Wednesday, 16 March 2011 10:58

Failed Projects: Who is Responsible?

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

PTimes_Feature_March16There have been some interesting comments regarding bad PMs.  One senior project manager asked “Should the project manager be held responsible for the results of a project or should the entire team be accountable, after all credit for success usually goes to the team?”  Of course, whether the credit for success goes to the team or not, really depends on the organization culture and the wisdom and ethics of the PM and upper levels of management.  But, that is a topic for another article.

First, let’s address the idea that there is a difference between the project team and the PM.   The PM is part of the project team.  Hierarchies and divisions based on roles are one of the common causes of dysfunction in projects and organizations.  So, credit for the success or failure of a project does belong to the project team, unless it is hamstrung by cultural and organizational barriers to success.

When projects fail they fail for any number of reasons ranging from irrational, unclear or changing objectives to poor performance.  Poor performance is the responsibility of individual performers, including project managers.  But, responsibility doesn’t end there; it is shared.  General management is responsible for making sure that the right resources (ones who have the capacity to perform their roles) are assigned to the project.  General management and project management process owners are responsible for making sure that there is a continuously improving process, supported by effective tools and policies that enable performers to do their jobs.  Remember, the best performers can be brought down by a poor process.

Individual performers (including project managers) are responsible for making the right level of effort and for making sure they have the skills that they need to perform.  They cannot rely on their organizations to give them the competencies they need.  It is a personal responsibility.  Individual performers are also responsible for following the process and for speaking up when they realize the process is broken.  They are responsible for acknowledging their errors, omissions, and weakness and doing what is needed to remediate them.

Project success is a shared responsibility among the project team which consists of all the performers, project managers, team leads, etc. from across internal organization units and partnering organizations.  It is also the responsibility of sponsors, functional managers, clients, executives and senior managers, who are part of the “outer team” and who set objectives, provide resources and establish and maintain an environment that supports effective performance.

Together these stakeholders perform individual projects, assess their performance, identify the causes of both success and failure and do the ongoing work of changing the conditions that address the causes.  When the concept of team is limited to what might be called the core team of performers the probability of success goes way down because those who perceive themselves as outside the team are less likely to be motivated to put out the effort to succeed and those who perceive themselves to be on the team view the others as outsiders who mostly get in the way.

Inclusivity and identification with the team promotes collaborative effort and accountability.

Don't forget to leave your comments below.

Read 6345 times
George Pitagorsky

George Pitagorsky, PMP, integrates core disciplines and applies people centric systems and process thinking to achieve sustainable optimal performance. George authored The Zen Approach to Project Management and PM BasicsTM. He teaches meditation and is on the Board of Directors of the NY Insight Meditation Center.

