A Reflection on Why Large Public IT Projects Fail - Kjetil Mark Thompson s Chapter

7/25/2019 A Reflection on Why Large Public IT Projects Fail - Kjetil Mark Thompson s Chapter

1/15

Kjetil Holgeid

Cambridge Judge Business School

Dr. Mar !hom"son

Cambridge Judge Business School

University of Cambridge

UK

m.thom"son#jbs.cam.ac.u

Kjetil Holgeid is a senior management consultant. He has

extensive experience from mega project delivery. He earned

his Executive MBA degree from University of Camridge!

Camridge "udge Business #chool! and his Master of

#cience $Cand. #cient% degree in Computer #cience from

University of &slo! 'or(ay. He is recogni)ed as an

Executive #cholar y 'orth(estern University! Kellogg

#chool of Management! U#A. He (as a(arded the Executive

Certificate in *eadership and Management from M+,

Massachusetts +nstitute of ,echnology! #loan #chool of

Management! U#A. He received -irectors A(ard for

&utstanding Achievement/ from University of Camridge!

Camridge "udge Business #chool! UK.

r. Mar0 ,hompson is a University of Camridge *ecturer

in +nformation #ystems and former eputy irector of MBA

programmes at Camridge "udge Business #chool. He is a

irector of Methods Consulting! UK. He is a #enior Advisor

to the UK Cainet &ffice.

A Reflection on Why Large Public Projects Fail
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

htt"%&&'''.agilemanifesto.org&

New research shows surprisingly high numbers of

out-of-control tech projects - ones that can sink

entire companies an careers!(l vb er and Bud)ier +,$$ .

1 A"#$RA%$!here is over'helming evidence that large ! "rojects

indeed tend to fail/ ho'ever the e0tent of failure is

debated among academics and "ractitioners. ! "rojects

seem to fail in both "rivate and "ublic sectors/ ho'everfailure in "ublic ! "rojects a""ear to be more s"ectacular

due to si)e/ visibility in media and "olitical conse1uences.

2e highlight the im"ortance of several conte0tual issuessuch as ho' to handle a diverse set of vendors/ ho' toavoid vendor loc3in/ strategi)ing to'ards a "iecemeala""roach to moderni)ation/ strategies to counter lac ofsilled ! "rofessionals in "ublic service/ the im"ortance

of organi)ation behavior "ers"ectives such as grou"dynamics and grou" formation and finally the im"ortanceof "ro"er change management. $

$ 4 5 a g e

By studying conte0tual issues related to "roject failure 'ereveal t'o core conte0tual dimensions6 si)e and volatility/from 'hich a ne' frame'or 3 !he Conte0tual ! 5roject(rame'or 3 emerged. !he frame'or is leaning to'ardsconce"tions of causal agency theory and is intended tohel" strategi)e to'ards successful "rojects/ "aying

"articular attention to "rojects "ossessing 'hat 'e call7hy"er emergent8 characteristics. 2e em"hasise theim"ortance of strategi)ing 'isely by s"litting large effortsinto manageable "ieces according to ris "rofile/ yet

"utting "ro"er measures in "lace to maintain a clear vie'of the bigger "icture.

Key'ords% 5ublic 5roject (ailure/ 5roject Success/

9mergent/ Causal :gency/ 9mergent 5ers"ective

This paper is accepted for publication as chapter in the book project "TheGovernance of Large-Scale Projects -Linking Citizens and the State", The ertie School of Governance and the

2 &N$R'()%$&'N!he UK government s"ent some ;$< billion on ! in

+,,=/ and the "ublic sector seems to mae less effectiveuse of ! com"ared to the "rivate sector/ according to

5:SC *+,$$-. 5:SC "oints out that continuing !

mismanagement in "ublic sector is leading to severe

"roject failures and 'aste of ta0"ayers> money. 90am"lesof large scale "ublic "rojects are listed in 2hitfield

*+,,?-.

