Newspapers and business dailies trumpet few program successes but a massive number of failures. As programs grow larger and more complex with every passing year, their outcomes—both successes and failures—become fodder for the media. Unfortunately, program failures tend to predominate as they not only make sensational stories but are far more common.
However, the real story is not that a program fails, but rather why it fails. In analyzing these cautionary tales, business leaders can draw on these “lessons learned” to prevent similar fates in their own program ventures.
No program is immune from failure. As program management professionals know, the name of the game is risk: schedule risk, cost control risk, communication risk, change control risk, and poor implementation risk, among others. Program managers must identify these potential risks and prevent or overcome them to ensure program success.
With so much at stake in terms of cost, time, resources, and even personal career equity, program managers eagerly seek ways to identify these risks and avert them. In dealing with large, complex programs, any number of problems can prove the downfall of a program. Program managers must sidestep these seemingly endless risks while organizational pressure and sometimes their own professional reputations hang in the balance.
Yet actually there are only a few risks that can cause a program failure. Because these risks can take so many permutations and be labeled differently within different organizational cultures, there may appear to be many more reasons. But an analysis of program failures, both publicized and unpublicized, shows that the principal causes for program failure can be distilled down to 12 fundamental reasons.
Figure 1. Wheel of Project Failure
Figure 2. Twelve Checkpoints to Ensure a Sound Foundation for Complex Implementations. Miss one and your foundation's “cornerstone” may crumble your entire program.
#1: Underestimating Program Complexity. All too often, organizations embark on a large program having underestimated its size and complexity. Even savvy program managers who realize they face great challenges often fail to appreciate the full scope of the undertaking at the outset.
Underestimating complexity leads to poorly detailed management plans. The larger and more complex the program, the more detailed the program plan must be. While most program managers know that large programs must be dissected into incrementally smaller work elements, few actually break the program down to the level necessary to effectively manage it in sufficiently discrete work elements.
#2: Lack of Access and Internal Communication. As organizations implement their program plans, often they fail to view, listen, and communicate effectively. This usually results from the internal organizational structure. Because the program management function often falls outside the organization's core business competency, the program manager may not have access to critical information in different departments that affect the program. Without this deep insight into all factors that impact the program, the program manager is at the mercy of unforeseen influences. Fluid internal communication among different departments can prevent any potential negative impacts to the program.
Even when the program manager is armed with such deep access, authority to control these potentially negative impacts is critical. The program manager must be granted authority to proactively manage these influences to the program in order to keep it on the track of success.
#3: Not Integrating the Key Elements. Years ago, program managers concentrated on managing schedules. Now cost control and configuration management are universally recognized as key management processes requiring management's attention. However, only recently have program managers recognized the value of integrating all these processes.
A Case Study: Turning Failure Into Success
The State of Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is responsible for a state highway system that includes over 9,500 miles of roadway. In recent years, its priorities have shifted from new highway construction and expansion to preservation, repair and maintenance.
According to Jim Hicks, MDOT P/PMS engineer, the problems were complex and multifaceted. He says: “Smaller, easier projects were getting done, but larger, higher-profile projects were too often late and over budget. By failing to deliver what was promised, we were losing credibility with customers and at risk of losing funding.”
The decision was made to develop and implement a Program/Project Management System (P/PMS) as a tool to enable managers to plan, schedule, monitor and control both long-term and short-term programs, projects and resources within the highway program. The new P/PMS also had to have sufficient capacity to handle data volumes for at least 2,000 active projects.
With the new P/PMS, communications have become more open between work units and upper management, thus improving overall performance in meeting project schedules. MDOT foresees significant cost savings because less time is spent on project management. A reduction of as little as one-half hour average time spent on project management for each project per month would result in a savings of 5,000 hours a year—or about $250,000. Actual time and dollar savings will more than likely be considerably more.
The P/PMS is also changing the way MDOT does its work and accomplishes it goals, and the best, says Hicks, is yet to come. “In short, as time goes on, the P/PMS will play a major role in balancing all the factors that help us complete jobs, large and small, in the most effective, time-sensitive and cost-effective way possible.”
Because these processes are inextricably intertwined in their effects (e.g., a delay in schedule will almost certainly lead to cost overruns or introducing changes midstream will likely impact both schedule and cost), the processes must be integrated. By integrating the processes, program managers can see how changes in one area impact another area and proactively manage them accordingly.
Integrating multiple processes to show and affect their relationships and impacts is a highly sophisticated effort. Organizations with relatively little program management experience will fail to implement them and will undoubtedly suffer the consequences. In addition, few software tools are designed to support this kind of integration.
#4: No Measurable Controls. How do you know when your program has succeeded? At first glance, this seems an obvious question with an absurdly obvious answer. However, most organizations fail to build such metrics into the program plan.
Every program is designed to accomplish some fundamental goal: for example, deliver a quality product to market faster than the competition or introduce new technology to reduce operating costs and enhance usability. In the first example, metrics should measure product quality and speed of market delivery; in the second example, metrics should measure reduced operating costs and increased user friendliness and acceptance.
Through metrics, the organization can quantify crucial parameters in a meaningful way. When an organization sees that its product reached market by “so many” weeks ahead of the competition or its product experiences “some” percentage of fewer defects requiring repair, it knows how successful its program really is. Without metrics, the final assessment of success or failure is left to individual interpretation rather than grounded in bottom-line measures that stem from original goals.
#5: Requirement Creep. Some programs fail due to “requirement creep.” Requirement creep refers to adding new requirements or introducing changes which move the program further from the original Statement of Work (SOW). Properly baselining requirements and maintaining the SOW will overcome requirement creep.
Requirement creep typically results in delayed scheduling and spiraling costs, both of which will drive the program down. Just as important, as the program moves away from the original SOW, program managers cannot deliver against the original requirements, making measurement of success impossible.
#6: Ineffective Implementation Strategy. In the program management arena, implementation is the key to success. Organizations will invest time and resources carefully designing a sophisticated plan, only to fall short in the implementation. Some of these organizations naively use software packages to produce a variety of attractive outputs and consider this a sufficient plan to ensure success.
Regardless of the quality of the management plan, organizations must follow through with effective implementation to succeed. Program success hinges on two fundamental concepts: a high-quality plan and effective implementation. Any plan that remains on the drawing board is little more than a concept until the organization implements it and moves it from “concept design” to a tangible solution with measurable results.
Most consultants do not specialize in implementation. In fact, few even attempt it. In a classical consulting role, these individuals will assist in designing the plan for their customer, then leave the customer to implement the plan for themselves. Yet it takes as much specialized expertise to effectively implement as it does to develop the plan. Either the organization must have the internal program implementation competence or turn to a specialized program implementation partner who can support them.
#7: A Software Tool is Not the Only Answer. Some organizations choose a software tool as their primary program management solution. Any complex program needs a comparably strong and comprehensive solution. While a software solution is often a necessary component to the solution, the software itself will not manage the program.
Software tools must fit into a comprehensive solution consisting of established integrated processes, measurable controls, and an implementation strategy. Only then can the software tool effectively do its job of automating the processes, capturing and collating data into meaningful metrics, and monitoring the implementation strategy. Specifically, automation of the implementation is critical across large, complex programs with small, multiple projects co-existing. So technology can provide a keen advantage if used as a tool and not the end-all.
#8: Contractor and Customer Have Different Expectations. Not only is a shared knowledge between an organization and its partner necessary in the discipline, but they must also share a common understanding of their goals and expectations. Both parties must act as a team with a singular vision for success.
The contractor and the customer both stand to lose without this vision for success. The contractor is destined to have a dissatisfied customer in the end; the customer never achieves their stated goal.
#9: No Shared “Win-Win” Attitude. Another common cause for failure is the contractor and the customer entering a program without a “win-win” attitude. That is, there is no cooperative effort to achieve the goal. Specifically, the contractor often approaches a program as an opportunity to generate further revenue. On the other hand, the customer takes a minimal stake in the solution, relying on the contractor to deliver.
Both attitudes, in addition to being somewhat adversarial, are destructive to a program. The contractor must stay focused on the operational program at hand rather than seeking further business opportunities or revenue. Likewise, the customer must take a stake in their own future by participating and contributing to the solution planned and implemented by their partner.
#10: No Formal Education. Organizations that undertake the management of their large, complex programs internally must possess deep knowledge of program management and implementation. Program management and implementation is a highly specialized, technical discipline in itself requiring experts to ensure success. Often organizations do not have this expertise or in-house training because their core business operations are focused elsewhere.
If an organization chooses to build and support this core competency internally, intensive education in program management and implementation—including the processes and technical tactics for success—is necessary. The best education is conducted on-site where the employees are matched with an outside mentor who works with them side-by-side. The results of this intense on-the-job training are numerous as the employees gain an in-depth knowledge of the program management and implementation process.
#11: Lack of Leadership Commitment and Sponsorship. A program succeeds only when senior leadership makes it a top priority and broadly communicates their sponsorship across the organization. Organizations respond when leadership emphatically communicates their commitment to the program. All levels, from the bottom through the middle to the top, must remain sensitive to the needs and priorities of the program.
Within the immediate program staff, the program manager must also be a charismatic individual with the ability to motivate and inspire the program management staff. Without this strong leadership, the staff will not “buy into” the corporate goals and take ownership of the program solution.
#12: Not Viewed as a Start-Up Business. Too often, new programs are viewed as an extension of another project instead of being seen as a start-up business. This view generally limits the amount of resources allocated to the new program, which greatly inhibits its success. Without its own resources, there is no criteria to measure the results or benefits of the program, leaving it instead to fail.
Management needs to draw a parallel line between a new project and a start-up business. This line will show that a project needs its own financial, management, and control systems. In addition, the project should have its own start and end dates, resources, and an assigned budget. By identifying the project as its own entity, it is easier to see where it succeeds and fails and why. Thus, a project is more likely to reach its goals because it will have all the necessary resources and support.
Understanding these fundamental 12 reasons is invaluable to avoiding failure in future programs. In many cases, these reasons appear so obvious and self-evident that business leaders quickly dismiss them as potential risks to their own program. However, since each of these continue to plague one program after another, none should be discounted too quickly.
Carefully and honestly consider each of these reasons in the context of your own organization's program. Any of these, alone or in combination with others, can adversely affect your program. While there are essentially 12 principal reasons why programs fail, it only takes one of them to make the difference between success and failure.
While awareness of these 12 reasons is the first step toward success, it may not be enough. In some cases, professional assistance from a high-quality firm specializing in program implementation solutions may be warranted. Often the relatively small investment in such a partner is well spent when balanced against the value and importance of the program at hand. Every program manager should fairly assess their vulnerability to any of these 12 reasons for failure before making any decision about their internal abilities to manage against them. ■
John Gioia is president and CEO of Robbins-Gioia, Inc., an Alexandria, Va., company founded in 1980. He has over 30 years of experience implementing complex, high-risk initiatives.