Comments  

 
0 # Sean Ellis 2011-03-16 05:06
Excellent article, succinct and to the point. The role of the 'outer team' and especially those charged with project governance (e.g., the Steering Committee) is often downplayed in project failure when they are, in face, a critical factor to the success of all but the smallest projects. Of course, it is the individual responsiblity of the PM to ensure that an appropriate governance structure is in place, and to manage it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Lawrence 2011-03-16 05:18
We are trying to drive the approach of project success/failure accountability as a team as well. I agree with many of the points made in the article. We have experienced first hand what Mr. Pitagorsky mentions at the end of the article with respect to core team members and the lack of engagement/resp onsibility of people who are outside the core team. We are trying to improve this situation by doing a better job at defining and clarifying the roles&responsib ilities of core team members and "extended" team members up front. This exercise is not only for the specific individuals involved but also their direct team leaders and senior management so that there is a larger awareness of the expectations.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George B 2011-03-16 05:35
George to George...or same side thinking, did we ever meet, if not , I would be so glad to have the chance to talk with you somewhen. Congratulations for your article, it is incredible!
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George Pitagorsky 2011-03-16 05:43
Let's all keep up the good work of illuminating our team members and organizational leaders. As Lawrence says, a larger awareness of expectations created by clarity in role and responsibility assignments and openness in accountability.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Mike Beard 2011-03-16 06:36
Well stated article but it didn't pinpoint who was responsible for failures. PMs, sponsors and stakeholders must start off a project with a balance perspective - "We are all responsible for the success or 'failure' of this project." No different then in a manufacturing environment, on a project we can apply what Dr. Deming proved through Statistical Process Control (SPC) - 85 percent of the problems experienced by a worker (PM, project team member, non-executive stakeholder) are process related and it is managements (leadership, sponsor) responsibility to fix these; while 15 percent of the problems are the responsibility of the worker to fix. Or the new paradigm is 'Stuff runs uphill.' Based on my background with small and very large projects and programs in diverse industries everyone involved (every stakeholder, including leadership) must be held 'accountable' for the success or failure, otherwise there is no share value proposition. Just identifying the success element leaves anyone to point fingers and blame when the project is derailed. Mike Beard PMP ITIL CLP CSM Member Editorial Board, Projects @ Work Magazine
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Robin Goldsmith 2011-03-16 06:54
All of what you say is true but still misses critical components of both project success and blame/credit. Many projects are destined to fail by prematurely and inadequately defined outcomes that truly are impossible to achieve with equally prematurely-def ined, woefully-inadeq uate budgets, schedules, and resources. Senior management ultimately is responsible for the processes that repeatedly produce such certain-to-fail projects, but invariably it’s the project manager (or to a lesser extent, team members or other scapegoats) who get blamed. Often such projects are initiated before the project manager even gets assigned; but the same effect can occur when the project manager participates but lacks suitable skill, knowledge, and influence to overcome the initiation of yet another project that inevitably cannot help but fail. Almost always the source of difficulties comes down to failure to define top-level REAL business requirements deliverable _whats_ (more than just objectives) adequately enough to use as a basis for formulating a responsive project to produce appropriate products/system s/software _hows_ that can provide value by reasonably meeting those REAL business requirements. Discovering REAL business requirements is an essential business analysis component first of project initiation and then of project execution. Especially during initiation, executives and/or project managers are the ones who should be doing such analysis; but too often they know neither to do it nor how to do it. Unfortunately, business analysts often also don’t know either.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George Pitagorsky 2011-03-16 08:03
I agree with Mike that success and failure are shared responsibilitie s and that as Dr Deming said, 85% of the causes of defects (project failure is a defect in the PM process) are systemically caused and therefor senior management is responsible. But let's not forget that "everyone involved (every stakeholder, including leadership) must be held 'accountable' for the success or failure, ..." As for the definition of failure - "1. The condition or fact of not achieving the desired end or ends" as per the Free Dictionary. And as we can see from Robin's analysis that while there are many causes of failure a lack of well defined objectives and requirements is high on the list.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # David Robins 2011-03-16 19:34
A major issue is the lack of tools for tracking and cataloging the performance of project members, analyzing this information and then use the learning from one project to the next.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Ashwini 2011-03-16 19:51
Project failure means the failure of planning of resources (manpower , machinery, money) with identifying their potential & it is the duty of Project manager by default as we know & hence Project manager simply responsible for failure, provided the management should give liberty to Project manager to implement his ideas / decisions as per the actual requirement on project otherwise the failure responsibilty will lead to share by Management only.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Joyce Charrey 2011-03-16 23:27
Generally, a project manager is better able to take a hit than BA's, developers and QA staff. Other than constructive criticisms, the PM usually tries to take on all finger-pointing and blame-laying for the development team, and re-direct such un-professional behaviour into more value-added communications.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Vivek Sukhatankar 2011-03-16 23:33
