Excellent article Samad. Most (apart from a few) Project Management blogs have neglected to deal with this issue in a deep, constructive and meaningful way. I am still amazed when I read posts that quote or mention a low project success rate, without understanding the basic inconsistencies and methodological issues associated with the numbers quoted. Sensationalism and mediocrity take precedence over serious research and inquisitive discussion. Good on you for joining the rational thinkers who are not afraid to challange some of our profession’s most prevalent urban myths.Cheers, Shim Marom. Shim,Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment.I appreciate the work that Chris and his team have done and I wanted to make sure that I do everything I can so others can read it and benefit from it. I think it is valuable work and it need to be read by all those who are interested in IT and software project failure.On a personal note, I appreciate this research because I am passionate about the topic of IT Failure.I lived all my professional life (during the last 15 years) in IT departments and IT consulting companies.

• Standish Chaos Report 2017 Pdf
• Standish Group Chaos Report 2018 Pdf
• Standish Group Chaos Report 2018 Project Failure

It has been painful to me, since the first chaos report came out, to experience firsthand the negative perception of IT in the business community. The perception is that we in IT are unable to increase the success rate of projects, despite all the progress and great work that has been done over the last 15 years.The negative impact of the Chaos Report findings on the perception of IT by the business community is real. It undermines the trust in IT project management and self confidence of IT project managers.I never believed the Chaos Report because I knew that no organization I worked with in the past can tolerate 30% success rate of its projects. From my own personal experience, I knew that this number is incorrect. Only thru research, such as this one from Chris and his team, can we begin to correct this perception with real data.By the way, working with Chris on this interview was a wonderful experience for me and I am grateful for his time, efforts, and patience. Wow, I’m very impressed with this read. I didn’t think it was the easiest thing to get through.

Then again, not all reads should be easy. You can’t dumb down information like this and expect to communicate the same message. I had to read it twice!Without examining data objectively, you get nothing more than subjective conjecture. I just kept asking myself, 30% success rate? I thought only the weatherman could have a 30% success rate and keep his job. If we, as project managers, were only successfully delivering 30% of the time, we’d be out on our rears.Regards,Derek.

Derek,Thank you so much my friend for reading and commenting,You are so right. You really can’t dumb down this type of information and expect to deliver the same points. A lot of work went into the research that Chris and his team did and I am just grateful to Chris for taking the time, from his busy schedule, to answer my questions and make this information available to us.I have felt the same way you did about the 30% success rate that is frequently quoted. Like I mentioned in my follow-up to Chim’s comments, I have never worked at an organization (or heard of one) that would tolerate this low success rate. If the low success rate was true, I would have left IT a long time ago.I think studies such as the Chaos Report are very powerful as they shape the perception that the business stakeholders develop of IT Projects and IT project managers.

The perception is often negative and can range from skepticism to outright hostility. In some organizations, it takes a lot of hard work and many years of solid track record before the perception is corrected. My hope, from getting the word out about this research, is to equip project managers with information they can use to educate their stakeholders about IT Failure myths. Ultimately, I want IT project managers to expect that they will success, to feel confident that failure is not the norm, and to believe in themselves that they have the capacity to deliver successful projects. We deserve success!!!

🙂Cheers my friend. I have to begin my comments by stating (confessing?) I “widely quote” the Chaos Report – and not because the numbers are astounding. I quote the report because it showed project failure rates – even higher than the Standish Group concludes. I agree the study is flawed and misleading about project failure rates, but my assertion is not based on anything remotely resembling the incredibly comprehensive and detailed analysis of Vrije Universitei.

My chief complaint is in regard to the Standish use of a 3-type characterization of project results. I submit projects falling in the Standish “challenged” category are actually failures, and the subset of “failures” deemed so because they were killed before completion, are not necessarily failures at all.I don’t lament the non-availability of Standish data simply because I have become accustomed to their practice of not sharing it. This terrible research practice matters little because I use their flawed results to convince organizations to aggressively address project failure rates.Every study I have seen in the past two decades has shown at least half of all IT projects fail. And yes, Enterprises have managed to take us into the information age despite these high failure rates. This is simply explained when project failure is defined as a project that does not meet its intended and stated commitments.

