2. When Projects-Fail or Succeed…!
‘A project failing can have dire
consequences at any time, this is
especially true during the
economic downturn. So how can
we define project failure and
project success?’
-Standish Group, British Computer Society
3. “Your client’s
perception of
project “success”
is the basis from
which your client
concludes”
- Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and
Organizational Development” – to obtain the entire
book, select “Publications” at
http://www.authenticityconsulting.
5. Standish Chaos Reports
• Most projects cost more than they
return
When the true costs are added up, as
many as 80% of technology projects
actually cost more than they return. It is
not done intentionally but the costs are
always underestimated and the benefits
are always overestimated
Resource:Mercer Consulting, 2004 t0 2009
6. Malaysian AG’s Report 2011
-four examples of failure
• Program Ladang Rakyat in Kelantan -19
projects in total, covering a massive land
area of 81,095 acres-programs are now still
stuck in status quo
• National Feedlot Corporation (NFC)- never
actually got off the ground
• Skim Tabung Warisan Anak Selangor
(TAWAS) scheme -woefully underfunded
and had failed to live up to its promise
• The RM213 million construction of a road
and bridge from Kuching to the Isthmus area
to ease traffic-but there is no traffic from
Isthmus to Kuching at all
7. Malaysian AG’s Report 2011
-four examples of success
• Marked improvements in the performance of
state agencies- with most rated “excellent” compared
to 2010
• Improved application PM principles in GLC’s-
awareness of being systematic
• The Customs Department managed to collect
RM30.38 billion in 2011-an increase by 7.9% as
compared to year 2010
• The Government collected RM185.42 billion in
revenue last year- an increase of 16.1% compared to
2010
8. Project Challenges
• 62 % failed to meet their schedules
• 49% budget overruns
• 47% higher-than-expected maintenance costs
• 41% failed to deliver expected business value
and ROI
• 25%+ of all software and services projects are
cancelled before completion
• up to 80 percent of budgets are consumed fixing
self-inflicted problems
Dynamic Markets Limited 2007 Study
9. Software Failures
• Poorly defined applications contribute to a 66%
project failure rate, costing U.S. businesses at least $30
billion every year (Forrester Research)
• 60% – 80% of project failures can be attributed
directly to poor requirements gathering, analysis, and
management (Meta Group)
• 50% are rolled back out of production (Gartner)
• 40% of problems are found by end users (Gartner)
• 25% – 40% of all spending on projects is wasted as a
result of re-work (Carnegie Mellon)
• Up to 80% of budgets are consumed fixing self-
inflicted problems (Dynamic Markets Limited 2007
Study)
Soirce: Bob Lawhorn presentation- March 2010
10. Examples of unsuccessful industrial
projects-Malaysia
• Dhabol Power Project MSI
Linked to movements in US Dollars and Prices of crude oil
• Tata's 'Nano' Car Project
Local people and a political party started agitation against the land
acquisition by the company for the project
• The MSI GX60 MSI GX60 Gaming
Notebook: = Local people and a political party started
agitation against the land acquisition by the company for the
project
11. Value of Project Management
• 90% of global senior executives and
project management experts say good
project management is key to deliver
your successful results and gaining a
competitive edge
• Closing the gap: The Link between
project management excellence and
long-term success
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit. September 2009
12. Project success means…
o 1)helping the organization to do
what it already does, but better;
o 2) improving it to grow; and
o 3) improving its ability to change.
16. The percentage of projects that fail?
-the Chaos Report, 2009
-
• Failure rate for IT projects 24%.
• The challenged rate was 44%.
• The real failure rate, again, is 24%, and this is only for
IT projects.
• Construction projects less failure , about 10%,because
of the standardized project management process.
17. How is Project Success defined?
The success overall outcomes of
capacity building include:
1)helping the organization
to do what it already does,
but better;
2) improving its
ability to grow; and
3) improving its ability to
change.
18. Success vs Challenged vs Failure
The Standish Group defines its categories
as follows:
Success: Delivered on time, on budget, with
the required features and functions
Challenged: Late, over budget, and/or with
less than the required features and
functions
Failure: Cancelled prior to completion or
delivered and never used
19. Project Failure Defined
• A project failing can have dire
consequences at any time, this is especially
true during the economic downturn. So how
can we define project failure and project
success?
20. So what are the statistics?
• 31% of IT projects will be
cancelled before completion
• 52.7% of completed projects cost
over their original estimates
• 1 in 8, the number of projects that
can be considered truly successful
Source: Google, April, 2009
21. The Problem with IT Projects
• IT projects are too visible
• Economic, political, efficiency
and effectiveness risk
• The real problem lies with
project management in general
• The light on Non-IT projects
very dim
22. How Projects Fail
• Not meeting project goals, delivering
requirements / scope
• Not matching stakeholder requirements
• Not delivering value for money
• Poor implementation and management
• Not hitting quality standards
• A sense of failure within the project
23. Common Project Characteristics
• Projects run over schedule, over budget or
underperform
• Aren't exclusive to the public sector
• No one has yet found a way to repeal Murphy's Law
• The "90/90 Rule" of project Projects run over
schedule, over budget or underperform
• Aren't exclusive to the public sector
• No one has yet found a way to repeal Murphy's Law
• The "90/90 Rule" of project
24. • 85% of E Government projects Fail- partially
or fully
• about 35 percent of E-Government projects in
developing countries are total failures
• Approximately 50 percent are partial failures
25. Why IT Projects Fail
• Poor planning
• Unclear goals and objectives
• Objective Changes during project
• Unrealistic time or resource estimate
• Lack of executive support and user
involvement
• Failure to communicate and act as a team
• Inappropriate skills
Al Neimat, Taimour , projectperfect.com.au
26. Implementation challenges
» Barriers are not adequately identified and
addressed
» Policy is insufficiently informed
» Insufficient attention to delivery
» Appreciation for the role of project
management insufficiently developed
» Cross-agency initiatives on "hidden
rocks" of departmentalism
» Costly bureaucratic red-tape beyond the
measures
27. Why project management is growing?
A lot of infrastructure projects
Oil rich countries building the
tallest tower, the biggest city, the
largest airport, etc…
Developed countries getting out of
recession
Nearly everything that was a
process before is now becoming a
project.
