When failure occurs it is sometimes due to a single mistakes made in planning or executing the project. More often than not however, failure is the cumulative result of many mistakes. In such situations the mistakes are themselves often born out of a dysfunctional environment that sets the stage upon which mistakes can be made and that acts as a barrier to detecting and correcting the mistakes. The following links provide examples of the types of behavioural patterns that create these dysfunctional environments. By understanding these “patterns” the mechanisms behind project failure can be better understood.
Figure 1 – Layers in project failure
(click for larger version)
Each pattern embodies a broad set of behaviours that negatively influences the way individuals, teams, groups and even whole organizations, make project related decisions and how people work together. The resulting problems interact with individual trigger events (mistakes) and the combined effects are the drivers of project failure (figure 1).
The following page lists some of the more common patterns. If you’re new to the site, try reading our introductory article on the topic “Disaster DNA – Decoding the DNA of failed technology projects” before reading the samples below.
Pattern Library
The following entries are examples of some of the most common patterns;
- First option adoption
Team fails to generate alternate ideas for how to meet the project objectives resulting in them settling for the first option they thought of rather than the best available option - Silos
Barriers between organizations and group lead to a breakdown in collaboration - The pressure wave
The build up of schedule pressure due to inaction in the face of an impending fixed deadline - Disconnect failure
Project creates its intended deliverables, but those deliverables fail to deliver the intended business value - Top led failure
Mistakes made by Senior Executives early in the project set the project on a course to disaster - Focal imbalance failure
One or more critical aspects of the project receives insufficient attention leading to failure - Bottom fed failure
Poor quality at the implementation level results in project failure - Alignment failure
Different parties are focused on different goals (often unstated goals) resulting in conflicts and misalinged efforts - Schedule pressure failure
Excessive schedule pressure results in critical mistakes that otherwise would not have been made - Commitment failures
Project team makes unachievable commitments to schedule, budget and scope - Navigational failures
Team lacks leadership and oversight in one or more dimensions - Intellectual disintegration failure
Failure to communicate results in individuals and groups having different understandings and heading off in different directions - Transitional failures
Deliverables are created, but the value the project hoped to create is lost due to an ineffective transition into the operational world and failure to track outcomes - The fast-forward freeze-out
The failure to consult stakeholders during the planning process in order to expedite progress. - Green shifting
The tendency to report project status in positive terms despite growing indications that serious problems exist - Left shifting
Key strategic, architectural and organizational decisions are down played in favour of diving into the hard core development activities - Quality kaboom
Quality and testing activities are pushed to the end of the development cycle rather than being seen as an ongoing activity - Techcentric myopia
Technology aspects of the project become primary focus while business and organizational issues are handled superficially - Gravitation
The tendency to be drawn to back to our comfort zone - Poly-project blindness
Failure to recognise that a new project has different characteristics from prior experiences and hence needs to be managed differently
To suggest a pattern that is not documented above, use the following link – Suggest a pattern