Not enough project managers
History shows that organisations tend to focus their training of project managers on three things: how to schedule a project, how to prepare a project budget and the ins and outs of a project management methodology, such as PRINCE2. The trouble is that this training doesn’t teach project managers the skills they need to manage risks, stakeholder expectations and people, or develop accurate estimates: the things that tend to bring schedules and budgets undone.
Courting project failure
Project failure is well documented. American research company Applied Data published a report that found up to 75 percent of software projects are cancelled. A study by META Group found that more than half of all IT projects overshoot their budgets and timetables, and fail to deliver outcomes. The Standish Group studied more than 300,000 projects collectively valued at $350 billion. They found that they overran initial cost estimates by 45 percent and their schedules by 63 percent. The US Army found that of all IT projects, 47 percent were delivered to the customer and not used, 29 percent were paid for but not delivered, 19 percent were abandoned or reworked, and only two percent were used as delivered.
A report by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) of a review of 13 selected projects from 62 projects found similar, mixed results. The ANAO identified the planned time, cost, deliverables and benefits from the initial project approval and compared the actual results with the approved plan. The audit of these 13 projects found on average they were completed close to cost, but often late. Half of the projects were completed later than planned by 50 percent or more. The achievement of planned benefits had often not been demonstrated and the ANAO recommended that agencies record the approval of individual projects in a manner that better provides a basis for assessing progress and success and recording responsibility for specific supporting elements of the business case.
The next question to be asked is whether the Government has a magic bullet that will overcome these extraordinary inefficiencies—typical in project management—to be able to deliver its projected results with so few project management resources. Or will the taxpayers of Australia be happy to accept a high proportion of these projects either being delivered late, over budget, or not at all?
The solution doesn’t have to be a magic bullet; it just requires some honesty about the situation, some common sense and good planning. The first step would be to acknowledge the resource shortfall and stem the tide of project manager contract cancellations. This would at least provide some short-term expertise from people familiar with the context of the projects and the objectives of the portfolios they exist in.
The second step would be to actually implement the recommendations of the Gershon Review in terms of a plan to build project management capability within government organisations. This is a long-term solution and something in which the Government has little expertise. The focus needs to be less on scheduling and budgeting and more on the real management skills that project managers need to deliver successful projects.
The government agencies would do well to make good use of the IT Management Consultants Multi-User List that the Australian Government Information Management Office took the trouble to convene, and of which it has not yet taken advantage.
At the end of the day, there are so few project managers out there that could pull off this ambitious agenda. We have to ask when the Government is going to open its eyes, see the light and take the right action to get the job done.