28. Recommended Project Management
Certification
• PMP , the highest-paying certifications for IT
professionals
In low-performing organisations
Much less likely PM staff have formal
project management qualifications, and
Hands-on-experience and
extensive project management knowledge
In 2009, 31% of global CIOs require certified
project managers – up from 10% since 2005
67% of CIOs regard a PMI certification as
valuable
29. Alternate Qualification
PRINCE2 (PRojects IN Controlled Environments)
• Originated from the earlier PRINCE technique
• Initially developed in 1989 by the Central
Computer and Telecommunications Agency
(CCTA)
• PRINCE2 was released in 1996 as a generic
project management method
• Has become the de facto standard for project
management in the UK
31. PMCE
• Serves the Profession of PM
• Provides Expertise Towards
Excellence
• Holds a Store of Services
– Training & development
– Consulting
– Management, and
– R & D, academic and
Industrial
32. The Core Team Of Enthusiasts
• Datuk Dr Rosti Saruwono
• En R.Masilamani, PMP
• En Zainal Alang Kassim
• En Abd Jalil Mohd Taib
• En Aboo Bucker
• En. A Murugan
• Dr Yeoh Seong Mok, PMP
• Dr G. Ravindran
• Dr Zainuddin Ismail
• Prof Dr M Kanesan
• En Aziz Amin. PRINCE2
• Mr Dennis Mac Mohan
A project failing can have dire consequences at any time, this is especially true during the economic downturn. So how can we define project failure and project success?So how do we define project failure or success?Generally it’s easier to name failed projects than successes and there’s also a general perception that large projects have a higher tendency to fail.High Profile Project FailuresConsider these high profile ‘failures’, the cost of building the Channel Tunnel or Wembley, did any of those projects come close to the original estimates? How successful will the project ‘London 2012 the Olympic and Paralympic Games’ be? Media reports are already reporting substantial cost estimate increases.Earlier this month the Channel 4 documentary Dispatches “How They Squander Our Billions” [09.03.09] investigated a variety of controversial public projects which have had millions, if not billions, spent on them including the NHS IT scheme [NPfIT] which was originally announced as costing £2.3bn. This later became £6.2bn and £12.7bn is the latest estimate.Is the project a success?The general statistics for project failure are outlined below.Projects Fail and they Fail OftenWhy Do Projects Fail?* Sources:Standish Group, British Computer SocietyCan Project Failure be Avoided?Yes! One of the most likely reasons for project failure is an inadequately trained Project Manager(s). The implication is that project failure is controllable and avoidable and that the Project Manager has a great deal of responsibility and accountability. They need the authority to do their job properly and will have the most significant impact on the outcome of a project. Your ExperiencesSo what are your own personal experiences of project failure or successes? What were the reasons for the outcome and what lessons can be learned?Relevant links: Project Management TrainingLink to this articleIf you found this article interesting, please consider using the code below to link to it from your website.Tags: channel 4 Dispatches, project fail, project failure, project success, Project TrainingThis entry was posted on Tuesday, March 17th, 2009 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Project Recruitment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. 7 Responses to “Why do Projects Fail? Reasons for and Stats on Project Failure”Tony Jackson Says: March 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pmI saw the TV programme and it just makes me shake my head. I know lots of great PMs - why do we mess up all these huge government projects?Ann Says: March 17th, 2009 at 2:07 pmMy company took the decision to invest in some proper PM training - and not just sending everyone on PRINCE2 courses (what’s the point when we are not a PRINCE2 organisation?!). It has made a real difference. Projects still run late, but are much better managed and we all have a common understanding of what to do.AmitSandhu Says: March 17th, 2009 at 2:12 pmThe stats don’t surprise me at all, they’re probably worse where I am!Geoff Baxter Says: March 18th, 2009 at 2:10 amIT Projects fail one cut at a time - death by a thousand cuts. Cut #1 is mistakenly thinking that IT projects produce “things, artefacts etc”. They don’t, they produce business Change, so you’d better know and love the business and it’s people or you will fail. After that it’s worthless Business Cases, Failure to comprehensively know and understand who the stakeholders are and why, Clueless project board / steering committee members, Project Managers with no authority, project members who are not capable or committed, etc etc ..did I mention Change Management? Note that it’s mostly about the people, NOT the PM processLee Says: March 18th, 2009 at 9:37 amLondon 2012, do they even have a budget tolerance for that project? I don’t think so, they have to complete the project now that they’ve started! I can’t see them holding various Olympic events in leisure centres around the UK if venues aren’t completed or saying to the world “Sorry no Olympics this year”. The event itself may be a success but most tolerances will be exceeded and a number of items may not be to scope, imagine a paddling pool in a large marquee for the 100m butterfly!Adrian Johnson Says: May 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pmNumerous studies report that seven out of ten UK government projects fail, and £bn’s of government money had been spent on unsuccessful IT projects. Most companies opt for the project management methodology PRINCE2 which was developed by the Office of Government and Commerce (OGC) and is used extensively by the UK Government. It is widely recognised and used in the private sector, both in the UK and internationally although success data for the method is hard to find. It’s a shame that companies don’t opt for simple methods instead of rocket science! Good project managers are those that deliver, they should have bucket loads of common sense, and can drive, support and coach a team to collaboratively plan and deliver. It is not about academic prowess and ability to store and regurgitate knowledge! So I have to agree with Ann when she talks about proper project management training!John Says: May 9th, 2009 at 12:25 amHi,Reading with interest. I have been attempting Programme which is failing at present. It’s such a cliche; I prepared, planned the Programme, provided excellent approach recommendations, went to Startup and subsequently initiation, promulgated Comms and completed all tasks on / ahead of schedule. I governed the Change Management and tracked an excellent budget. HOWEVER, I ran without the necessary authority, I was not allowed to meet and communicate with my customer due to Contract Default letters raised against the Operational environment which implicated and gave rise to the Project. So, I had a “Quick Fix - Maintain BAU” Phase which was the dependancy to allow the subsequent Phase. Each Phase was seperated into defined and meaningful stages. When I promulgated End stage reviews, I was afforded “casual chat” with the Exec and no input from the Snr User and Senior Supp (x2). I have documented all my misgivings and warning s of failure, raised the tope Risk that “Lack of engagement with the customer could lead to….”Hey, to my surprise; we reach the end of Phase; go for an Acceptance process with the customer and he says, “We didn’t ask you to do that”. What a surprise!!How can I enforce the Exec Board to fulfill their TOR’s provided in my PID? My