Using this definition, a project failure does not necessarily mean the effort should never have been sanctioned. It simply means the mechanisms used to make project decisions (from ideation to completion) did not meet their stated objectives. These mechanisms constitute the project’s failings, even in those instances where the technology indeed brings us into the information age. Side note: I contend the majority of project failures are caused by poor Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) practices, as opposed to poor Project Management practices.After almost 30 years working in almost every area of IT, I became an IT Governance Evangelist. I have been traveling the world touting IT Governance and its essential processes and mechanisms for over 3 years now. I have spoken to thousands of people in over 200 forums in which I have presented (100 of these to individual companies). I rarely encounter Enterprises with established specific definitions of project success and failure and the associated ability to make decisions based on applying those definitions.

Most people I meet don’t even have the word “failure” in their corporate vernacular (given its incredibly negative connotation and the pervasive human aversion to the word).Vrije Universitei does an incredible job noting the many variables and moving parts associated with understanding and determining project success and failure. I just don’t believe I could use their impressive research and analysis to influence the necessary changes to improve project success in Enterprises today. I would bet most of my audiences would be asleep before I could get halfway through just explaining your blog post, let alone taking a deep dive into the actual research.

I use the Standish Report and its suspect failure rates because it is an effective means to motivate organizations to take action. I use the studies from the Standish Group, Garter, Forrester and MIT CISR (my favorite) to urge folks to define project success and failure in their Enterprises and to use those definitions to understand and subsequently improve their success rates.Your great post and the incredible work done by Vrije Universitei will now put an end to my practice of citing the Standish Chaos report, even if it was under the veil of good intentions.

Better still, I will still cite their results, explain my misgivings regarding their approach, and then cite your blog post and the findings of Vrije Universitei. Frankly, I care little about the nuances and resulting disparities between one research approach and another. What I do care about is inciting Enterprises to take action regarding their ability to understand project failure and increase project success.Let me close by noting the serendipitous nature of the timing of your post. I received a call from Standish Group Customer Service today asking about my use of the Standish website. I told them I only used it to obtain summaries of their research (because it is free) to quote in my presentations. I said I had little insight or interest in their paid services.

I agreed to schedule some time with them next week, to give them the opportunity to talk to me about their services. After reading your post, I am sure it will be a very interesting conversation.Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist. Hi Steve, I’ve read through your comments a number of times in order to make sure I understand it correctly. The point I found so amazing is your admission (which I suspect represents a larger culprit audience) that you choose to use a study, which you agree is flawed and misleading, just to be able to make a point!!!Do I really need to elaborate on the ethical and professional issues associated with such an admission?The Chaos report is incorrect – full stop! To make use of such report just to advance an agenda, whatever the agenda is, is incorrect, to say the least.Shim Marom. I completely understand your response Shim.

I should have taken greater care in explaining my willing use of a “flawed and misleading” report.First, I cite numerous studies in my presentations. Upon citing the Standish Report, I tell audiences I believe the report is flawed and I explain the basis of my views.

The reasons I even bother to take audiences through the exercise of citing flawed research are as follows:– Many people are aware of the Standish Group– The study shows a high degree of failure which ignites discussion– Their flawed (in my view) approach to project failure characterization underscores the need for enterprises to define project failure in terms that result in their acquiring the data essential to making good project investment decisionsI came to much higher level conclusions than those cited in this post. I did not have near the insights I have now, which is why I have to provide even more explanation when citing the Standish Chaos report.Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist. “What I do care about is inciting Enterprises to take action regarding their ability to understand project failure and increase project success.”I love that and your passion shows in your wonderful posts on the IT Governance Evangelist blog.Steve, first of all, I want to thank you for your candid comments about your experience with the Chaos Report.It is very helpful to me to understand how others have used the Chaos Report figures.

I can appreciate how its findings can be a powerful tool to motivate executives to establish proper governance structure in their organizations.This conversation we are having was exactly my hope from interviewing Chris and getting the word out about his team’s findings. It is through these conversations that we gain a better understanding of how we can help our organizations better understand failure and increase project success.It is funny that I got introduced to your blog just the day before by a tweet from Rick Morris. I enjoyed your recent post: “IT Governance Stops the Hate between the Business and IT”.Thank you again Steve. Hi Samad,I seriously fail to understand how using a “flawed and misleading” (to quote Steve’s comment) can be used as the basis for “findings can be a powerful tool to motivate executives to establish proper governance structure in their organizations” (to quote your comment).I don’t think the end justifies the means, which means that just to convince organizations to adopt proper project management disciplines should not be used as a justification for using the wrong data. If this was the case we could all write our own imaginary reports and present them to executives, every-time we wanted to convince them of that point or another.