!he motivation for this "a"er is a desire to contribute in

reducing the considerable 'aste of time and money 'ithin

the "ublic sector on s"ectacular ! failures. !here is atendency for "ublic service ! "rojects to become

gigantic/ and conse1uently hard to manage.

Dunleavy et al. *+,,


3/15

Debate triggers Basis for broad based action

CHAOS (1994)Flyvbjerg and Budzier (2011)

"!ie S#a$e"%&er (199')

!enden and *!&+#&n (2012),-$A.ee (200/) ,

-anu and &&dHar#er (200),

Food for thought Niche application

#el+an-$%ee+an3!ang(200/,*e$! %l#enb&rg 3 Fr&li$5

,

!i6eld (200) Sauer 7e+in& and 8ei$!

(200)i$!&la and Hidding (2010) ,

,:ASC (2011)

5roject Success% 7!he "roject is com"leted on3time and

on3budget/ delivering the e0"ected value85roject (ailure% 7!he "roject is either terminated or not

com"leted on3time/ or not on budget/ or not "roviding thevalue aimed for8

By value 'e mean the sustainable added benefit/ i.e. ifyou need to redo major "ieces of the "roject earlier than

antici"ated/ it should be considered as a failure.

Before 'e "resent our literature revie'/ it is 'orthmentioning that there is a very large body of literature on

"roject failure. !he aim of this "a"er is not to summari)eall of this. ather/ 'e 'ill highlight a selection that 'illserve as the basis for a ne' understanding of commondenominators as these "ertain to the characteristics of

"ublic service "rojects/ such as gigantic si)e/ massivecom"le0ity and high visibility.

!he literature a""ears littered 'ith Icritical successfactors> to guide "roject success. (ortune and 2hite

*+,,

have many cham"ions/ but also critics. Some of the critics

argue that merely listing critical success factors does notreveal im"ortant relationshi"s across these factors.(ortune and 2hite suggest a systems model/ the (ormalSystems Model/ as a framing device to deliver the

benefits of taing account of success factors 'hileaccommodating the criticism. (or further study 'erecommend using this frame'or/ ho'ever for the aim ofthis literature revie' 'e structure the revie' according to

the main findings/ follo'ed by a literature revie'analysis.

!he selected literature can be characteri)ed along severaldimensions. !he matri0 belo' illustrates ho' the

literature revie'ed can be "lotted along t'o a0es% *$-

applicaility!'hich means to 'hat e0tent the literature isaddressing a narro' segment such as one "articular ty"e

of "rojects/ a fe' "rojects/ or a certain geogra"hy/ and *+-

transparency1reliaility! 'hich indicate to 'hat degree

the literature is based on a trans"arent&reliable researchmethodology and baced by data.

5 a g e


Br&ad

ro

o

L .


4/15

$==G +,,=

5rojects Succeeded% $s inability to act as an intelligentcustomer seems to be a conse1uence of its decision to

outsource a large amount of its ! contracts.8 5:SC*+,$$/ "age N+-. (urther/ the 5:SC re"ort 1uotes Dr.

5 a g e

Mar !hom"son of Judge Business School/ University ofCambridge/ 'ho argues that 7there is usually really lousymanagement of the contract once it is in "lace8 5:SC*+,$$/ "age N+-.

(ishenden and !hom"son *+,$+- tae the argument

further/ and rather than just "ointing to'ards lousymanagement they call for a ne' a""roach to "ublic

service ! altogether. (ishenden and !hom"son suggest

use of o"en standards and architectures that allo'

government to become technology agnostic 'hich overtime 'ill drive both innovation and reduce cost due to

com"etition. !his 'ill/ according to (ishenden and

!hom"son *+,$$/ "age $-/ 7create a "o'erful dynamic/

driving dis3integration of traditional Iblac bo0ed>technologies and services/ traditionally organi)ed around

