-
Large, high-profile
programs either quietly
suceed or fail
spectacularly. The
difference between
success and failure can
be traced to a dozen
basic causes.
Newspapers and business dailies trum-pet few program successes
but amassive number of failures. As pro-grams grow larger and more
complex withevery passing year, their outcomesboth suc-cesses and
failuresbecome fodder for themedia. Unfortunately, program failures
tendto predominate as they not only make sensa-tional stories but
are far more common.
With so much at stake in terms of cost,time, resources, and even
personal career eq-uity, program managers eagerly seek ways
toidentify these risks and avert them. In deal-ing with large,
complex programs, any num-ber of problems can prove the downfall of
aprogram. Program managers must sidestepthese seemingly endless
risks while organiza-tional pressure and sometimes their own
John Gioia
16
Twelve Reasons WhyPrograms FailHowever, the real story is not
that a pro-gram fails, but rather why it fails. In analyzingthese
cautionary tales, business leaders candraw on these lessons learned
to preventsimilar fates in their own program ventures.
No program is immune from failure. Asprogram management
professionals know,the name of the game is risk: schedule risk,cost
control risk, communication risk, changecontrol risk, and poor
implementation risk,among others. Program managers must iden-tify
these potential risks and prevent or over-come them to ensure
program success.professional reputations hang in the balance.Yet
actually there are only a few risks that
can cause a program failure. Because theserisks can take so many
permutations and belabeled differently within different
organiza-tional cultures, there may appear to be manymore reasons.
But an analysis of program
failures, both publicized and unpub-licized, shows that the
prin-
cipal causes for pro-gram PM Network November 1996
-
Figure 1. Wheel of Project Failure
Figure 2. Twelve Checkpoints to Ensure a Sound Foundationfor
Complex Implementations. Miss one and your
foundation's"cornerstone" may crumble your entire program.failure
can be distilled down to 12fundamental reasons.
#1: Underestimating Program Com-plexity. All too often,
organizations em-bark on a large program having underes-timated its
size and complexity. Evensavvy program managers who realizethey
face great challenges often fail toappreciate the full scope of the
under-taking at the outset.
Underestimating complexity leads topoorly detailed management
plans. Thelarger and more complex the program,the more detailed the
program plan mustbe. While most program managers knowthat large
programs must be dissected intoincrementally smaller work elements,
fewactually break the program down to thelevel necessary to
effectively manage it insufficiently discrete work elements.
#2: Lack of Access and InternalCommunication. As organizations
im-plement their program plans, often theyfail to view, listen, and
communicate ef-fectively. This usually results from the in-ternal
organizational structure. Becausethe program management function
oftenfalls outside the organizations core busi-ness competency, the
program managermay not have access to critical informa-tion in
different departments that affectthe program. Without this deep
insightinto all factors that impact the program,the program manager
is at the mercy ofunforeseen influences. Fluid
internalcommunication among different depart-ments can prevent any
potential negativeimpacts to the program.
Even when the program manager isarmed with such deep access,
authority tocontrol these potentially negative impactsis critical.
The program manager must begranted authority to proactively
managethese influences to the program in orderto keep it on the
track of success.
#3: Not Integrating the Key Ele-ments. Years ago, program
managersconcentrated on managing schedules.Now cost control and
configurationmanagement are universally recognizedas key management
processes requiringmanagements attention. However, onlyrecently
have program managers recog-nized the value of integrating all
these
processes.
PM Network November 1996 17
-
in
,s
at
n TWELVE REASONS WHY PROGRAMS FAILA Case Study: Turning FailThe
State of Michigan Department of Tra state highway system that
includes overits priorities have shifted from new hpreservation,
repair and maintenance.
According to Jim Hicks, MDOT P/PMand multifaceted. He says:
Smaller, easer, higher-profile projects were too ofteliver what was
promised, we were losinglosing funding.
The decision was made to develop aagement System (P/PMS) as a
tool to entor and control both long-term and shorwithin the highway
program. The new Pity to handle data volumes for at least 2
With the new P/PMS, communicationunits and upper management,
thus impproject schedules. MDOT foresees signspent on project
management. A reducttime spent on project management for esavings
of 5,000 hours a yearor abouBecause these processes are
inextrica-bly intertwined in their effects (e.g., a de-lay in
schedule will almost certainly leadto cost overruns or introducing
changesmidstream will likely impact both sched-ule and cost), the
processes must be inte-grated. By integrating the processes,
pro-gram managers can see how changes inone area impact another
area and proac-tively manage them accordingly.
