Project Failure Rates Soar; Blame the Estimates

How many times have you heard these statements from management?

"I didn't call this meeting to discuss whether we can meet the deadline. We're here to decide how we're going to meet it."

"What we've got to do now is to roll up our sleeves and do whatever it takes to get the job done!"

"I agree with you in principle, but this project is so urgent that we just don't have the luxury of doing it right."

These statements are all referenced in an excellent article by Conrad Weisert, titled "The Burden of Proof in Estimating." He attributes it to the fictional "Management By Cliche Handbook," but the statements and the poor results they usually lead to are anything but fiction.

With project failure rates not much better than they were five years ago, this article validates what I've been saying for a while: Most projects that run over budget do so because the original unrealistic estimate was provided under pressure from management.

It's critical that a project manager defend the right plan and negotiate tradeoffs in scope, time, or cost accordingly. Perhaps the best approach, and most consistently effective one, is to timebox the scope, aiming for realistic, phased deliverables.

It's also important when submitting a budget estimate, that the correct level of accuracy is stated (i.e. plus/minus 25%, or whatever is appropriate). PMI offers some guidelines, but those are just that---guidelines. A detailed bottom-up baseline estimate should only be provided after a detailed schedule is developed.

The bottom line is this. Weisert has a very simple principle: "In assessing the credibility of a project estimate the burden of proof falls on those who claim it can be done." This is sage advise. For the full article, read on...

Burden of Proof in Project Estimating