Isystem integrators> and De"artmental structures/ and

their re3aggregation around the citi)en in the form of

services.8

(ishenden and !hom"son highlight the failure of thetraditional a""roach to modernisation of the "ublic sector

'hich has been characteri)ed as the era of Pe' 5ublicManagement *P5M-. !he underlying hy"othesis of P5M

of "rivate sector style/ maret3oriented a""roaches to"ublic services often led to government disaggregating

many of its functions. (urther/ P5M is encouraging

com"etition bet'een different "arts of the "ublic sector

and bet'een "ublic and "rivate sectors. Dunleavy et al.(2005) highlights that many of the "romised

benefits of

disaggregation had failed to materialise/ rather

they"rovide e0am"les of increased administrative

com"le0ity/

vertical siloing of agencies/ and difficulties in co3ordinating joint service delivery.

:s a res"onse/ (ishenden and !hom"son suggest a moveto'ards 7o"en architecture8 if government is actually to

achieve Digital 9ra @overnance *D9@/ Dunleavy et al(2006) -. !he core of D9@ is re3aggregating of

"ublicservices leveraging under direct government

control

around the citi)en/ as 'ell leveraging ne'

technologysuch as cloud com"uting/ a""s develo"ment and

other

recent innovations moving to'ards an 7onlinecivili)ation8 *Dunleavy and Margetts/ +,$,-.

nden and !hom"son suggest that @overnment>s


!he majority of the issues discussed in both 5:SC *+,$$-and (ishenden and !hom"son *+,$+- lin bac 3 in one'ay or another 3 to "roject si)e. Some of the reasons 'hy

"ublic "rojects tend to be huge and risy seem to be%

@overnment ty"ically contracts for large/ undifferentiated

systems that have not been se"arated out into high3 and

lo'3ris com"onentsnstead of bundling u" standardised/ lo'3ris com"onents*'hich might be more successful-/ government hasoutsourced&develo"ed an undifferentiated mi0 of high andlo'3ris together/ resulting in a inability to identify andcontrol ey riss

5ro"rietary technologies are also ty"ically dee"lyintegrated 'ith su""orting business logic/ meaning thatentire de"artments&functions&"rocesses need to be tacledin one go/ rather than in bits.

2e 'ill lin bac to this discussion of conte0tual issues

'hen 'e "resent a consolidated literature analysis later inthe "a"er. Mean'hile/ 'e suggest that these conte0tual

issues form a useful bacground to our discussion of theother main findings belo'.

3.2 (iagnosing failuren this cha"ter 'e 'ill start building our no'ledge of the

e0tent to 'hich ! "rojects fail/ according to our research

1uestion R$. 2e 'ill ee" returning to the e0tent of

failure in the follo'ing cha"ters/ gradually building our

understanding.

!he Standish @rou" CH:AS re"orts on ! failure havebeen 'idely referenced and as mentioned earlier in this

re"ort/ their definitions of success and failure have been

debated. Ho'ever/ the CH:AS re"orts seem to be 'idely

recogni)ed in the industry. !he Standish @rou" "ublishesa re"ort on ! failures a""ro0imately every second year

and claims to have been collecting case information on

real3life ! environments and soft'are develo"ment

"rojects since $=FO. !heir cumulative research includes$? years of data on 'hy "rojects succeed or fail/

re"resenting more than F,/,,, com"leted ! "rojects.

90am"les of Standish research findings by year%

!he Standish e"orts are available/ but not freely in the"ublic domain. 2e have therefore been careful not to

reference results from CH:AS years that are not "ublicly

available.