Excellent Article. Main point in success and failure is clarity in project initiation and how it is communicated to each and every person in team. Every one should demand incase calrity is not there. The entire team is responsible for success or failure.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Jeffry Smith 2011-03-18 00:28
Ultimately, the project manager is responsible for a failed project. If the project were unreasonable, he/she should have protested at the beginning. That said, occasionally people are forced to work unreasonable projects by the sponsors. If the sponsor refuses to listen to reason, then they are responsible. I n my own experience, sponsors have been reasonable and have adjusted the scope according to what is realistic. Now my question is, is a canceled project a success or a failure? Assume it was canceled after it began, and then the scope or goal or approach was revealed to be unprofitable.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George Pitagorsky 2011-03-18 02:27
Regarding "Is a cancelled project a failure?" - not necessarily. When a project is cancelled because the conditions that led to its initiation are no longer the same (say the business environment has changed or scope has increased and made the cost too high) then cancellation is a sign of a successful gating process. Though, there are cases in which cancellation results from poor planning and estimating during initiation or poor performance that has led to cost overruns, dissatisfied customers, etc. In these cases there has been some failure but the cancellation itself is a sign that someone is thoughtful enough to pull the plug and stop unnecessary spending.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George Pitagorsky 2011-03-18 02:37
I agree with the idea that the PM is responsible for pushing back in the face of unreasonable expectations and managing those expectations. Failure to do so is a common cause of project failure. But there are many reasons for failure and in each case there should be a clear accountability so that the process can be improved to eliminate the cause and promote future success.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Andrea Brockmeier 2011-03-25 04:21
Whose definition of success are we talking about? It seems to me that they can be quite different. Of course it can't be the PM's responsibility to deliver on them all. Rather it's their job to understand them and know which ones they need to pay the most attention to and in which circumstances. As you say, all stakeholders own a piece of the project and the success of their piece is their responsibility. I also heartily agree with the broader view of the team. What is certain is that when the PM and sponsor do not have a good partnership, it is nearly impossible to deliver on any definition of success. When they do have a good partnership, the project is able to overcome obstacles and deliver on the key definitions of success. And if it fails? In a solid partnership, they'll both claim it.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Sunil Goel 2011-04-19 16:39
The analysis and thoughts of the writer are rationale and accurate analysis of the facts. However, in practice the project manager is one of the most important and unique position in the project, while there could be multiple team members for other skills. Further, Project Manager is empowered to make / suggest changes in the team or process or escalate the issue to any level if required. This requires that the project manager is not only skilled but highly competent to anticipate issues and arrive on the corrective actions. This is single most reason as to why PM is first on the line in case of the project failure.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Nitin Shah 2011-05-03 04:40
It is very good article and appreciate the views mentioned. All Projects are team driven and hence the success and failure of teh project has to be owned by the team, which includes the "outer team" as well.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Amit Kumar 2011-05-04 04:44
Good article - fundamentally, the responsibility of managing projects lies on the the project manager. He should plan and execute according to the plan. Unfortunately, failure in either planning it properly or execution can result in project failures. We are engaged in a large number of projects and we see that success of a project is greatly related to a PM's ability to anticipate "boiling points" well in advance. Amit Kumar/ http://www.rapidsoftsystems.com
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Anne Sherwin 2012-03-02 23:45
Interesting.... ..............w hen working in a team setting----"you r" time is no longer an individual entitlement/lux ury-----------" your" time is the "teams" (or should I say the owner's)---- all project successes are built from RESPONDING--the quicker you respond to bring Closure to open-issues---t he closer you are to S U C E S S
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # John Sprandel 2012-03-03 03:08
If your not part of the solution...
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Davies 2012-03-05 23:30
I wanted to know how managers are held responsible for results in an organization
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George Pitagorsky 2012-03-06 23:34
Project Managers are held accountable in many different ways, including not at all. I think the healthiest way is to include project success (based on established criteria) a part of the performance review. When doing that it is important to have a clear definition of what success is and to differentiate among various causes of failure. Some causes of failure are outside of the control of the project manager and therefor the project manager should not be penalized for those failures. I haven't heard of this in actual use, but it would seem to me that analysis of project performance that would identify the rate of failures and comparison individual performance against the norm would be a good way to operate. It would consider and in fact highlight the overall performance of the organization and if there are systemic causes of failure, they could be addressed. In addition, whenever possible 360 degree evaluations should be part of the mix. PMs should be accountable to their clients, managers, peers and subordinates.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # George Pitagorsky 2012-03-06 23:36
Anne, as per my email, Yes, that's it. Though, realistically, one doesn't totally merge with the team and does retain some of his/her own time. Responsiv eness is a key because it implies the ability to objectively choose, as an individual or team. At one point the response may be to plan, at another to act.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment