Comments on: Annual Cost of Project Failure

By: Unspoken Truths Behind Project Failures « Center for Business Practice Improvement

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 20:56:44 +0000

[...] Crane, “Annual Cost of Project Failure”, The Papercut edge Blog, entry posted May 17, 2010. http://edge.papercutpm.com/annual-cost-of-project-failure/ (Accessed September 20, [...]

By: IT Project Value vs. Waste – Now in “Real Time”! «Papercut Edge

Thu, 27 May 2010 11:34:17 +0000

[...] I posted about my findings reviewing IT project failure reports, how they compared around the world, and within the United States. Today, I wanted to put those [...]

By: IT Project Overages: Where to Look for Answers? «Papercut Edge

IT Project Overages: Where to Look for Answers? «Papercut Edge — Thu, 27 May 2010 11:31:47 +0000

[...] the last couple days, I’ve been taking a look at the annual costs of IT projects, how much value is retained after they’re complete, and how much money is wasted. Today I [...]

By: Geoff Crane

Geoff Crane — Thu, 20 May 2010 18:19:55 +0000

I understand your point, but I'm satisfied with my sources. I believe the Standish Group and Roger Sessions have put a lot of effort into trying to understand the picture and have used the best models they have available to create it. Is it bang-on accurate? Not a chance. Is the problem it presents real? I believe it is. You're free to debunk it.

What's more important: the picture itself or what I do with it?

Because I believe in the picture, my message to stakeholders, sponsors and project managers will be, "value every dollar and reduce waste". That's good sense, but people forget, overlook and disregard that every day. We've all seen it: we all know it happens. I believe this data shows the magnitude of the results of that behaviour. I also believe it's a very effective picture that says, "this is what happens when you forget that basic tenet".

By: Shim Marom

Shim Marom — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:41:29 +0000

Sorry mate, but that's exactly my point. There is something wrong about guessing a number and then using that number as the basis for a supposition. It simply does not add up and this is the sort of substance that houses of cards are built on. If you want to raise a serious argument in relation to the concept of projects failure rate you must have at least one solid component, without which the whole argument collapses.

By: Geoff Crane

Geoff Crane — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:27:53 +0000

I don't think so. The fact is, the real numbers being guessed at here can never be known. By anyone. Ever. If you're looking for references for this post, the formula is in Roger Sessions' white paper I've linked here--he's very clear on his assumptions. If you're looking for calculations on the post that comes after this, there's a link to my arithmetic in the body of that post. All of my references are clearly provided.

Are they reliable? They're as reliable as they can be with the vast amounts of unknown. Do you value the logic? That's entirely up to you.

It really comes down to this: since we can never know the actual numbers, there are two positions to take:

1) Try.
2) Don't bother.

By: Shim Marom

Shim Marom — Thu, 20 May 2010 17:09:15 +0000

Ok, in that case, let's get down to the details and leave the generalities behind.

You talk about the magnitude. The magnitude can only be substantiated based on numbers. You are suggesting that even though the 65% estimate is not necessarily correct, the actual numbers are not far from that. if this is your argument you must explain how do you know that, and provide clear and reliable references to have it substantiated.

By: Geoff Crane

Geoff Crane — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:58:50 +0000

I disagree. As I mentioned in the article, the exact numbers are less important than the magnitude. There is a problem, and I doubt anyone who looks at this data or any other more palatable data sets would contend that. a) I don't mind a little sensationalism if it gets people to pay attention to the problem; b) i think there are answers to be found to the problem by digging deeper into these results. I wouldn't call that nothing.

By: Shim Marom

Shim Marom — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:52:33 +0000

Look mate, I'll be careful with my language as I might end up going to jail for using profanity. I'm amazed at the level of abstract and unscientific, fact based, discussions taking place in the context of projects failure rate. I've read the white paper showing in your link above which left me perplexed. Assuming a failure rate of 65%, based on nothing but a vague resemblance to the Standish report, whose own reliability has been strongly questioned by myself and other PM professionals, is ludicrous, unprofessional, and can't be taken seriously by anyone who seeks to based his/her decisions and comments based on substantiated data. Publishing this sort of information is pure sensationalism that does nothing for our profession.

By: Annual Cost of Project Failure » Papercut Edge « Rubber Tyres –> Smooth Rides

Thu, 20 May 2010 08:03:15 +0000

[...] Annual Cost of Project Failure » Papercut Edge Blogged with the Flock Browser ▶ No Responses /* 0) { jQuery('#comments').show('', change_location()); jQuery('#showcomments a .closed').css('display', 'none'); jQuery('#showcomments a .open').css('display', 'inline'); return true; } else { jQuery('#comments').hide(''); jQuery('#showcomments a .closed').css('display', 'inline'); jQuery('#showcomments a .open').css('display', 'none'); return false; } } jQuery('#showcomments a').click(function(){ if(jQuery('#comments').css('display') == 'none') { self.location.href = '#comments'; check_location(); } else { check_location('hide'); } }); function change_location() { self.location.href = '#comments'; } }); /* ]]> */ Click here to cancel reply. [...]