!he Standish @rou" re"orted in $==G that the average costoverrun of soft'are "rojects 'as as high as $F=/ 'hilemore recent cost overrun results re"orted by the Standish@rou" and others sho' lo'er results *Jorgensen andMoloen/ +,,


5/15

2hitfield *+,,?/ "age O-

could be categori)ed into five ty"es of "erformance%

:bandoned *=-

Budget Challenged *O-

Schedule Challenged *$F-

@ood 5erformers *


6/15

Contractors overstate their ability to deliver

Conclusions by analysts are seldom critically

assessed before acce"ted

5ublic clients lac com"etence in managing large

scale "rojects

!he lac of sills in managing large scale "rojects havebeen addressed by a number of studies/ including

Ka""elman/ McKeeman and hang *+,,s underscoringof the im"ortance of communication sills/ and McManusand 2ood3Har"er *+,,?->s highlighting of *among otherfactors- "oor staeholder communications and "oorleadershi" in "roject delivery. 5:SC *+,$$- addresses thishead on by taling about 7mismanagement8 in "ublic !.!he bottom line is that several studies highlight a lac ofsills in managing large ! efforts as a core reason for

"roject failure.

!he im"act of 7blac s'an83effectsBased on research of $.G?$ large !3"rojects/ (lyvbjerg

and Bud)ier *+,$$- found that the average cost overrun'as +?. !his finding is in line 'ith the figures re"orted

by several of the "a"ers referenced above/ for e0am"leJorgensen and Moloen *+,,McManus and 2ood3Har"er studied +$G 9uro"ean "ublic

and "rivate "rojects covering the "eriod $==F3+,,O. !hey



7/15

is Category !o" rated iss

"onsorshi"&A'nershi" 5roject has inade1uate to"

management commitmentunding and Scheduling 9ntire "roject must be

budgeted at the outset5ersonnel and staffing 5roject lacs enough staff

or right sills

found that out of the +$G "rojects e0amined/ +G 'erecancelled. n +, of the cases the cancellation 'as due toissues related to the business&organi)ation. n ON of thecases the cancellation 'as due to management3relatedissues/ and in +? cancellation 'as due to technology3related issues.

!he average duration of the e0amined "rojects 'as +s "a"er/ 'e suggest this has not only to do 'ithlac of traditional "roject management disci"line but alsolac of com"etence in leading change journeys.

Mc:fee *+,,


8/15

Sco"e e1uirements are ignoredfor the sae of technology

e1uirements 5roject changes are

managed "oorlyelationshi"

Management

5roject fails to satisfy end3

user e0"ectations

Nhtt"%&&agilemanifesto.org&"rinci"les.html

#ource2 ,esch! Kloppenorg and 8rolic0 $677

Strategies for avoiding riss are often related toestablishing "roject management "rocesses 'ithin theorganisation. Ho'ever/ other researchers 'arn that over3reliance on methodology can be a cause of failure in itself/as discussed earlier *for e0am"le McManus and 2ood3

Har"er *+,,?--.

:nother theme is the im"ortance of recogni)ing the

hidden riss that are difficult to avoid or mitigate in a"lanned fashion. :long these lines/ (lyvbjerg and Bud)ier

suggest taing a 7blac s'an8 stress test before engaging

in a large technology "roject/ as a systematic ris

"lanning "rocess 3 as suggested by !esch/ Klo""enborgand (rolic 3 might not be enough.

Management 5rinci"les :ssociated 'ith ! 5roject

SuccessPicholas and Hidding *+,$,- "oint out that success in !

"rojects remains elusive/ even after decades of efforts to

im"rove it. !hey argue that most of these efforts havefocused on the traditional "roject management "aradigm*for e0am"le "resented in 5M *+,,F-- and that e0"loringa ne' "aradigm called Talue3Driven Change Veadershi"*TDCV- might be useful. !he TDCV suggests tracing

business value3added benefits rather than tracingconformity to "lans and schedules.

!he :gile Manifesto *referenced earlier- re"resents yetanother "aradigm for soft'are develo"ment. n the :gileManifesto 5rinci"lesN 'e read 72elcome changingre1uirements/ even late in develo"ment. :gile "rocessesharness change for the customerYs com"etitive advantage.8
http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/HYPERLINK%23bookmark15http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.htmlhttp://var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_1/HYPERLINK%23bookmark15


9/15

Failure= C&re $aue >?j&&rjin&&.