Board are CEO’s and MD’s of major Corps. I have demanded a Project Assurance Team which has been forthcoming for the future. I am to plough on into the next phase but, how do I have them turn up at meetings and / or slip the project when we do not have the Exec Board to report Governance / Risks -> issues / Approval of Change etc… If I empower the Assurance, if they guide me incorrectly, I will still be the man with the trousers round ankles!!Your (sympathy and) guidance and opinion would be greatfully received.Regards, Project Failure"Only 35% of software projects are delivered on time, on budget and within requirements"Standish Group, Chaos Research 2006 (Analysis of more than 10,000 global software projects)Statistics show that regardless of the original budgets defined by projects there is still a real issue with project overrun in terms of both cost and schedule. The study showed an average overrun of 24% on original baselined schedule and budget across all completed projects.A Study in Project Failure – 2008 - British Computer Society (BCS) - Dr John McManus and Dr Trevor Wood-HarperStatistics show that the average baseline IT project cost in the UK is £6MA Study in Project Failure – 2008 - British Computer Society (BCS) - Dr John McManus and Dr Trevor Wood-HarperIn low-performing organisations project management performance (and PMO performance) is not measured nor is appropriate accountability for outputs assignedThe State of the PMO - 2007-2008 - A Benchmark of Current Business Practices (Center for Business Practices (CBP) Report)
Software Project Failure Costs Billions.. Better Estimation & Planning Can HelpAuthor: Dan Galorath · June 7, 2012 · Filed Under Project Management - 23 Comment(s)inShare3 There are so many studies attempting to quantify the cost of software failures. They don’t agree on percentages but they generally agree that the number is at least 50 to 80 billion dollar range annually.Standish Chaos Reports: Standish is probably the most referenced. They define success as projects on budget, of cost, and with expected functionality. There are several updates to the Standish “Chaos” reports. The 2004 report shows:Successful Projects: 29%Canceled projects cost $55 Billion Annually?Challenged Projects: 53%Failed Projects: 18%Standish Findings By Year Updated for 20091994199619982000200220042009Succeeded16%27%26%28%34%29%32%Failed31%40%28%23%15%18%24%Challenged53%33%46%49%51%53%44%Most projects cost more than they return, Mercer Consulting: When the true costs are added up, as many as 80% of technology projects actually cost more than they return. It is not done intentionally but the costs are always underestimated and the benefits are always overestimated. Dosani, 2001Oxford University Regarding IT Project Success (Saur & Cuthbertson, 2003)Successful: 16%Challenged: 74%Abandoned: 10%British Computer Society:The UK public sector spent an estimated 12.4 bn. on software overall spend on IT about 22.6 Billion British Pounds (Jaques, 2004)Successful: 16%Failure Costs Tens of Billions of British Pounds in the European UnionNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)Software defects cost nearly $60 Billion Annually80% of development costs involve identifying and correcting defectsTata Consultancy 200762% of organizations experienced IT projects that failed to meet their schedules49% suffered from budget overruns47% had higher-than-expected maintenance costs41% failed to deliver the expected business value and ROI33% file to perform against expectationsCommunications of the ACM Nov 2007: Sauer, Gemino, ReichAbandoned 9%Overdeliver 7%from the paper:Phil Sim0n3 of 5 IT Projects do not do what they were supposed to for the expected costs:49% budget overruns47% higher than expected maintenance costs41% fail to deliver expected business valueFrom Bob Lawhorn presentation on software failure March 2010Poorly defined applications (miscommunication between business and IT) contribute to a 66% project failure rate, costing U.S. businesses at least $30 billion every year (Forrester Research)60% – 80% of project failures can be attributed directly to poor requirements gathering, analysis, and management (Meta Group)50% are rolled back out of production (Gartner)40% of problems are found by end users (Gartner)25% – 40% of all spending on projects is wasted as a result of re-work (Carnegie Mellon)Up to 80% of budgets are consumed fixing self-inflicted problems (Dynamic Markets Limited 2007 Study)===================Dynamic Markets Limited 2007 Study of of 800 IT managers across eight countries shows that:Two Reasons Why IT Projects Fail Reports:62 % of organizations experienced IT projects that failed to meet their schedules49% budget overruns47% higher-than-expected maintenance costs41% failed to deliver expected business value and ROI25%+ of all software and services projects are canceled before completionup to 80 percent of budgets are consumed fixing self-inflicted problems” Gartner also reports that “testing consumes 25% to 50% of the average application life cycle and often is viewed as adding no business value.”11 percent of business organizations consider technology a “strategic weapon,” study by Info-Tech Research Group——————From ESSU (European Services Strategy Unit) Research Report No. 3 “Cost overruns, delays and terminations” on IT ProjectsKey findingsThe Research report identifies 105 outsourced public sector ICT contracts in central government, NHS, local authorities, public bodies and agencies with significant cost overruns, delays and terminations. The summary of findings are (from Tables 1 and 2):105 outsourced public sector ICT projects with significant cost overruns, delays and terminations.Total value of contracts is 29.5 billionCost overruns totaled 9.0 billion57% of contracts experienced cost overrunsThe average percentage cost overrun is 30.5%33% of contracts suffered major delays30% of contracts were terminated12.5% of Strategic Service Delivery Partnerships have failedTable 1: ICT contract summaryCentral government, NHS public bodies and agencies (Million Pounds) Total: 28,058 Overruns & Write-offs 8,876Local Government Total: 1,446 Overruns & Write-offs 18Total29,5048,994European Services Strategy Unit, 2007.Table 2:Summary of cost overruns, delays and terminationsContracts with cost overruns 60 57%% Average cost overrun per contract -30.5%Contracts with delays- 35 33%Contracts terminated 31 30%SSP contracts terminated or substantially reduced 4 12.5 (% of SSDP contracts)European Services Strategy Unit, 2007.RAND STUDY COST OVERRUNS ON SPACE SYSTEMS Average SYSTEM Growth 46%: “An analysis of the data contained in Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) reported from the late 1960s to 2004 shows that the average total cost growth factor for completed Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) was 46 percent. This percentage was calculated by comparing the actual final acquisition costs of a program to its cost estimates presented in the SAR published at the program’s Milestone B decision (MS B)1 when the program was approved for system development and demonstration.” Note these overruns are for the entire system, not just the software. Summary here.Computer World 10 Worst US Commercial Project Failures of the ’90sComputerworld published a list of the top 10 corporate information technology failuresThis list of failures includes hundreds of millions of dollars of losses to organizations including not jus the cost of the software, infrastructure and services but losses to the business as well. For example, according to the article a failed reservations system caused Greyhound to loos their status as a transport powerhouse and cause a $61 million loss for the first half of 1994Hersheys: lost over $150 million due to a SAP / Seibol deploymentOxford Health Care: Nearly $400 million in overstated revenues.FirozDosani, vice president of Mercer Consulting claims “When the true costs are added up, as many as:80% of technology projects actually cost more than they return. It is not done intentionally but the costs are always underestimated and the benefits are always overestimated.” (Dosani, 2001).————————–