Clearly it is wrong and as professionals we should shy away from using shoddy data to strengthen our arguments (irrespective of how valid our arguments are). Shim,Totally agree with you. The end should not justify the means.My point, which I didn’t do a good job articulating in my previous comment, is that the report figures are astounding and shocking.

I can see how, when used as a persuasion tool, their shock and awe impact can be very effective with executives. I am not saying that this is justified. I am just saying that as a persuasion tool, fear is much more effective than reward. And this is what I think makes the Chaos Report very widely quoted.With research, such as the one that Chris and his team produced, we can begin to show that the Chaos Report is not the right persuasion tool. We will then have the opportunity to think of more effective ways to help our organizations increase their awareness about how to reduce project failure and increase success.

Not to over elaborate the point, both you and Steve seem to suggest that we have too many project failures. I actually totally disagree. I have elaborated on this, extensively in a comment to a post published by Patrick Richard (see ) so I will just refer to it briefly here.The current level of project failures represents an acceptable level based on the the fact that:a. It is not possible to consistently achieve 100% success rate (that’s almost a physical law); andb. Where 100% success rate is required (for instance in space exploration missions), exuberant amounts of money are required to make it happen. So, in principle, the current level (more or less) of success rate represents a socially acceptable level based on the opportunity cost involved with changing it either way (up or down).My conclusion: Let’s stop talking about a problem that doesn’t really exists.Cheers, Shim. Shim, I now have to completely disagree with you.

There are far too many project failures – again, if the project failure is defined as: “the project does not meet its intended and stated commitments.”Project failure does not only occur when the solution doesn’t work. Very interesting comments.

I used to quote the standish survey, as did the PMI in their PMI Fact BookI can understand that definitions of ‘Project success” & “Project challenged” are not reliable. However, ‘Project cancelled” seems to be stronger.My concern is the standish report is the only one I know on that topic. Maybe wrong, I agree.Where are reliable datas??? As i said, the PMI was using these datas a few years ago as a reference for project succes rate. Is it still the point?regardsTannguy.

Many years ago, in an undergraduate math class, I learned that when solving a problem, more than half the effort goes into thoroughly defining it. In software development, if we really understand the problem we need to solve, the solution almost pops up before our eyes. If we can’t get a clear idea about what the software should do, it’s fine to build prototypes as long as we know we are building prototypes.

We get into trouble whenever we make ourselves and others believe that we are building a solution while pretending we know what’s needed. So when we are measuring the success of projects we should not mix projects that have a clear understanding of what needs to be build with those that don’t.My advice: If you don’t know, ask. Never pretend you know while you don’t. Don’t rely on people who pretend. Er bestaat er ook de nodige kritiek op het Chaos Report, deels omdat vastgehouden wordt aan de ouderwetse Triple Constraints en voorbij gegaan wordt aan meer moderne inzichten als de Six Triple Constraints (met als toevoegingen: Quality Risk Customer Satisfaction). Verder is er ook veel kritiek op de gehanteerde methodes voor het verzamelen en interpreteren van de onderliggende data.

Zie hiervoor onder meer: The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures en: The “Chaos Report” Myth Busters. Excellent article Samad. Most (apart from a few) Project Management blogs have neglected to deal with this issue in a deep, constructive and meaningful way. I am still amazed when I read posts that quote or mention a low project success rate, without understanding the basic inconsistencies and methodological issues associated with the numbers quoted.

Sensationalism and mediocrity take precedence over serious research and inquisitive discussion. Good on you for joining the rational thinkers who are not afraid to challange some of our profession’s most prevalent urban myths.Cheers, Shim Marom.

Shim,Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment.I appreciate the work that Chris and his team have done and I wanted to make sure that I do everything I can so others can read it and benefit from it. I think it is valuable work and it need to be read by all those who are interested in IT and software project failure.On a personal note, I appreciate this research because I am passionate about the topic of IT Failure.I lived all my professional life (during the last 15 years) in IT departments and IT consulting companies. It has been painful to me, since the first chaos report came out, to experience firsthand the negative perception of IT in the business community. The perception is that we in IT are unable to increase the success rate of projects, despite all the progress and great work that has been done over the last 15 years.The negative impact of the Chaos Report findings on the perception of IT by the business community is real.