@.u

naJ$

'&

FlyvjbergandBudz

%a##el+an-$%ee+a

(200/)

in7DE1!Z$

$ZOlA->

+->

&-$A.ee(20

-$-anuand&&dH

9i$!&laandHiddi

:ASC(201

Sauer7e+in&and

*e$!%l#enb&rg

(200)

Fi!endenand*!&+

!i"6eld(20

s money is on the

line.

!he literature revie' has revealed common core themescontributing to success and failure of "ublic ! "rojects.Veadershi"3related issues emerge as the over3archingtheme. :lthough "ro"er technology strategy andim"lementation need to be in "lace/ ! "rojects seldomfail due to technology related issues. !hroughout theliterature revie' this vie' seems to be a commondenominator/ even though each "iece of literature "lacesdiffering em"hasis on the various leadershi"&managementfactors addressed. !his is illustrated in the table belo'/'here the main causes determining ! "roject failure arema""ed across the literature revie'ed.


10/15

,ale 3 2 *iterature revie(2 Core causes of failure

$$ 4 5 a g e


2e suggest that "roject si)e and volatility form a useful'ay to "lace the above findings in conte0t. Sauer/@emino and eich *+,,?- suggest that ris of "rojectfailure increases 'ith "roject si)e and volatility. !heim"ortance of the si)e factor is baced by numerousre"orts/ including 2hitfield *+,,?-/ (lyvbjerg andBud)ier *+,$$-/ 5:SC *+,$$-/ (ishenden and !hom"son

*+,$$-. !he im"ortance of "ro"er handling of volatility isaddressed in several "a"ers/ for e0am"le Picholas andHidding *+,$,-/ 5:SC *+,$$-.

2e "ro"ose analy)ing "roject failure by a""lying "rojectsi)e and volatility as core conte0tual dimensions. 2e

"ro"ose a ne' frame'or 3 the Conte0tual ! 5roject(ame'or 3 'hich is intended to *$- hel" strategi)eto'ards successful "rojects by leveraging conte0tuallysound strategies/ *+- facilitate discussions about "roject

success and failure/ and *N- frame our literature revie'analysis.

!he frame'or ma"s 'ell to the 'or of Marus and

obey *$=FF- 'ho loo at the relationshi" bet'een

information technology and organi)ational change from acausal agency "oint of vie'. !hey lay out three

conce"tions of causal agency% *$- the technological

$+ 4 5 a g e

im"erative 'here ! is vie'ed as a cause of

organi)ational change/ *+- the organi)ational im"erative

'here designers can manage the im"acts of ! systems byattending to technical and social concerns/ and *N- the

emergent "ers"ective 'here the uses and im"act of !



11/15

emerge un"redictably from com"le0 social interactions.

!he organi)ational imperative! 'hich builds on the

assum"tion of designer discretion/ seems to fit 'ell in

analy)ing situations 'here there is lo' degree of

volatility *the left 1uadrants in the Conte0tual ! 5roject(rame'or-. !he emergent perspective! 'hich

a""reciates that "references develo" and change over time

and behavior is hard to "redict/ can be a""lied to the right

1uadrants of the Conte0tual ! 5roject (rame'or.:ccording to Marus and obey/ em"irical research has

generated contradictory findings related to the

technological imperative! thus 'e do not include this

"ers"ective in the "ro"osed frame'or.

:s "resented in the literature revie'/ Picholas andHidding *+,$,- discuss management "rinci"les associated'ith ! "roject success/ and "resent t'o schools ofthought. !he traditional efficiency school defines success

by timely and on3budget delivery according to "re3determined s"ecifications. !his traditional vie' of !