By Abdul RahmanDahlanLo and behold! If you were to listen to what the opposition MPs said in Parliament last week, you would think that the Auditor General’s Report was centered mainly on the leakages and wastages in BarisanNasional states.But the truth is stranger than fiction – or so I have found out.My attempt to level the playing field by speaking up against the mismanagement of Pakatan states was met with thunderous objection in the august house. No less than five opposition MPs stood up to prevent me from finishing my speech.All is well, for Hansard never lies. When chaos got the better of my words, I decided to pen down my analysis in the spirit of informing the public that life in Pakatan states is not necessarily a bed of roses, too.KelantanLet’s take a look at the severe mismanagement of Program Ladang Rakyat by the Kelantan state government. The program is not miniscule by any standards. It involved 19 projects in total, covering a massive land area of 81,095 acres (one and a half times the size of Kuala Lumpur no less!).The project was initially set to help the Kelantan poor by promising (for lack of better word) a monthly dividend and salary of RM200 and RM700 respectively. On top of that, the project planned to provide free accommodation and to stimulate the local employment rate. Of course, promises are meant to be broken. All of these promises never materialized. The poor who placed their hopes in this program are now still stuck in status quo.When two projects under the program failed to meet their targets, the Kelantan state government – through Perbadanan Pembangunan Ladang Rakyat Kelantan (PPLRK) – leased out the remaining 17 projects (total land involved is 76,780 acres) to 16 selected companies.But as the AG’s report so aptly pointed out, no specific committee had been set up to evaluate the ability or past performance of the 16 companies. Much worse was when apparently, the 16 listed were actually suggested by none other than the CEO of PPLRK himself! Ah, the joys of running you own empire must be intoxicating, I believe.To compound the problem even further, audit analysis of the agreements with the 16 companies showed that the terms were lop-sided and were heavily stacked against the state government’s interests.For example, in the 20-year lease period, the companies are set to gain total net profit of RM1.6 billion. However, they would only pay Kelantan state government RM421 million in lease payments. The estimated net profit of the 16 companies is a staggering RM59 million a year for the next 20 years!And who are the stakeholders behind LizizStandacoSdn. Bhd.? In yet another land controversy in Kelantan, the AG’s report took the state government to task for offering 1,000 acres of land to LizizStandaco in 2003. This was supposed to be for a 12-year riverbank development and beautification project.In consideration thereof, LizizStandaco must return to the state government assets amounting to RM389.09 million. But as far as the AG’s Report is concerned, the Kelantan state government has only received a paltry sum of RM45.7 million to date. The remaining RM343.4 million is still outstanding at the time this analysis is drafted.Eyebrows were raised in concern when the AG’s report also stated that LizizStandaco had pledged 13.52 acres of the land in question as collateral to secure a RM75 million loan. While it is not immediately clear whether LizizStandaco had used part of the RM75 million’s loan to pay the RM45.7 million to state government, it can in many ways suggest that the company is not in the best financial footing to navigate the project to the shore of success.KedahNow, let’s shift our focus to the northern state of Kedah. Incidentally, around the same time the controversial National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) started its cattle business, a wholly owned entity of the Kedah state government, Kedah Corporation Berhad (KCB), entered into a mammoth joint-venture project with an Australia-based company to rear and import cattle from down under. KCB had paid RM1million to its partner of choice shortly after the agreement was signed. Unfortunately, the cattle project – which was mired in controversy from the get-go – never actually got off the ground.Some might argue that KCB’s RM1 million scandal is pale in comparison to that of NFC’s that involved RM250 million. But I disagree. Wastage, by any other name, is still a wastage – especially so for a small economy like Kedah.If we still insist to go by figures and statistic, the RM1 million involved in this case tantamount to 0.10% of Kedah’s 2011 state budget of RM1 billion. Taken in this perspective, we will also find that the 0.10% is at par with NFC’s 0.11% wastage vis-à-vis RM230 billion of the federal budget.KCB was also frowned upon when it made generous payments on two failed projects. The first involved the payment of RM4.26 million to a company in Papua New Guinea for a palm oil project which subsequently failed. The second involved a payment of RM1.6 million to a consultant company to “arrange” a USD44 million offshore loan earmarked to fund the same Papua New Guinea’s investment.Apart from failing to raise the USD44 million loan (which has since put the project in jeopardy), KCB marched ahead to borrow an additional RM3 million from five local companies. What’s appalling is that the borrowing had been done without the approval from its own board!Meanwhile the AG’s Report has ticked off PerbadananMenteriBesar Kedah for paying a whopping RM1,500 per unit for repair of loose electrical distribution board in low-cost public housing projects. And rightly so, too! The government approved market price is capped at only RM15.45 per unit. The difference per unit in this case is a staggering RM1,484.55.The PerbadananMenteriBesar Kedah had also overpaid (by 31 times) for power sockets in its low-cost public housing projects. They actually paid RM1,500 per unit when the government-approved market price is only RM50.18 per unit. Simple arithmetic will show that this constitutes an overpayment of RM1,449.82 per unit.SelangorLast but not least, Selangor. The buzz around the overhyped Skim TabungWarisanAnak Selangor (TAWAS) died an untimely death when the AG’s report pointed out that the scheme was woefully underfunded and had failed to live up to its promise. The promise to give RM100 in form of SimpananTetap for every Selangor-born will remain as just another unfulfilled promise.Since its inception in 2008, 19.4% (60,972) of 313,706 of those who were born in Selangor had applied for the scheme. Out of the 60,972 applications, only 21,918 have been approved.Selangor has allocated RM13.5 million for TAWAS. But out of that amount, about RM4.5 million was meant for operational costs, setting aside only RM8 million for the actual program itself.In education sector, Selangor government had incurred losses of RM39.69 million in 2010, and RM13.56 million through PendidikanIndustri YS SdnBhd (PIYSB) – the organ that operates UNISEL.These are only examples of leakages and wastages in Pakatan states. If you read the AG’s Report with microscopic view, you would find much more examples of the same nature.The road aheadAs the 13th general election approaches, Pakatan Rakyat has intensified its drive