Project Management a science?

nzric · 14th June 2008, 10:15 PM

Hi

I have joined the Project Management Institute (PMI) and am doing research for a presentation as part of my CAPM accreditation study group.

There's a lot of articles on the net that say the average success rate of projects is approx. 30%, which has astounded me!!

Which leads to my question - do you think any field of knowledge which claims an average success rate by its practitioners of only 30% can call itself a "science"?

'Maybe' 70% of people aren't following the PMBOK methodology, so the project 'would have' succeeded had they project managed effectively. And maybe as a young field of knowledge, the failure is on the part of people's incorrect understanding of project management compared to the agreed (by PMI) definition & practice.

On the other hand a devil's advocate would say that a 70% failure rate points more towards a serious flaw in the methodology itself rather then how well the practitioners implement it.

Thoughts?

quixotecoyote · 14th June 2008, 10:21 PM

I'm not familiar with project management as a discipline. How much of PM theory is empiricially derived and how much is theoretical/philosophical naval gazing? As someone studying communication, I know it's often tough to filter that stuff out.

rjh01 · 16th June 2008, 01:12 AM

I would not call project Management a science. See this for a definition of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science. Project Management is a tool.

There are many reasons why projects fail. However it boils down to not being able to predict the future. The better you can predict the future the more successful the project will be.

For example if you want to build a large building of a unique design then the unknowns will be huge. However if you build 100 buildings that are almost the same then by the time you build the 100th you will be able to predict most things (excluding things like unusual weather). If you use project management correctly then the building should be built on time, within budget. Without project management you are building 100 buildings for the first time.

Project management is not new. I know it was used in the 1950s.

Almo · 17th June 2008, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by nzric

There's a lot of articles on the net that say the average success rate of projects is approx. 30%, which has astounded me!!

I sincerely doubt 70% of all projects fail. There's either a goofy definition of "succeed" or someone's trying to sell you something.

I work in the game industry, and I've seen a few projects canned. But nowhere near 70% of them.

Steve · 19th June 2008, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

There are many reasons why projects fail. However it boils down to not being able to predict the future. The better you can predict the future the more successful the project will be.

Agreed.

My experience with project management is is the construction industry. In very simple terms, a construction project manager will work with the owner/client to set the budget and the time frame for the project and then work to complete the project within these parameters. A project that is completed on time and within the budget is generally considered to be successful. With this broad definition in mind, in my 35 years in this business I have seen a number of projects fail to meet one or both of these parameters, but the large majority of projects have been successful.

In construction I think that successful project management is as much an "art" as a science. Getting all the players - owner, engineers, construction trades, building officials - to work as a team is probably the most difficult job in construction ( and no, I am not a construction manager, just a lowly mechanical systems designer).

Perhaps nzric could elaborate on how "success" and "failure" are defined in the OP, and or whether these high failure rates apply to a particular business or industry.

shadron · 21st June 2008, 08:37 PM

Project management is just a systematic way of thinking through a complicated process through completion. Like most such tools it is designed to capture, or allow for the capture of the kind of arcane details which normally are known to, say, three of the engineers on the project and no one else, and to get these taken care of at the proper level at the proper time. Finally, it also allows for the capture for historical study of a particular project and the problems it (presumably) overcame, instead of loosing that to fable. In your quote about 70% of projects failing, I would hazard a guess that most never heard of PM (and I don't believe the statistic anyway).

Spindrift · 23rd June 2008, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Almo

I sincerely doubt 70% of all projects fail. There's either a goofy definition of "succeed" or someone's trying to sell you something.

I work in the game industry, and I've seen a few projects canned. But nowhere near 70% of them.

Just because a project doesn't get canned doesn't mean the project is a success. I would guess that one definition is meeting it's original objectives including deadlines. How many projects in your industry actually meet their original deadline?

Wudang · 24th June 2008, 04:57 AM

http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.1167

Worth a read.

Also as Spindrift says a non-canned project is not necessarily a successful project. A success means on-time, to quality and to cost.
And good project management includes canceling projects because the requirements have changed, the business drivers have changed, more detailed analysis shows that the cost/benefit ratio isn't as good as first analysis showed etc.

Almo · 27th June 2008, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Just because a project doesn't get canned doesn't mean the project is a success. I would guess that one definition is meeting it's original objectives including deadlines. How many projects in your industry actually meet their original deadline?

Meeting the "Original deadline" is an artificial goal. When My Word Coach didn't ship on its originally intended date, it was because it was decided we could make it a better product by delaying its release. It got delayed 3 times.

The DS version (the one I worked on) sold roughly 2.5 times as many as we needed to break even. So, we missed our "original deadline" 3 times, but made a healthy profit. That's hardly a failure. I could cite many other projects our studio has made the missed their deadlines, yet became very successful. I've personally been on one that was canned, one that made enough profit to pay us a bonus, and one other that failed to break even, so I'm not pretending that all our projects succeed.