It undermines the trust in IT project management and self confidence of IT project managers.I never believed the Chaos Report because I knew that no organization I worked with in the past can tolerate 30% success rate of its projects. From my own personal experience, I knew that this number is incorrect.

Only thru research, such as this one from Chris and his team, can we begin to correct this perception with real data.By the way, working with Chris on this interview was a wonderful experience for me and I am grateful for his time, efforts, and patience. Wow, I’m very impressed with this read. I didn’t think it was the easiest thing to get through. Then again, not all reads should be easy. You can’t dumb down information like this and expect to communicate the same message. I had to read it twice!Without examining data objectively, you get nothing more than subjective conjecture.

I just kept asking myself, 30% success rate? I thought only the weatherman could have a 30% success rate and keep his job. If we, as project managers, were only successfully delivering 30% of the time, we’d be out on our rears.Regards,Derek. Derek,Thank you so much my friend for reading and commenting,You are so right. You really can’t dumb down this type of information and expect to deliver the same points. A lot of work went into the research that Chris and his team did and I am just grateful to Chris for taking the time, from his busy schedule, to answer my questions and make this information available to us.I have felt the same way you did about the 30% success rate that is frequently quoted. Like I mentioned in my follow-up to Chim’s comments, I have never worked at an organization (or heard of one) that would tolerate this low success rate.

If the low success rate was true, I would have left IT a long time ago.I think studies such as the Chaos Report are very powerful as they shape the perception that the business stakeholders develop of IT Projects and IT project managers. The perception is often negative and can range from skepticism to outright hostility. In some organizations, it takes a lot of hard work and many years of solid track record before the perception is corrected. My hope, from getting the word out about this research, is to equip project managers with information they can use to educate their stakeholders about IT Failure myths. Ultimately, I want IT project managers to expect that they will success, to feel confident that failure is not the norm, and to believe in themselves that they have the capacity to deliver successful projects.

We deserve success!!! 🙂Cheers my friend.

I have to begin my comments by stating (confessing?) I “widely quote” the Chaos Report – and not because the numbers are astounding. I quote the report because it showed project failure rates – even higher than the Standish Group concludes. I agree the study is flawed and misleading about project failure rates, but my assertion is not based on anything remotely resembling the incredibly comprehensive and detailed analysis of Vrije Universitei. My chief complaint is in regard to the Standish use of a 3-type characterization of project results.

I submit projects falling in the Standish “challenged” category are actually failures, and the subset of “failures” deemed so because they were killed before completion, are not necessarily failures at all.I don’t lament the non-availability of Standish data simply because I have become accustomed to their practice of not sharing it. This terrible research practice matters little because I use their flawed results to convince organizations to aggressively address project failure rates.Every study I have seen in the past two decades has shown at least half of all IT projects fail. And yes, Enterprises have managed to take us into the information age despite these high failure rates. This is simply explained when project failure is defined as a project that does not meet its intended and stated commitments.

Using this definition, a project failure does not necessarily mean the effort should never have been sanctioned. It simply means the mechanisms used to make project decisions (from ideation to completion) did not meet their stated objectives. These mechanisms constitute the project’s failings, even in those instances where the technology indeed brings us into the information age. Side note: I contend the majority of project failures are caused by poor Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) practices, as opposed to poor Project Management practices.After almost 30 years working in almost every area of IT, I became an IT Governance Evangelist. I have been traveling the world touting IT Governance and its essential processes and mechanisms for over 3 years now.

I have spoken to thousands of people in over 200 forums in which I have presented (100 of these to individual companies). I rarely encounter Enterprises with established specific definitions of project success and failure and the associated ability to make decisions based on applying those definitions. Most people I meet don’t even have the word “failure” in their corporate vernacular (given its incredibly negative connotation and the pervasive human aversion to the word).Vrije Universitei does an incredible job noting the many variables and moving parts associated with understanding and determining project success and failure. I just don’t believe I could use their impressive research and analysis to influence the necessary changes to improve project success in Enterprises today. I would bet most of my audiences would be asleep before I could get halfway through just explaining your blog post, let alone taking a deep dive into the actual research. I use the Standish Report and its suspect failure rates because it is an effective means to motivate organizations to take action.