"roject management/ also su""orted by 5M *+,,F-/

seems to a""ly 'ell in "rojects characteri)ed by a lo'degree of volatility/ and is 'ell suited for 7Sim"le8 or7Com"le08 "rojects according to our suggestedframe'or. !he effectiveness school of thought/ 'hichdefines success according to value out"ut rather than "re3determined s"ecifications/ seems to a""ly 'ell incircumstances 'ith higher degree of volatility.

:s both "roject si)e and volatility increase/ the "rojectmight end u" in the 7Hy"er 9mergent8 1uadrantcharacteri)ed by high ris of failure. !he organi)ational

"ers"ective fails in e0"laining causality in hy"er emergent"rojects as cause and effects in high volatile environmentsare by nature blurred and hard to com"rehend. n such

situations "re3determined s"ecifications are liely to besubject to significant change/ and even 'ith "ro"erchange control mechanisms it is liely to be a costlye0"erience. :mong the various underlying causes offailure highlighted in 5:SC *+,$$- are over3s"ecificationof re1uirements and a tendency to commission large

"rojects 'hich struggle to ada"t to changingcircumstances.

Based on our e0"erience/ large "ublic "rojects tend to end

u" being 7Hy"er 9mergent8 due to vast si)e and high

volatility in management and&or changes in schedule/budget and sco"e as "resented by Sauer/ @emino and

eich *+,,?-. n the e0isting literature 'e have not found

any com"elling holistic strategy to co"e 'ith such hy"er

emergent conte0tual situations. 5ure emergent strategies/

$N 4 5 a g e

for e0am"le instantiated by the agile movement

mentioned earlier/ is to our no'ledge not yet a""lied

sufficiently to huge "ublic "rojects. Ane vie' might be

that e0isting emergent strategies a""ly 'ell to small andvolatile "rojects/ but are not sufficient as a measure to

address the needs of the 7Hy"er 9mergent8 large and

volatile "ublic "rojects. !his vie'/ ho'ever/ needs further

study to 1ualify.

n the absence of a holistic a""roach to handle 7Hy"er9mergent8 "rojects/ 'e suggest an avoidance strategy'here large "ublic "rojects are divided into smallermanageable "ieces scattered across the conte0tual !5roject (rame'or/ yet avoiding the 7Hy"er 9mergent81uadrant. 5roject slices categori)ed as 7Sim"le8/7Com"le08 or 79mergent8 can be addressed by 'ellno'n a""roaches from either the efficiency3 oreffectiveness cam". :voiding large and volatile "rojectsseems to be in the s"irit of 2hitfield *+,,?-/ (ishendenand !hom"son *+,$+-/ 5:SC *+,$$-/ (lyvbjerg andBud)ier *+,$$-.

9ven though the Conte0tual ! 5roject (rame'or"resents four distinct 1uadrants/ in reality a "roject 'illfind itself on a spectrum along the si)e and volatilitydimensions. !he diagonal ris dimension illustrated islie'ise relative. !hus/ even after a""lying avoidancestrategies/ a cluster of sliced "rojects 'ill differ in theirrelative degree of being 7Hy"er 9mergent8. !herefore 'esuggest (lyvbjerg and Bud)ier>s advice of "erforming7blac s'an8 stress tests still a""lies. :lso/ rismitigation strategies are highly a""licable as "ointed outin numerous studies such as McManus and 2ood3Har"er*+,,?-/ !esch/ Klo""enborg and (rolic *+,,?-.

Based on the literature revie' 'e believe that strategies to

avoid 7Hy"er 9mergent8 situations are im"ortant/ yet notsufficient/ in co"ing 'ith "ublic "roject failure. 9venthough 'e slice "rojects in to manageable "iecesaccording to their ris "rofile/ the out"ut from the sliced

"rojects still need to 'or together in a "ro"erlyorchestrated sym"hony. !his is "articularly im"ortant as'e move from the era of Pe' 5ublic Management *Jamesand Manning/ $==


12/15

!herefore 'e "redict that the lac of silled leadershi"ca"acity 'ill remain at the centre of gravity in e0"lainingfailure of large scale ! "rojects. Vac of silled !leadershi"&management is re"orted in numerous studies to

be a ey reason for failure *Ka""elman/ McKeeman andhang *+,, among the "ieces. !hird/

blending an undifferentiated mi0 of high and lo' riscom"onents into one large contract is/ according to theliterature revie'/ not best "ractice.

