Do large projects really fail more often?

Summary: Top consultant and project manager, Vijay Vijayasankar, argues that project size is not correlated with success or failure.

Yesterday, in a post about IT failures in the federal government, I asserted that large projects are more likely to fail than smaller ones.

Related: Shocking gov't IT failure statistics!

Top consultant and project manager, Vijay Vijayasankar, responded with an opposing view on Twitter, which he elaborated in a blog post. Vijay's perspective is rooted in experience and has merit, so today I am publishing his comments as a guest post.

Vijay argues that project size is not a primary determinant of success or failure. Rather, he believes that media attention on larger failures makes them more visible, giving the appearance that project size is correlated to outcome.

Do you think project size is correlated to success or failure? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

============

Common sense and Michael Krigsman tell me that bigger projects fail more than smaller projects.  However, this does not match what I have experienced in the past. From what I have seen, project size does not have a significant impact on its odds to fail.

Defining size. Size can generally be expressed in terms of effort, which in turn drives duration and headcount.  occasionally we do run into situations which are akin to asking 9 women to deliver a baby in 1 month – but assuming that doesn’t happen , there is a logical way of arriving at duration and headcount from a work breakdown structure (WBS).  There are always compromises made between the triple constraints - scope, schedule and budget.  Once all the stakeholders agree to this – project is good to go.

Now, assuming this exercise is done – size is generally not a reason for failure any more.  The reason is that in this planning exercise, you should have covered the effort required to mitigate the risk for duration and headcount. After this planning exercise irrespective of size – all projects start on the same footing.

We could argue that bigger projects are harder to plan and hence should fail more. However I am not sure if this is a true statement entirely.  The reason is that planning for a bigger project is done on a larger scale with a more intense process and  will have better scrutiny than a smaller project.

Since the planning effort is proportionate – size should not be an unmitigated risk after that. For example – if headcount increases, then there is more overhead on communication. But once you factor that increase into the schedule, this risk has a valid mitigation.  and so on and so on…

Risk of failing on execution. This is not rare – but the question is – does it depend on size?  As an example – lets say a small project was commissioned to build a UI in 5 days.  Planning was done in an hour on a whiteboard, and the stakeholders were 2 people. It only needed one developer to write the code and test it and move it to production. Total cost was calculates as say $2000. In execution, it took 6 days to finish because one of the stakeholders was out sick for a day and hence could not clarify a requirement in time. Cost over run is $800.

What is the chance that this failure gets highlighted in blogosphere? ZERO  or NEAR ZERO.  As a percentage – cost slipped by 40% and schedule slipped by 40%. But since the materiality was so low, it is not worth spending time to analyze it.  And guess what – in most cases, people won’t even say that this was a failure.

But on a project that is $10 Million in size – a 40% miss is enough to get some serious blogosphere attention. Then we need to find out what went wrong – and point fingers at the system integrator (SI), the customer, the product vendor, the weather and macro-economic factors.

My point is – as long as we compare projects and their risks apples to apples, I have not seen big projects fail any more than smaller projects. The difference is that when big projects fail, they fail SPECTACULARLY, and hence they overshadow the similar failure rates of smaller projects. Several decades later, we still talk about sinking of Titanic. Since that time, more people have probably dies of smaller accidents – but do we talk about them?

Lookin forward to hearing your perspective on this topic…

============

Thank you to Vijay Vijayasankar for writing this guest blog post. Photo from iStockphoto.

Topics: CXO, Browser, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

12 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

    Define 'spectacular?' Lots of attention in the press? Many $$$? Brand issue? If a project fails...it fails. Size doesn't matter if it sinks the business.
    dahowlett
  • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

    There's very little doubt in my mind that smaller projects fail less often for many reasons. That's not to say that there's a guarantee either way. Call it agency theory or whatever you like, smaller projects have fewer moving parts.
    phil_simon
    • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

      @philsimonsystems
      vijayasankarv@...
  • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

    dramatic: sensational in appearance or thrilling in effect; >> that is the definition of spectacular. Sadly no one cares about success all that much - there are plenty of success stories, but I have hardly seen it celebrated by Media.
    vijayasankarv@...
  • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

    yup - that is my point too - no guarantees either way !
    vijayasankarv@...
  • Good perspective

    I think Vijay makes a good point here. Let's stipulate that the probability of failure for large projects and small are the same. But the impact of failure for the the large project, by whatever definition of size or impact you want to use, by definition will be greater.

    Risk = probability of failure * impact of failure. So the greater impact of the potential failure should be enough reason by itself for the business leader to avoid large projects, if at all possible. Break them up into smaller projects, or phases, and if one fails, it does not bring down the house.

    It's the reason that no one goes to Vegas and puts all their chips on number 7 for one roll of the roulette wheel.
    fscavo
    • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

      Thanks. Yes- the impact increases with size. Which is why I mentioned the SPECTACULAR nature of those failures. Phasing is the right strategy here - and on top of all other things, it gives a much needed closure to various teams involved in the project. If you go for 2 years without a reason to stop and celebrate success, you probably wont make the end result as planned.
      vijayasankarv@...
      • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

        @vijayasankarv@... In my experience large projects are interconnected groups of small projects with an overriding theme.
        When you say a large project fails you are really saying that all the interconnected component projects have failed as well. If you are comparing failure rates here you are really comparing a barrel of apples to instances of a single apple.
        If I come out of a development cycle with 75 programs out of 80 that provide benefit, is that a failure or a success. How do you compare that to a small project that meets user requirements but runs over budget?
        glenn@...
  • I am actually a little surprised by this.

    In my experience most projects fail due to human error. The more humans, the more error they bring to a project. However, I can see how a larger team might mitigate this risk but I have never seen that happen in practice. For example if it was "Robert's job to deliver the UI" and Robert is sick, nobody really jumps in and finishes the job for Robert. They just stand around pointing fingers at him for getting sick. Then Robert gets blamed for the total project going nuclear whether he had anything to do with it or not.
    mr1972
  • Business clarity is the issue

    If the team working on a large project have the big picture of how everything is put together to make the business work (how people, process and technology interact; precisely how data flows through the organisation) then the chances of failure are greatly reduced.

    The same applies to a team in a small project.

    If either team haven?t been able to ?join the dots? then the chances of their project failing grows.

    Being able to see things clearly will have more influence on success or failure than the size of the task.
    PaulWallis
  • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

    I put myself squarely in Vijay's camp. Having been forced to work in multiple Midwest corporate IT shop over the last 20 years due to outsourcing, mergers and economic conditions, I've seen small projects fail because they don't have the process rigor as large ones while at the same time, that missing rigor present on large projects doesn't magically ensure success. That process gets executed and people sign off on quality gates or change reviews get passed with blatant failure warning signs.
    jfbauer
  • RE: Do large projects really fail more often?

    Projects are simply man`s imagination ( Subject ) to practical ( object ) implimentation.To make a sucsessfull project , Nos. of factors involve.First god`s grace,Grace of all people who involve in it. Proper timing,and grace of all people,to whom it meant( consumer ).etc.
    somnathpawar@...