to capture votes in Sabah and Sarawak. It goes without saying that the 56 parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sawarak will be the knight of hope to both Putrajaya’s incumbents and aspirants.So, Pakatan has launched a mission to attack and undermine the administration of the two states.Ironically, the attack on the performance of Sabah and Sarawak has proved to be hollow year after year when the AG’s report keeps giving both states top marks in state finance management and fiscal policies.In its latest report for 2011, the Auditor General accorded the highest commendation (“sangatbaik”) to only one state: Sarawak. Meanwhile, Sabah has maintained the second best status of “baik” from previous years.The 2011 Consolidated Fund accounts of Sarawak and Sabah governments are the highest among all states at RM18.5 billion and RM2.66 billion respectively. Selangor, on the other hand, is at third place with RM1.94 billion while Penang is at fourth place with RM1.13 billion.If we look at 2011 state revenue statistics, Sarawak has topped the list with RM6.6 billion, followed by Sabah at second place with RM4.4 billion. Selangor was at fourth place (RM1.6 billion) and Penang was at seventh position (RM602 million).This article is not intended to purposely exclude wastages and leakages in Barisan-held states. There are some pretty glaring examples of wastages and leakages in Barisan states, too. But what I intended to do by writing this article was to inform the public that leakages and wastages are not confined only to BN states; Pakatan state governments are equally guilty of the same charge!The writer is Umno’s MP for Kota Belud, Sabah.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------KUCHING: Sarawak DAP has taken the Auditor General to task for not dissecting the feedbacks it received from the State Planning Unit.Citing the RM213 million construction of a road and bridge from Kuching to the Isthmus area, DAP secretary Chong Chieng Jen said the money spent was not justified.“Whatever feedback given by SPU, the AG just accepted it and deemed the project as vital to ease traffic congestion.“But if he is competent, he should have gone to the ground to find out how many cars are using the road, how many residents live there and how many buildings are in the area.“The reason given for carrying out the project is to ease traffic, but there is no traffic from Isthmus to Kuching at all.“And there are only two buildings. One is the Borneo Convention Centre Kuching (BCCK) and the other is the SESCO building.“When the project was launched in 2008, there was only the BCCK. The project is therefore a wrong priority,” said Chong who is also Bandar Kuching MP.The project was funded with RM100 million from the federal government and the balance RM113 million from the state government.White-elephant projectHe said that the RM100 million could have been used to upgrade roads in Tabuan Jaya, Jalan Song, JalanUrat Mata, JalanBayor Bukit, JalanBatuLintang, JalanMendu, JalanBatuKawah and Jalan Petra Jaya.“These roads are experiencing heavy traffic jams daily and yet RM100 million of the funds which are to upgrade roads in the urban areas were allocated to the building of the Isthmus Bridge and road.“Had the RM100 million been channeled to these roads, tens of thousands of road users in Kuching would have benefited.“On top of that, we are also asking the government to widen the Pan Borneo trunk road into a dual carriageway, but the government gave an excuse that less than 20,000 vehicles used the road per day.“But for Isthmus at the time it was implemented not even 20,000 cars per year were coming from Isthmus to Kuching, and yet the project was given priority.“It clearly shows the government when it comes to prioritisation of the project has other consideration in mind instead of the people’s interest,” said Chong pointing out that the Isthmus is belonged to CMS Land, a company linked to Chief Minister Taib Mahmud.“Isthmus is owned by CMS land, a company owned by the family members of Chief Minister Abdul Taib Mahmud. Even when there is no heavy traffic, the RM213 million was allocated to the construction of the three-lane bridge project in order to increase the value of the land in Isthmus,” Chong alleged.“I question the intention and the purpose of building the bridge,” he said.Accusing the AG of failing in his duty, Chong said that a competent AG would have made a comment on this project which was a wrong priority.“The money should have been used for the benefit of the people rather than one or two families,” he stressed
The Auditor-General also says the government collected RM185.42 billion in revenue last year, an increase of 16.1% compared to 2010.KUALA LUMPUR: The Auditor-General’s report for 2011 has been released today, showing 111 ministries and government agencies having improved in their financial management as compared to the 77 recorded in 2010.“The ministries and government agencies received four star ratings for their financial management,” said Auditor-General AmbrinBuang in a statement.He also said that his agency had received 456 financial statements and 388 or 85.1% of it were received in order.“Only 25 financial statements or 5.5%, were not in order. The balance 43 statements or 9.4% are still being audited.“This shows that government agencies have taken steps to improve their accountability index over the years,” he added.In terms of revenue, Ambrin said the federal government had collected RM185.42 billion last year, which was an increase by 16.1% as compared to the RM159.65 billion recorded in 2010.“The government collected RM25.77 billion in excess in 2011 due to the surge in oil prices, improving domestic economy and better collection from the Inland Revenue Board (IRB) and the Customs Department,” he added.He said that IRB had collected RM109.61 billion in revenue last year, which was an increase by 26.7% compared to 2010.“The Customs Department managed to collect RM30.38 billion in 2011, which is an increase by 7.9% as compared to year 2010,” he said---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AG report: Top marks to Pakatan statesSyedJaymalZahiid | October 15, 2012 The 2011 Auditor-General's report showed that apart from a few minor glitches, all four states showed good financial standing. KUALA LUMPUR: The 2011 Auditor-General’s report indicates good fiscal management by all four Pakatan Rakyat-controlled states with revenues improving.DAP-held Penang led the way in terms of revenue collection, recording a RM192.19 million or 46.8% increase compared with the RM410.70 million made in 2010 while Selangor, Malaysia’s richest state, increased by RM62.50 million or 4% for the same period.Kedah, on the other hand, saw its surplus drop when it recorded an increase in operating expenditures despite boosting its revenue, but the report noted that the PAS-led state government had more or less maintained a “satisfactory” balance sheet.But the rice-bowl state, considered as one of the country’s poorest, is still far from achieving its debt target, said the report.“The state government’s commitment to the remaining public debt now stands at RM2.60 billion compared with RM2.61 billion in 2010; it is still high,” it read, adding that Kedah must do more to improve its revenue collection.Oil-rich Kelantan, too, was rated satisfactory due to the increase in its consolidated fund by RM86.17 million or 58.1% to RM234.47 million as compared with the RM148.30 million recorded in 2010.The PAS-conrolled-state also saw investments in 2011 increase by RM95 million from RM16.33 million in 2010 to RM111.33 million in 2011.The state’s overall financial performance statement, whereby revenue as compared to total management and development expenditures for 2011, recorded an increase from total deficit of RM171.70 million in 2010 to RM141.53 million in 2011.But the AG report highlighted poor debt management by Kelantan.“Public debts increased by RM27.85 million from RM1.11 billion in 2010 to RM1.14 billion in 2011. The arrears of debts repayment to the federal government also increased from RM121.57 million in 2010 to RM179.81 million in 2011″.Meanwhile, the report noted marked improvements in the performance of state agencies with most rated “excellent” compared to 2010, although it recommended Kelantan and Kedah to provide more training for its officers to improve.Selangor and Penang were praised for their initiatives to bolster their financial management performance==============================================================================================