I use the studies from the Standish Group, Garter, Forrester and MIT CISR (my favorite) to urge folks to define project success and failure in their Enterprises and to use those definitions to understand and subsequently improve their success rates.Your great post and the incredible work done by Vrije Universitei will now put an end to my practice of citing the Standish Chaos report, even if it was under the veil of good intentions. Better still, I will still cite their results, explain my misgivings regarding their approach, and then cite your blog post and the findings of Vrije Universitei. Frankly, I care little about the nuances and resulting disparities between one research approach and another.

What I do care about is inciting Enterprises to take action regarding their ability to understand project failure and increase project success.Let me close by noting the serendipitous nature of the timing of your post. I received a call from Standish Group Customer Service today asking about my use of the Standish website. I told them I only used it to obtain summaries of their research (because it is free) to quote in my presentations. I said I had little insight or interest in their paid services. I agreed to schedule some time with them next week, to give them the opportunity to talk to me about their services. After reading your post, I am sure it will be a very interesting conversation.Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist.

Hi Steve, I’ve read through your comments a number of times in order to make sure I understand it correctly. The point I found so amazing is your admission (which I suspect represents a larger culprit audience) that you choose to use a study, which you agree is flawed and misleading, just to be able to make a point!!!Do I really need to elaborate on the ethical and professional issues associated with such an admission?The Chaos report is incorrect – full stop!

To make use of such report just to advance an agenda, whatever the agenda is, is incorrect, to say the least.Shim Marom. I completely understand your response Shim. I should have taken greater care in explaining my willing use of a “flawed and misleading” report.First, I cite numerous studies in my presentations. Upon citing the Standish Report, I tell audiences I believe the report is flawed and I explain the basis of my views. The reasons I even bother to take audiences through the exercise of citing flawed research are as follows:– Many people are aware of the Standish Group– The study shows a high degree of failure which ignites discussion– Their flawed (in my view) approach to project failure characterization underscores the need for enterprises to define project failure in terms that result in their acquiring the data essential to making good project investment decisionsI came to much higher level conclusions than those cited in this post.

I did not have near the insights I have now, which is why I have to provide even more explanation when citing the Standish Chaos report.Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist. “What I do care about is inciting Enterprises to take action regarding their ability to understand project failure and increase project success.”I love that and your passion shows in your wonderful posts on the IT Governance Evangelist blog.Steve, first of all, I want to thank you for your candid comments about your experience with the Chaos Report.It is very helpful to me to understand how others have used the Chaos Report figures. I can appreciate how its findings can be a powerful tool to motivate executives to establish proper governance structure in their organizations.This conversation we are having was exactly my hope from interviewing Chris and getting the word out about his team’s findings. It is through these conversations that we gain a better understanding of how we can help our organizations better understand failure and increase project success.It is funny that I got introduced to your blog just the day before by a tweet from Rick Morris. I enjoyed your recent post: “IT Governance Stops the Hate between the Business and IT”.Thank you again Steve.

Hi Samad,I seriously fail to understand how using a “flawed and misleading” (to quote Steve’s comment) can be used as the basis for “findings can be a powerful tool to motivate executives to establish proper governance structure in their organizations” (to quote your comment).I don’t think the end justifies the means, which means that just to convince organizations to adopt proper project management disciplines should not be used as a justification for using the wrong data. If this was the case we could all write our own imaginary reports and present them to executives, every-time we wanted to convince them of that point or another. Clearly it is wrong and as professionals we should shy away from using shoddy data to strengthen our arguments (irrespective of how valid our arguments are). Shim,Totally agree with you. The end should not justify the means.My point, which I didn’t do a good job articulating in my previous comment, is that the report figures are astounding and shocking. I can see how, when used as a persuasion tool, their shock and awe impact can be very effective with executives. I am not saying that this is justified.

I am just saying that as a persuasion tool, fear is much more effective than reward. And this is what I think makes the Chaos Report very widely quoted.With research, such as the one that Chris and his team produced, we can begin to show that the Chaos Report is not the right persuasion tool. We will then have the opportunity to think of more effective ways to help our organizations increase their awareness about how to reduce project failure and increase success. Not to over elaborate the point, both you and Steve seem to suggest that we have too many project failures.

