeed!). We find similar outcomes in construction projects. One statistic suggests that more than half of construction project owners have experienced failure, including an underperforming project – despite confidence in planning and controls. Furthermore, a minority (25-30%) were delivered within 10% of the budget or 10% of the original schedule.

How do we change this? First, we should recognize and repeat a key point – that these failures have occurred despite confidence in the planning and controls. We certainly want to recognize this overconfidence bias first and foremost and be ready to question ourselves as well as solicit and graciously receive feedback. Go into the process understanding – but not accepting – that the majority of projects fail. Next, let’s look at some reasons for failure and ideas of how to combat it.

Planning, of course, is essential – it must be done, it must be done well, and it must not be overly optimistic. A documented project execution plan – along with experienced project management – can go a long way. Changing expectations from various stakeholders can make it difficult to achieve project goals, especially if those goalposts keep moving! Active engagement of a project sponsor (or sponsors), as well as proactive stakeholder management, can help address this one.

Planning, of course, is essential – it must be done, it must be done well, and it must not be overly optimistic

Understanding the business case for a project can help with stakeholder engagement and provide a basis for the project. So make sure all stakeholders know the purpose for doing the project in the first place, and don’t be afraid to ask the ‘why?’ question. Check titles at the door – often a junior member of the team is closer to the issue anyway. It might take just one instance of them being marginalized to decide they’re going to stop speaking up. Fast-forward to everyone scratching their heads, saying ‘Why didn’t I know about ‘x’’? Communication is vital, along with a culture that welcomes and even encourages disagreement. Diversity of thought – while remaining connected and collaborating and making sure all voices are heard – is important.

Cost is a major area that contributes to project failure. Sometimes to save cost, there is a focus on eliminating resources, including project management – but that tends to only make the issue more prevalent. If proper planning was done, we should have an idea of project cost along with appropriate contingency, as well as potential risk areas. Saving money on the cost of project management will likely only accelerate a death spiral.

In engineering projects, we commonly use a front-end loading (FEL) methodology. This is effectively a series of stage gates – generally three initially (i.e. FEL-1, FEL-2 and FEL-3) that allows for development of the project, but also provides off ramps. To that end, project decision-makers should feel empowered to stop projects
as appropriate and watch out for the sunk cost fallacy where projects are not stopped based on how much has already been ‘sunk’ into the project. As scope, cost, and schedule are refined, if they are not favorable and don’t meet the goals of the project, it is better to stop – or at least pause and re-evaluate – as opposed to pushing ahead for the sake of doing the project.

One tool in the hands of an experienced practitioner is the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI). With the understanding that poor scope definition is a major cause of project failure, including cost and schedule overruns, the PDRI methodology promotes scope definition and a review process during early-stage planning. It helps
to quickly identify project risk factors.

Although there is no single tool or even methodology to guarantee project success, I can guarantee that lack of planning will doom it. However, by undergoing rigorous planning – including risk identification and assessment – you can give your project a better chance of success.

David Ziskind is the Managing Partner at Mach Gloal Advisors. Through innovative solutions, he helps companies sustainably solve their manufacturing infrastructure challenges. This article is republished from the Q4 2024 edition of Protein Production Technology International, the industry's leading resource for alternative proteins. To subscribe to all future editions, please click here