$G 4 5 a g e

!he strategy of eating the ele"hant one "iece at a timeseems logical and reasonable. Ho'ever/ the im"ortance ofunderstanding the bigger "icture is still "aramount. Joint! "ublic service delivery across agencies/ and evenacross entities 'ithin large agencies/ tends to be

"roblematic. !he im"ortance of "ro"er changemanagement/ common understanding of urgency/ clearand shared goals/ trans"arent status and strong focus on

de"endency and ris mitigation are all critical in ensuringsuccess. nternal "o'er struggles might undermineefficient service delivery/ and the im"ortance of acommon/ clear and acce"ted over3arching goal can not bestressed enough. !his a""ears to be true in both o"en andclosed architectural strategies.

!o com"ensate for lac of sills "ublic agenciessometimes tend to focus heavily on methodology and

"rocesses. ndustriali)ed and o"timi)ed delivery "rocesses

are of course im"ortant/ but the literature revie' reveals

that this cannot be a substitute for the scarce leadershi"sills mentioned above. Aver3reliance on methodology

and "rocess can lead to a dangerous false sense of control.

:ccording to the literature revie'/ the inconvenient truthis rather a severe lac of leadershi"/ ! delivery sills ande0"erience on both sides of the table *clients and

contractors-.

:s discussed/ volatility is common in large scale !"rojects. :s "rojects are assessed to be leaning to'ardsthe right 1uadrants 79mergent8 or 7Hy"er 9mergent8 ofthe Conte0tual ! 5roject (rame'or/ 'e submit that

"ublic agencies not only should evaluate "ro"osals basedon initial "rice/ but "utting a stronger em"hasis oncontractual measures to ensure long term value formoney. Aver3reliance on u"3front detailed s"ecificationsof large "rojects has "roven not to deliver "redictableoutcomes as the needs are subject to change. Vong3running "rograms might even be subject to major "olicychange/ maing initial re1uirements incom"lete or evenirrelevant.

!o sum u"/ 'e "ro"ose a ne' frame'or 3 the

Conte0tual ! 5roject (rame'or 3 'hich is intended to

*$- hel" strategi)e to'ards successful "rojects byleveraging conte0tually sound strategies/ *+- facilitate

discussions about "roject success and failure/ and *N-

frame our literature revie' analysis. 2e suggest anavoidance strategy for moving a'ay from 7Hy"er

9mergent8 "rojects/ and highlight the im"ortance of

strategi)ing 'isely in s"litting large efforts intomanageable "ieces according to ris "rofile. Still/ there isclearly a need for a silled leadershi"/ change



13/15

management and ! delivery sills to ensure large scale! "roject success. !he sills are ac1uired largely bye0"erience from large scale "rojects and 'e suggest ne'strategies to address the current scarcity of such sills/

"utting "ro"er measures in "lace to maintain a clear vie'of the bigger "icture. Aver3reliance on contractualmeasures/ methodology and "rocess do not lead to theeva"oration of the need of "ro"er sills/ leadershi" and

management.

5 %'N%L)#&'N!he "rimary objective of this re"ort has been to shed light

on the research 1uestions through a focused literature

revie' su""orted by our analysis. Belo' 'e revisit the

research 1uestions and highlight the main findings.(inally 'e 'ill discuss limitations and suggest further

research.

1. !o 'hat e0tent do large ! "rojects fail!he literature revie' revealed over'helming evidence

that ! "rojects in general/ and large "ublic ! "rojects in"articular/ indeed tend to fail. :n alarming rate of !"rojects fail in terms of both schedule and cost overruns.5erha"s even more severely/ large "rojects have atendency not delivering the "romised value and some areabandoned 'ith a huge net loss not reali)ing any value atall. Varge scale "ublic ! "rojects are ty"ically triggered

by "olicy reform and conse1uently highly visible in mediaas ta0"ayer>s money is on the line.