There's another issue in our industry; sometimes consumers don't "get" a product, despite it being a successfully realized product. Amplitude and Rez are well-known examples in the industry of brilliant games that didn't sell. These projects were successes from a project management point of view, but for whatever reason, they just didn't catch on in the market. Both games got rave reviews, won awards, and are well-respected in certain circles of the industry as accomplishments in the art of game-making.

So I stick with my original assessment: "There's either a goofy definition of 'succeed' or someone's trying to sell you something."

Denver · 27th June 2008, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Almo

...So I stick with my original assessment: "There's either a goofy definition of 'succeed' or someone's trying to sell you something."

There may even be a goofy definition of 'fail'.

A well-managed project of a significant size includes acknowledging that there will be oversights, unknowns, and missing or changing requirements and constraints. A project that gets underway, and then it is found that WHOOPS, we forgot something, and the project has to backtrack, is not a failed project. It is a normal project.

A project that never delivers what it promised the end user, is a failed project. A project that has cost and time overruns may not be a failed project, if those are handled well.

nzric · 16th July 2008, 02:16 AM

Looks like the definitions on the internet of 30% "successful" projects is those that were delivered within the constraints originally planned. If a project was delivered "successfully" but ran over scope/time/budget/etc, it wasn't classed as a "failed" project but it is not graded as a success.

This could come down to project managers over-confidently designing a project or putting too much faith in their original estimations, rather than doing what some people in above posts have mentioned, i.e. "progressive elaboration" of a project to lock down estimates only at the right time.

Catch 22 I suppose. On the one hand, you're going to lose out to a more confident project team if your pitch sounds wishy-washy, but if you over promise and under deliver, the end product could be worse.

You could blame the sponsor for lack of understanding of what and how accurately a project manager can deliver a result, but I still think that there seems to be a lot of "spin" to misrepresent a set of useful tools as some kind of science.

fishbob · 16th July 2008, 02:27 AM

Project managers are not supposed to design or estimate projects - they are supposed to build or construct or develop the designs of the engineers or architects.

Got to have somebody to blame when the job goes south.

14th June 2008, 10:15 PM	#1
nzric Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 214	Project Management a science? Hi I have joined the Project Management Institute (PMI) and am doing research for a presentation as part of my CAPM accreditation study group. There's a lot of articles on the net that say the average success rate of projects is approx. 30%, which has astounded me!! Which leads to my question - do you think any field of knowledge which claims an average success rate by its practitioners of only 30% can call itself a "science"? 'Maybe' 70% of people aren't following the PMBOK methodology, so the project 'would have' succeeded had they project managed effectively. And maybe as a young field of knowledge, the failure is on the part of people's incorrect understanding of project management compared to the agreed (by PMI) definition & practice. On the other hand a devil's advocate would say that a 70% failure rate points more towards a serious flaw in the methodology itself rather then how well the practitioners implement it. Thoughts?
nzric Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 214

14th June 2008, 10:21 PM	#2
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	I'm not familiar with project management as a discipline. How much of PM theory is empiricially derived and how much is theoretical/philosophical naval gazing? As someone studying communication, I know it's often tough to filter that stuff out.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

16th June 2008, 01:12 AM	#3
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,172	I would not call project Management a science. See this for a definition of science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science. Project Management is a tool. There are many reasons why projects fail. However it boils down to not being able to predict the future. The better you can predict the future the more successful the project will be. For example if you want to build a large building of a unique design then the unknowns will be huge. However if you build 100 buildings that are almost the same then by the time you build the 100th you will be able to predict most things (excluding things like unusual weather). If you use project management correctly then the building should be built on time, within budget. Without project management you are building 100 buildings for the first time. Project management is not new. I know it was used in the 1950s.
	__________________ dddffffpppqqqq Want to use your computer for something that will make society better? See this thread for details Folding@home

17th June 2008, 09:25 AM	#4
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,405	Originally Posted by nzric There's a lot of articles on the net that say the average success rate of projects is approx. 30%, which has astounded me!! I sincerely doubt 70% of all projects fail. There's either a goofy definition of "succeed" or someone's trying to sell you something. I work in the game industry, and I've seen a few projects canned. But nowhere near 70% of them.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

19th June 2008, 09:35 AM	#5
Steve Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2005 Location: Surrey BC Posts: 1,331	Originally Posted by rjh01 There are many reasons why projects fail. However it boils down to not being able to predict the future. The better you can predict the future the more successful the project will be. Agreed. My experience with project management is is the construction industry. In very simple terms, a construction project manager will work with the owner/client to set the budget and the time frame for the project and then work to complete the project within these parameters. A project that is completed on time and within the budget is generally considered to be successful. With this broad definition in mind, in my 35 years in this business I have seen a number of projects fail to meet one or both of these parameters, but the large majority of projects have been successful. In construction I think that successful project management is as much an "art" as a science. Getting all the players - owner, engineers, construction trades, building officials - to work as a team is probably the most difficult job in construction ( and no, I am not a construction manager, just a lowly mechanical systems designer). Perhaps nzric could elaborate on how "success" and "failure" are defined in the OP, and or whether these high failure rates apply to a particular business or industry.
	__________________ Formerly known as dogguy. Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