I actually totally disagree. I have elaborated on this, extensively in a comment to a post published by Patrick Richard (see ) so I will just refer to it briefly here.The current level of project failures represents an acceptable level based on the the fact that:a.

It is not possible to consistently achieve 100% success rate (that’s almost a physical law); andb. Where 100% success rate is required (for instance in space exploration missions), exuberant amounts of money are required to make it happen. So, in principle, the current level (more or less) of success rate represents a socially acceptable level based on the opportunity cost involved with changing it either way (up or down).My conclusion: Let’s stop talking about a problem that doesn’t really exists.Cheers, Shim.

Shim, I now have to completely disagree with you. There are far too many project failures – again, if the project failure is defined as: “the project does not meet its intended and stated commitments.”Project failure does not only occur when the solution doesn’t work. Very interesting comments. I used to quote the standish survey, as did the PMI in their PMI Fact BookI can understand that definitions of ‘Project success” & “Project challenged” are not reliable. However, ‘Project cancelled” seems to be stronger.My concern is the standish report is the only one I know on that topic. Maybe wrong, I agree.Where are reliable datas???

As i said, the PMI was using these datas a few years ago as a reference for project succes rate. Is it still the point?regardsTannguy. Many years ago, in an undergraduate math class, I learned that when solving a problem, more than half the effort goes into thoroughly defining it. In software development, if we really understand the problem we need to solve, the solution almost pops up before our eyes. If we can’t get a clear idea about what the software should do, it’s fine to build prototypes as long as we know we are building prototypes. We get into trouble whenever we make ourselves and others believe that we are building a solution while pretending we know what’s needed. So when we are measuring the success of projects we should not mix projects that have a clear understanding of what needs to be build with those that don’t.My advice: If you don’t know, ask.

Never pretend you know while you don’t. Don’t rely on people who pretend.

Er bestaat er ook de nodige kritiek op het Chaos Report, deels omdat vastgehouden wordt aan de ouderwetse Triple Constraints en voorbij gegaan wordt aan meer moderne inzichten als de Six Triple Constraints (met als toevoegingen: Quality Risk Customer Satisfaction). Verder is er ook veel kritiek op de gehanteerde methodes voor het verzamelen en interpreteren van de onderliggende data. Zie hiervoor onder meer: The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures en: The “Chaos Report” Myth Busters. Excellent article Samad.

Most (apart from a few) Project Management blogs have neglected to deal with this issue in a deep, constructive and meaningful way. I am still amazed when I read posts that quote or mention a low project success rate, without understanding the basic inconsistencies and methodological issues associated with the numbers quoted. Sensationalism and mediocrity take precedence over serious research and inquisitive discussion. Good on you for joining the rational thinkers who are not afraid to challange some of our profession’s most prevalent urban myths.Cheers, Shim Marom. Shim,Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment.I appreciate the work that Chris and his team have done and I wanted to make sure that I do everything I can so others can read it and benefit from it.

I think it is valuable work and it need to be read by all those who are interested in IT and software project failure.On a personal note, I appreciate this research because I am passionate about the topic of IT Failure.I lived all my professional life (during the last 15 years) in IT departments and IT consulting companies. It has been painful to me, since the first chaos report came out, to experience firsthand the negative perception of IT in the business community. The perception is that we in IT are unable to increase the success rate of projects, despite all the progress and great work that has been done over the last 15 years.The negative impact of the Chaos Report findings on the perception of IT by the business community is real.

It undermines the trust in IT project management and self confidence of IT project managers.I never believed the Chaos Report because I knew that no organization I worked with in the past can tolerate 30% success rate of its projects. From my own personal experience, I knew that this number is incorrect.

Only thru research, such as this one from Chris and his team, can we begin to correct this perception with real data.By the way, working with Chris on this interview was a wonderful experience for me and I am grateful for his time, efforts, and patience. Wow, I’m very impressed with this read.

I didn’t think it was the easiest thing to get through. Then again, not all reads should be easy. You can’t dumb down information like this and expect to communicate the same message. I had to read it twice!Without examining data objectively, you get nothing more than subjective conjecture. I just kept asking myself, 30% success rate? I thought only the weatherman could have a 30% success rate and keep his job.