Integrating multiple processes toshow and affect their
relationships andimpacts is a highly sophisticated
effort.Organizations with relatively little pro-gram management
experience will fail toimplement them and will undoubtedlysuffer
the consequences. In addition, fewsoftware tools are designed to
supportthis kind of integration.
#4: No Measurable Controls. Howdo you know when your program
hassucceeded? At first glance, this seems anobvious question with
an absurdly obvi-ous answer. However, most organiza-
18
ings will more than likely be considerablThe P/PMS is also
changing the way M
it goals, and the best, says Hicks, is yet tP/PMS will play a
major role in balancinjobs, large and small, in the most
effectivpossible.ure Into Successansportation (MDOT) is responsible
for 9,500 miles of roadway. In recent years,ghway construction and
expansion to
S engineer, the problems were complexier projects were getting
done, but larg- late and over budget. By failing to de-credibility
with customers and at risk of
nd implement a Program/Project Man-able managers to plan,
schedule, moni-t-term programs, projects and resources/PMS also had
to have sufficient capac-000 active projects. have become more open
between workroving overall performance in meetingificant cost
savings because less time ision of as little as one-half hour
averagech project per month would result in a $250,000. Actual time
and dollar sav-tions fail to build such metrics into theprogram
plan.
Every program is designed to accom-plish some fundamental goal:
for exam-ple, deliver a quality product to marketfaster than the
competition or introducenew technology to reduce operatingcosts and
enhance usability. In the firstexample, metrics should measure
prod-uct quality and speed of market delivery;in the second
example, metrics shouldmeasure reduced operating costs and
in-creased user friendliness and acceptance.
Through metrics, the organizationcan quantify crucial parameters
in ameaningful way. When an organizationsees that its product
reached market byso many weeks ahead of the competi-tion or its
product experiences somepercentage of fewer defects
requiringrepair, it knows how successful its pro-gram really is.
Without metrics, the finalassessment of success or failure is left
toindividual interpretation rather than
y more.DOT does its work and accomplishes
o come. In short, as time goes on, theg all the factors that
help us completee, time-sensitive and cost-effective waygrounded in
bottom-line measures thatstem from original goals.
#5: Requirement Creep. Some pro-grams fail due to requirement
creep.Requirement creep refers to adding newrequirements or
introducing changeswhich move the program further fromthe original
Statement of Work (SOW).Properly baselining requirements
andmaintaining the SOW will overcome re-quirement creep.
Requirement creep typically results indelayed scheduling and
spiraling costs,both of which will drive the programdown. Just as
important, as the programmoves away from the original SOW, pro-gram
managers cannot deliver against theoriginal requirements, making
measure-ment of success impossible.
#6: Ineffective Implementation Strat-egy. In the program
management arena,implementation is the key to success.
Or-ganizations will invest time and resourcescarefully designing a
sophisticated plan,only to fall short in the implementation.Some of
these organizations naively usesoftware packages to produce a
variety ofattractive outputs and consider this a suf-ficient plan
to ensure success.
Regardless of the quality of the man-agement plan, organizations
must followthrough with effective implementation tosucceed. Program
success hinges on twofundamental concepts: a high-qualityplan and
effective implementation. Anyplan that remains on the drawing
boardis little more than a concept until the or-ganization
implements it and moves itfrom concept design to a tangible
solu-tion with measurable results.
Most consultants do not specialize inimplementation. In fact,
few even at-tempt it. In a classical consulting role,these
individuals will assist in designingthe plan for their customer,
then leavethe customer to implement the plan forthemselves. Yet it
takes as much special-ized expertise to effectively implement asit
does to develop the plan. Either the or-ganization must have the
internal pro-gram implementation competence orturn to a specialized
program implemen-tation partner who can support them.
#7: A Software Tool is Not the Only
Answer. Some organizations choose a
PM Network November 1996
-
software tool as their primary programmanagement solution. Any
complex pro-gram needs a comparably strong andcomprehensive
solution. While a soft-ware solution is often a necessary
com-ponent to the solution, the software itselfwill not manage the
program.
Software tools must fit into a com-prehensive solution
consisting of estab-lished integrated processes,
measurablecontrols, and an implementation strate-gy. Only then can
the software tool ef-fectively do its job of automating
theprocesses, capturing and collating datainto meaningful metrics,
and monitoringthe implementation strategy. Specifically,automation
of the implementation is crit-ical across large, complex programs
withsmall, multiple projects co-existing. Sotechnology can provide
a keen advantageif used as a tool and not the end-all.