Dynamic Markets Limited 2007 Study of of 800 IT managers across eight countries shows that:Poorly defined applications (miscommunication between business and IT) contribute to a 66% project failure rate, costing U.S. businesses at least $30 billion every year (Forrester Research)60% – 80% of project failures can be attributed directly to poor requirements gathering, analysis, and management (Meta Group)50% are rolled back out of production (Gartner)40% of problems are found by end users (Gartner)25% – 40% of all spending on projects is wasted as a result of re-work (Carnegie Mellon)Up to 80% of budgets are consumed fixing self-inflicted problems (Dynamic Markets Limited 2007 Study)
From Bob Lawhorn presentation on software failure March 2010From Bob Lawhorn presentation on software failure March 2010Poorly defined applications (miscommunication between business and IT) contribute to a 66% project failure rate, costing U.S. businesses at least $30 billion every year (Forrester Research)60% – 80% of project failures can be attributed directly to poor requirements gathering, analysis, and management (Meta Group)50% are rolled back out of production (Gartner)40% of problems are found by end users (Gartner)25% – 40% of all spending on projects is wasted as a result of re-work (Carnegie Mellon)Up to 80% of budgets are consumed fixing self-inflicted problems (Dynamic Markets Limited 2007 Study)
I am giving two examples of unsuccessful industrial projects:1. Dhabol Power Project which was being set up as a joint venture between Enron and Maharashtra Government. This project failed.Reasons for failure: The cost of power to be supplied by the company was to be linked to movements in US Dollars and Prices of crude oil. This factor was ignored by while appraising the project. The power cost to be supplied by the company would have been prohibitive. When the Maharashtra Government became aware of this fact, it started negotiating with Enron, for which Enron was not prepared. Of course, Enron had certain problems in their own country, USA, in regard to wrong method employed by it in accounting future income as current income (Arther Anderson, top Accounting firm of the world, was also indicted in that case). The company had to close down.The project failed.2. Tata's 'Nano' Car Project in West Bengal:"Some time ago I had the opportunity to look at Maingear’s Titan 17 notebook, a system described as a high performance desktop replacement by the boutique PC builder. The portable certainly lived up to the hype as it decimated every benchmark we threw at it, chewing through games on its way to earning the title of the most powerful notebook we had ever reviewed. The harsh reality, however, is that most people can’t afford to spend a few thousand on a notebook computer, even if it's on a solid gaming machine that doubles as a desktop replacement. To that end, today we'll be checking out a portable from MSI that aims to deliver a similarly solid gaming experience without breaking the bank.The MSI GX60 is the latest entry in the company's Gaming Series of notebooks. The unit we tested arrived with a quad-core AMD A10-4600M CPU clocked at 2.3GHz alongside AMD Radeon HD 7970M discrete graphics with 2GB of GDDR5 memory, a 15.6-inch non-glare display operating at 1920x1080, 8GB of DDR3 memory in a 4GBx2 configuration, 128GB of flash storage used as the OS drive and a 750GB 7200RPM disk drive for storageLocal people and a political party started agitation against the land acquisition by the company for the project. There was violence, resulting in deathsTatas abandoned the Project, and shifted it to Gujarat.Source(s):General Knowledge.Edited 1 year ago
The success overall outcomes of capacity building includes the following:1)helping the organization to do what it already does, but better; 2) improving its to grow; and 3) improving its ability to change.
The Curious Case of the CHAOS Report 2009Get the PDF VersionBy Jorge Dominguez1 Jul2009The Standish Group collects information on project failures in the IT industry and environments with the objective of making the industry more successful and to show ways to improve its success rates and increase the value of the IT investments. The latest results have been compiled into the CHAOS Report 2009 published by the organisation in April.Problem: it measures success by only looking at whether the projects were completed on time, on budget and with required features and functions (met user requirements). What happened to the rest of the "six triple constraints!"The organisation leaves out of its measures the quality, the risk, and customer satisfaction. Not that we are complaining. They have the right to measure whatever they want and we have stated before that we have to consider the CHAOS Report results in a recent article on my theory on why IT projects fail. But we, PMs, already know that all these measurements work in tandem and need to keep this in mind.The report shows that software projects now have a 32% success rate compared to 35% from the previous study in 2006 and 16% in 1994. On the other hand, 44% of projects were challenged (late, over budget and/or with less than the required features and functions) while 24% failed (cancelled prior to completion or delivered and never used).Measure19941996199820002002200420062009Successful16%27%26%28%34%29%35%32%Challenged53%33%46%49%51%53%46%44%Failed31%40%28%23%15%18%19%24%So, must we conclude that project success is a little worse than in 2006 (32% vs. 35%) but definitely better than in 1994 (16%)? For sure, there is better project management expertise (more certified project managers), better training, and better tools and techniques. On the other hand, project complexity and environments have increased while the time to deliver has been reduced. Look at the table above and make your own conclusions.In our opinion, project success in IT has improved when looking at all the many angles that are not being considered by the CHAOS Report. Nevertheless, the figures are still low and need to improve much more.Still, the CHAOS Report continues to be an important measure for the IT industry in spite leaving a lot of curious minds wandering about the methods used. Don't you think so...? Well, I do.42Jorge Dominguez wrote the article "The Curious Case of the CHAOS Report 2009" and recommends you visit www.Expiriance.com for more information about project management
According to the CHAOS report, the failure rate for IT projects in 2009 was 24%. The challenged rate (complete, but overbudget and/or behind schedule and/or reduced specifications) was 44%.Some people mix failed and challenged, which is wrong, and come up with a rate of 68%. The real failure rate, again, is 24%, and this is only for IT projects. Construction projects should have less failure because of the standardized project management process.
Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development” – to obtain the entirebook, select “Publications” at http://www.authenticityconsulting.comCopyright, Authenticity Consulting, LLC 102How to Define Project “Success”Your client’s perception of project “success” is the basis from which your client concludes, forexample, whether the project of high quality, that money paid to you was well spent, that you did agood job as a consultant, and whether you might be hired again (if you are an external consultant).Early in the project, it is important for you and your client to discuss how to determine the success ofthe project. Letts, Ryan and Grossman (1998) suggest that the three overall outcomes of capacitybuilding include: 1) helping the organization to do what it already does, but better; 2) improving itsability to grow; and 3) improving its ability to change.Unfortunately, determining whether a project was successful or not is not nearly as easy as it mightseem because there are numerous perspectives on what is project “success.” Therefore, it isimportant to consider all of these perspectives, especially about a complex – and usually changing –project. Consider the following possible definitions of what might be considered as “success” inyour consulting project, and work with your client to select one or more.1. Desired outcomes and results listed in the project agreement are achieved.Both you and your client should somehow specify the overall results that the project is toachieve. Ideally, the results are described in terms such that you both could readily discernif the results were achieved or not. This outcome is often a measure as to whether theproject was successful or not.2. The client’s problem is solved.More times than people realize, the originally specified project results have little to do withactually solving the most important problem in your client’s organization. That occursbecause, as you and your client work together to examine and address their overall problem,you both realize that there is a more important problem to address. At that time, it is wise tochange your project plans if both of you agree. Discuss the new results that you prefer andhow you will know whether or not they are achieved.Still, later on, your client might believe that any agreed-to results that were achieved fromthe project were not as important as addressing any current, unsolved problems, so yourclient might still conclude that the project was not as successful as it should have been. Or,your client might believe that any achieved results were actually more useful than addressingthe original problem that you discussed, so your client might still conclude that the projectwas highly successful.3. The project is finished on time and within budget.Often, your client has limited resources in terms of money and time. Therefore, any projectthat did not require more time and money than expected might be considered successful.That might be true, especially if your client has the philosophy that there are alwaysproblems to be solved in any organization and that the project was done as best as could bedone.4. You and your client sustain a high-quality, working relationship.As explained throughout this Field Guide, the quality of your relationship with your client isoften directly associated with what the client perceives to be the quality of the project. In ahighly collaborative approach to consulting, you want your relationship with your client tobe as open, honest and trusting as possible. The nature of the relationship supports yourclient’s strong, ongoing commitment and participation in the project itself, which, in turn,helps to ensure that the project effectively addresses problems in their organization.Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development” – to obtain the entirebook, select “Publications” at http://www.authenticityconsulting.comCopyright; Authenticity Consulting, LLC 1035. Your client learns to address similar problems by themselves in the future.This outcome should be one of the major goals for any consultant. However, the exactnature of the problem may never arise in the client’s organization again, so it is oftendifficult to assess if the client has learned to solve that problem. Also, few consultants arewilling to scope a project to the time required to assess whether a client really can solve thesame type of problem in the future.6. Your client says that they would hire you again (if you are an external consultant).One of the most powerful outcomes is that you both are willing to work with each otheragain. One of the ethical considerations for any consultant is to avoid creating a dependencyof the client on the consultant – where the client cannot capably participate in theorganization without the ongoing services of the consultant. However, it is not uncommonthat the client strongly believes that the quality of the relationship with the consultant is asimportant as the consultant’s expertise. The client might choose to use that consultantwherever and whenever they can in the future.7. You get paid in full.This perspective might sound rather trite to include in this Field Guide. However, you mightfeel good about the quality and progress of a project only to conclude, later on, if you havenot been paid as promised, that the project was not successful.
Real-Life Project Management Strategies that Fail and How to Prevent Project Failurewritten by: Ronda Bowen • edited by: Jean Scheid • updated: 6/29/2011This article discusses examples of failed projects and how each may have been saved with effective project management strategy.slide 1 of 5Sometimes projects do not move along as planned. Sometimes projects completely fail. Many projects that fail do so because of poor project management strategy. This article looks at some real-life examples of failed projects and suggests how proper project management would have saved the project.slide 2 of 51. Poor Team ConstructionShelly heads a team of five people. Because there are two other company projects with higher priority, staff is limited. Mr. Owner assigns Shelly three rookie resources and two veteran resources have volunteered to take on some of her project tasks. The two veteran resources are primarily working on other projects. After a significant amount of time, only one team member has completed any of their tasks accurately or on time. The two who are involved in other projects have not completed any tasks. One of the remaining team members has done work, but not accurately. The final resource moves slowly. Her project appears to have run stagnant.One way to avoid this problem is by executing effective team communication. There are many ways to do this: hold a daily Scrum, require weekly status reports, or utilize one of the many project management programs available. The more obvious way to avoid this problem is by building an effective team. Things to keep in mind while team building include: employee skill, experience, participation ability, the projects they are already working on (to avoid overallocation), and morale. Newer resources should be paired with mentors.700G Pressure Gaugefluke.com/Pressure_CalibratorsEasy to use, rugged and reliable construction. Find out more!Ads by Googleslide 3 of 52. Unrealistic SchedulingAndy is dismayed when he finds out that his team is weeks behind on a project that needs to be completed yesterday. His client convinced him to push the due date up by three months. His team currently works overtime at least three times a week to push forward on the new, hastened, deadline. Numerous absences and mistakes plague Andy’s project. Finally, the client drops his company and decides to go in a different direction.Because Andy was flexible about deadlines and allowed the client to negotiate timing on the project, his project failed. With projects, it is important to set a realistic schedule and to stick with it. By overworking his resources, they burned out and stress caused health problems. slide 4 of 53. Unclear or Understated ObjectivesJill finds that she is completely disappointed with the outcome of her latest software project. Her team members produced a deliverable that did not stand up to the standards she had in mind. The graphics lacked quality, and the game’s storyline fell flat. When she tells the team she had hoped for something better, they shrug and say, “We just did what you told us to do.”Had Jill clearly outlined the objectives for the software project, she would have received the quality she desired. Concrete, clear goal planning in project management cannot be emphasized enough. Without clear goals, a project will surely fail – and if it doesn’t fail, it will fall short of expectations.slide 5 of 5By being aware of where projects fail, project managers can better use project management strategy to overcome these failures. Through using careful planning techniques, risk can be minimized
Most Third World e-govt projects fail: World BankBangalore, IndiaNovember 8, 2004 - 10:21AMPage ToolsEmail to a friendPrinter formatEighty-five percent of e-government projects in developing countries fail either partially or fully, a World Bank official says."It is estimated approximately 35 percent of e-government projects in developing countries are total failures and approximately 50 percent are partial failures," Robert Schware, World Bank lead informatics specialist, said on Friday.E-government refers to the use of information and communications technologies to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability of government.The World Bank funds many e-government projects worldwide such as developing e-trade facilitation systems, e-procurement pilots and one-stop government gateways."Only some 15 percent can be fully seen as success. There are equal numbers of very sad statistics about the number of failed implementations in the US and Europe," Schware told delegates at a seminar on e-government.In India half of the ongoing 200 e-governance projects were bound to fail, he said."By failure I mean the inability to deliver government services that provide benefit to citizens or business. Failure is when there is a lack of political will and leadership
Researches continually show that companies have difficulty with information technology (IT) projects to complete on time or on budget. In fact many are cancelled before completion or not implemented. The data on project outcomes according to the Standish Group’s study is introduced in order to illustrate these facts. Because project failures involving public money are documented, the failure of the Virtual Case File project for the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation is analysed and evaluated. The most common causes for IT failures are related to project management. The primary management causes for the failure of complex IT projects as observed from the Virtual Case File example are listed. These causes are elaborated upon with some examples.