21st June 2008, 08:37 PM	#6
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,717	Project management is just a systematic way of thinking through a complicated process through completion. Like most such tools it is designed to capture, or allow for the capture of the kind of arcane details which normally are known to, say, three of the engineers on the project and no one else, and to get these taken care of at the proper level at the proper time. Finally, it also allows for the capture for historical study of a particular project and the problems it (presumably) overcame, instead of loosing that to fable. In your quote about 70% of projects failing, I would hazard a guess that most never heard of PM (and I don't believe the statistic anyway).
	Last edited by shadron; 21st June 2008 at 08:38 PM.

23rd June 2008, 11:40 AM	#7
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,445	Originally Posted by Almo I sincerely doubt 70% of all projects fail. There's either a goofy definition of "succeed" or someone's trying to sell you something. I work in the game industry, and I've seen a few projects canned. But nowhere near 70% of them. Just because a project doesn't get canned doesn't mean the project is a success. I would guess that one definition is meeting it's original objectives including deadlines. How many projects in your industry actually meet their original deadline?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

24th June 2008, 04:57 AM	#8
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,242	http://www.bcs.org/server.php?show=conWebDoc.1167 Worth a read. Also as Spindrift says a non-canned project is not necessarily a successful project. A success means on-time, to quality and to cost. And good project management includes canceling projects because the requirements have changed, the business drivers have changed, more detailed analysis shows that the cost/benefit ratio isn't as good as first analysis showed etc.
	__________________ Aphorism: Subjects most likely to be declared inappropriate for humor are the ones most in need of it. -epepke

27th June 2008, 08:34 AM	#9
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 6,405	Originally Posted by Spindrift Just because a project doesn't get canned doesn't mean the project is a success. I would guess that one definition is meeting it's original objectives including deadlines. How many projects in your industry actually meet their original deadline? Meeting the "Original deadline" is an artificial goal. When My Word Coach didn't ship on its originally intended date, it was because it was decided we could make it a better product by delaying its release. It got delayed 3 times. The DS version (the one I worked on) sold roughly 2.5 times as many as we needed to break even. So, we missed our "original deadline" 3 times, but made a healthy profit. That's hardly a failure. I could cite many other projects our studio has made the missed their deadlines, yet became very successful. I've personally been on one that was canned, one that made enough profit to pay us a bonus, and one other that failed to break even, so I'm not pretending that all our projects succeed. There's another issue in our industry; sometimes consumers don't "get" a product, despite it being a successfully realized product. Amplitude and Rez are well-known examples in the industry of brilliant games that didn't sell. These projects were successes from a project management point of view, but for whatever reason, they just didn't catch on in the market. Both games got rave reviews, won awards, and are well-respected in certain circles of the industry as accomplishments in the art of game-making. So I stick with my original assessment: "There's either a goofy definition of 'succeed' or someone's trying to sell you something."
	__________________ Almo! My Blog "No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia

27th June 2008, 08:43 AM	#10
Denver Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Denver, Colorado Posts: 6,597	Originally Posted by Almo ...So I stick with my original assessment: "There's either a goofy definition of 'succeed' or someone's trying to sell you something." There may even be a goofy definition of 'fail'. A well-managed project of a significant size includes acknowledging that there will be oversights, unknowns, and missing or changing requirements and constraints. A project that gets underway, and then it is found that WHOOPS, we forgot something, and the project has to backtrack, is not a failed project. It is a normal project. A project that never delivers what it promised the end user, is a failed project. A project that has cost and time overruns may not be a failed project, if those are handled well.

16th July 2008, 02:16 AM	#11
nzric Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 214	Looks like the definitions on the internet of 30% "successful" projects is those that were delivered within the constraints originally planned. If a project was delivered "successfully" but ran over scope/time/budget/etc, it wasn't classed as a "failed" project but it is not graded as a success. This could come down to project managers over-confidently designing a project or putting too much faith in their original estimations, rather than doing what some people in above posts have mentioned, i.e. "progressive elaboration" of a project to lock down estimates only at the right time. Catch 22 I suppose. On the one hand, you're going to lose out to a more confident project team if your pitch sounds wishy-washy, but if you over promise and under deliver, the end product could be worse. You could blame the sponsor for lack of understanding of what and how accurately a project manager can deliver a result, but I still think that there seems to be a lot of "spin" to misrepresent a set of useful tools as some kind of science.
nzric Thinker Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 214	__________________ A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.

16th July 2008, 02:27 AM	#12
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,666	Project managers are not supposed to design or estimate projects - they are supposed to build or construct or develop the designs of the engineers or architects. Got to have somebody to blame when the job goes south.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.