#8: Contractor and Customer HaveDifferent Expectations. Not only
is ashared knowledge between an organiza-tion and its partner
necessary in the dis-cipline, but they must also share a com-mon
understanding of their goals andexpectations. Both parties must act
as ateam with a singular vision for success.
The contractor and the customer bothstand to lose without this
vision for suc-cess. The contractor is destined to have
adissatisfied customer in the end; the cus-tomer never achieves
their stated goal.
#9: No Shared Win-Win Attitude.Another common cause for failure
is thecontractor and the customer entering aprogram without a
win-win attitude.That is, there is no cooperative effort toachieve
the goal. Specifically, the con-tractor often approaches a program
as anopportunity to generate further revenue.On the other hand, the
customer takes aminimal stake in the solution, relying onthe
contractor to deliver.
Both attitudes, in addition to beingsomewhat adversarial, are
destructive toa program. The contractor must stay fo-cused on the
operational program athand rather than seeking further
businessopportunities or revenue. Likewise, thecustomer must take a
stake in their ownfuture by participating and contributingto the
solution planned and implement-
ed by their partner.
PM Network November 1996#10: No Formal Education. Organi-zations
that undertake the managementof their large, complex programs
inter-nally must possess deep knowledge ofprogram management and
implementa-tion. Program management and imple-mentation is a highly
specialized, techni-cal discipline in itself requiring experts
toensure success. Often organizations donot have this expertise or
in-house train-ing because their core business opera-tions are
focused elsewhere.
If an organization chooses to buildand support this core
competency inter-nally, intensive education in programmanagement
and implementationin-cluding the processes and technical tac-tics
for successis necessary. The besteducation is conducted on-site
where theemployees are matched with an outsidementor who works with
them side-by-side. The results of this intense on-the-job training
are numerous as the em-ployees gain an in-depth knowledge ofthe
program management and imple-mentation process.
#11: Lack of Leadership Commit-ment and Sponsorship. A program
suc-ceeds only when senior leadership makesit a top priority and
broadly communi-cates their sponsorship across the orga-nization.
Organizations respond whenleadership emphatically communicatestheir
commitment to the program. Alllevels, from the bottom through the
mid-dle to the top, must remain sensitive tothe needs and
priorities of the program.
Within the immediate program staff,the program manager must also
be acharismatic individual with the ability tomotivate and inspire
the program man-agement staff. Without this strong lead-ership, the
staff will not buy into thecorporate goals and take ownership ofthe
program solution.
#12: Not Viewed as a Start-UpBusiness. Too often, new programs
areviewed as an extension of another pro-ject instead of being seen
as a start-upbusiness. This view generally limits theamount of
resources allocated to thenew program, which greatly inhibits
itssuccess. Without its own resources, there
is no criteria to measure the results orbenefits of the program,
leaving it in-stead to fail.
Management needs to draw a parallelline between a new project
and a start-upbusiness. This line will show that a pro-ject needs
its own financial, management,and control systems. In addition, the
pro-ject should have its own start and enddates, resources, and an
assigned budget.By identifying the project as its own en-tity, it
is easier to see where it succeedsand fails and why. Thus, a
project ismore likely to reach its goals because itwill have all
the necessary resources andsupport.
Understanding these fundamental 12reasons is invaluable to
avoidingfailure in future programs. In many cas-es, these reasons
appear so obvious andself-evident that business leaders
quicklydismiss them as potential risks to theirown program.
However, since each ofthese continue to plague one program af-ter
another, none should be discountedtoo quickly.
Carefully and honestly consider eachof these reasons in the
context of yourown organizations program. Any ofthese, alone or in
combination with oth-ers, can adversely affect your program.While
there are essentially 12 principalreasons why programs fail, it
only takesone of them to make the difference be-tween success and
failure.
While awareness of these 12 reasonsis the first step toward
success, it may notbe enough. In some cases, professionalassistance
from a high-quality firm spe-cializing in program implementation
so-lutions may be warranted. Often the rel-atively small investment
in such a partneris well spent when balanced against thevalue and
importance of the program athand. Every program manager
shouldfairly assess their vulnerability to any ofthese 12 reasons
for failure before mak-ing any decision about their internal
abil-ities to manage against them. n
John Gioia is president and CEO of Rob-bins-Gioia, Inc., an
Alexandria, Va., com-pany founded in 1980. He has over 30years of
experience implementing com-
plex, high-risk initiatives.
19