six "implementation challenges" for successful project management in the public service:» The barriers to implementing policy are often not adequately identified and addressed when new government initiatives are first discussed.» The development of policy is sometimes insufficiently informed by the experience of those who deliver programs.» Conversely, those who implement programs often pay insufficient attention to whether their administrative processes of delivery align with the government's policy goals.» Broad appreciation for the role of project management, particularly as it relates to the delivery of services, is insufficiently developed.» Cross-agency initiatives can founder on the "hidden rocks" of departmentalism. » Too frequently delivery can be hindered by costly bureaucratic red-tape beyond the measures that are necessary to ensure effective accountability.
If you're thinking into starting a PM career then now is the time. There are plenty of jobs.bs.Of course project management is growing. Its adoption rate is increasing exponentially. Look around you, there are projects everywhere, and every endeavor is becoming a project (that needs to be managed by a project manager).Here's a glimpse of why project management is growing:- 3rd world countries have a lot of infrastructure projects.- Oil rich countries are racing to build the tallest tower, the biggest city, the largest airport, etc...- Developed countries are getting out of the recession and are initiating a lot of projects to create jobs.- Nearly everything that was a process before is now becoming a project. For example, procuring material, can be part of a project, or can be a project in and for itself.Now about perfection, my personal view on this matter is that project management hasn't changed much from the last 30 years or so (even more). Sure we have agile, but it's a debatable methodology (or whatever you want to call it if you don't like calling it methodology), and the project success rate seems to fluctuate, and it's definitely not in an upward trend. There is no revolution nor evolution in project management currently. We're still doing things the same way we did decades ago, only slightly differently (but not more efficiently), and with different names.If you're thinking into starting a PM career then now is the time. There are plenty of joOf course project management is growing. Its adoption rate is increasing exponentially. Look around you, there are projects everywhere, and every endeavor is becoming a project (that needs to be managed by a project manager).Here's a glimpse of why project management is growing:- 3rd world countries have a lot of infrastructure projects.- Oil rich countries are racing to build the tallest tower, the biggest city, the largest airport, etc...- Developed countries are getting out of the recession and are initiating a lot of projects to create jobs.- Nearly everything that was a process before is now becoming a project. For example, procuring material, can be part of a project, or can be a project in and for itself.Now about perfection, my personal view on this matter is that project management hasn't changed much from the last 30 years or so (even more). Sure we have agile, but it's a debatable methodology (or whatever you want to call it if you don't like calling it methodology), and the project success rate seems to fluctuate, and it's definitely not in an upward trend. There is no revolution nor evolution in project management currently. We're still doing things the same way we did decades ago, only slightly differently (but not more efficiently), and with different names.
Project Management QualificationsProject Management Professional (PMP) of highest-paying certifications for IT professionals2007 IT Salary and Skills Report, Global Knowledge In low-performing organisations PMO staff are much less likely to have formal project management qualifications, hands-on-experience and extensive project management knowledge The State of the PMO - 2007-2008 - A Benchmark of Current Business Practices (Center for Business Practices (CBP) Report)31% of global CIOs require certified project managers – up 10% since 2005The Standish Group 200967% of CIOs regard a PMI certification as valuableThe Standish Group 2009If you look at the definition for Success, it seems to set an almost impossibly high standard for success, although even that high bar has come down from when they started the survey in 1994 and said that success meant that the software included all the initially specified features and functions. I have other concerns about applying a definition like this to Project Success. Namely:◊ It ignores other factors that are also key to the perception of success, such as:● Quality – Is your work really done if you met the target goal, but you’ve got alarge number of bugs to remediate?● Customer Satisfaction – I don’t know anybody who hasn’t run into the situationwhere you delivered exactly what was asked for and the client or the businessdecided that it wasn’t what they were expecting.(I’ll talk about how you canavoid that situation in another post)● ROI – Return on Investment seems to be one of those forgotten measures ofsuccess for everybody but the finance department.Probably because you can’treally start measuring it until after the project is done, and by then everybody’sstarted to focus on the next project.◊ It’s simplistic. The Standish Group definition applies a one size fits all definition tosuccess. And in real life, I’ve found that clients often trade off one factor foranother to create a custom definition of success. For instance, I had a dot-comclient who was racing to be first to market with their product, so schedule, featureset, and customer satisfaction were the primary factors in determining success forthem. I had another client whose product enhancements were funded out ofrevenues, so budget and ROI were the primary factors for them.
2. Prince2 (PRojects IN Controlled Environments) Project Management Certification by Office of Government Commerce (OGC)It is originated from the earlier PRINCE technique, which was initially developed in 1989 by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) as a UK Government standard for information systems project management; however, it soon became regularly applied outside the purely IT environment. PRINCE2 was released in 1996 as a generic project management method. PRINCE2 has become increasingly popular and is now the de facto standard for project management in the UK. .The most current revision was released in 2005 by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and it is currently undergoing a refresh for 2008/9.The "PRINCE2" name is a Registered Trade Mark of the OGC