2e found most studies reveal cost overruns in the rangeof about N, *see for e0am"le Jorgensen and Moloen*+,,

role/ data collection a""roach and a""roach to data

analysis tend to influence the conclusions. n this "a"er

'e are referencing numerous "ieces of literature/ but havenot done a detailed com"arison 'ith regard to the above

mentioned as"ects.



14/15

Future work(urther research should be aimed s"ecifically at the

7Hy"er 9mergent8 1uadrant of our suggested Conte0tual

! 5roject (rame'or/ and 'e 'elcome em"irical

evidence of a""lication of agile strategies in 7Hy"er9mergent8 conte0ts.

:s "ublic "rojects tend to fail due to "eo"le3related issues

rather than technology/ 'e suggest further research in thelines of Arlio'si and Barley *+,,$- 'ho looed at 'hatresearch in technology and research on organi)ations canlearn from each other.

2e suggest further study to address the scarcity of

resources "ossessing the "ro"er blend of sills re1uired to

successfully manage large ! "rojects. Aur research has"rovided initial evidence of 'hat ind of sills needed/

ho'ever a dee" dive to add even more flesh to the bones

is 'elcomed.

:n even more com"rehensive and detailed literaturerevie' covering the full body of no'ledge on ! "roject

failure is highly 'elcomed.

(inally/ 'e suggest further study to address issues

discussed by Jorgensen and Moloen *+,,G-/ as

discussed above. 2e suggest a detailed com"arison of theliterature revie'ed in this study 'ith regard to the above

mentioned as"ects.

6 A%2N'WL3(+3*3N$#:s "art of this research 'e reached out to a number of

institutions/ scholars and authorities. 2e a""reciate their

hel" in forming the ey research 1uestions/ theidentification of relevant literature and valuable feedbacon our analysis. :mong the contributors 'ere%

3 Jens Perve/ Head of De"./ :gency for 5ublicManagement and e@overnment/ Por'ay

3 Dr. Magne Jorgensen/ Simula esearch Vabs/Por'ay

3 :le0ander Bud)ier/ 5hD student/ Said BusinessSchool/ University of A0ford/ UK

3 Dr. Svenja (al/ @lobal Vead of :ccenture5ublic esearch/ (ranfurt/ @ermany

$< 4 5 a g e

7 R3F3R3N%3#

CH:AS *$==G-% 7!he Standish @rou" e"ort% Chaos8/

!he Standish @rou" $==G/htt"%&&'''.standishgrou".com&sam"le[research&chaos[$=

=G[$."h" *:ccessed January +/ +,$+-

Dunleavy 5./ et al. *+,,O-% 7Pe' 5ublic Management is

dead 3 long live digital3era governance8/ Journal of 5ublic:dministration esearch and !heory $


15/15

frese& *:ccessed January +/ +,$+-

Hodgson *+,,+-% 7Kee"ing \our Head :bove 2ater8/htt"%&&'''.cons"ectus.eom&+,,+&november&article$=.as" *:ccessed January +/ +,$+-

Jorgensen/ M. and Moloen3,stvold/ K. *+,,G-%Qeasons for Soft'are 9ffort 9stimation error% m"act ofes"ondent ole/ nformation Collection :""roach/ and

Data :nalysis MethodQ/ 999 transactions on Soft'are9ngineering/ Tolume N,/ ssue $+/ December +,,G.

Jorgensen/ M. and Moloen3,stvold/ K. *+,,

A Reflection on Why Large Public IT Projects Fail - Kjetil Mark Thompson s Chapter

Documents

Transcript of A Reflection on Why Large Public IT Projects Fail - Kjetil Mark Thompson s Chapter