If we, as project managers, were only successfully delivering 30% of the time, we’d be out on our rears.Regards,Derek. Derek,Thank you so much my friend for reading and commenting,You are so right.

You really can’t dumb down this type of information and expect to deliver the same points. A lot of work went into the research that Chris and his team did and I am just grateful to Chris for taking the time, from his busy schedule, to answer my questions and make this information available to us.I have felt the same way you did about the 30% success rate that is frequently quoted. Like I mentioned in my follow-up to Chim’s comments, I have never worked at an organization (or heard of one) that would tolerate this low success rate. If the low success rate was true, I would have left IT a long time ago.I think studies such as the Chaos Report are very powerful as they shape the perception that the business stakeholders develop of IT Projects and IT project managers. The perception is often negative and can range from skepticism to outright hostility. In some organizations, it takes a lot of hard work and many years of solid track record before the perception is corrected.

My hope, from getting the word out about this research, is to equip project managers with information they can use to educate their stakeholders about IT Failure myths. Ultimately, I want IT project managers to expect that they will success, to feel confident that failure is not the norm, and to believe in themselves that they have the capacity to deliver successful projects. We deserve success!!! 🙂Cheers my friend.

I have to begin my comments by stating (confessing?) I “widely quote” the Chaos Report – and not because the numbers are astounding. I quote the report because it showed project failure rates – even higher than the Standish Group concludes.

I agree the study is flawed and misleading about project failure rates, but my assertion is not based on anything remotely resembling the incredibly comprehensive and detailed analysis of Vrije Universitei. My chief complaint is in regard to the Standish use of a 3-type characterization of project results. I submit projects falling in the Standish “challenged” category are actually failures, and the subset of “failures” deemed so because they were killed before completion, are not necessarily failures at all.I don’t lament the non-availability of Standish data simply because I have become accustomed to their practice of not sharing it. This terrible research practice matters little because I use their flawed results to convince organizations to aggressively address project failure rates.Every study I have seen in the past two decades has shown at least half of all IT projects fail. And yes, Enterprises have managed to take us into the information age despite these high failure rates.

This is simply explained when project failure is defined as a project that does not meet its intended and stated commitments. Using this definition, a project failure does not necessarily mean the effort should never have been sanctioned. It simply means the mechanisms used to make project decisions (from ideation to completion) did not meet their stated objectives. These mechanisms constitute the project’s failings, even in those instances where the technology indeed brings us into the information age. Side note: I contend the majority of project failures are caused by poor Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) practices, as opposed to poor Project Management practices.After almost 30 years working in almost every area of IT, I became an IT Governance Evangelist.

I have been traveling the world touting IT Governance and its essential processes and mechanisms for over 3 years now. I have spoken to thousands of people in over 200 forums in which I have presented (100 of these to individual companies).

I rarely encounter Enterprises with established specific definitions of project success and failure and the associated ability to make decisions based on applying those definitions. Most people I meet don’t even have the word “failure” in their corporate vernacular (given its incredibly negative connotation and the pervasive human aversion to the word).Vrije Universitei does an incredible job noting the many variables and moving parts associated with understanding and determining project success and failure. I just don’t believe I could use their impressive research and analysis to influence the necessary changes to improve project success in Enterprises today. I would bet most of my audiences would be asleep before I could get halfway through just explaining your blog post, let alone taking a deep dive into the actual research.

I use the Standish Report and its suspect failure rates because it is an effective means to motivate organizations to take action. I use the studies from the Standish Group, Garter, Forrester and MIT CISR (my favorite) to urge folks to define project success and failure in their Enterprises and to use those definitions to understand and subsequently improve their success rates.Your great post and the incredible work done by Vrije Universitei will now put an end to my practice of citing the Standish Chaos report, even if it was under the veil of good intentions. Better still, I will still cite their results, explain my misgivings regarding their approach, and then cite your blog post and the findings of Vrije Universitei. Frankly, I care little about the nuances and resulting disparities between one research approach and another. What I do care about is inciting Enterprises to take action regarding their ability to understand project failure and increase project success.Let me close by noting the serendipitous nature of the timing of your post. I received a call from Standish Group Customer Service today asking about my use of the Standish website.

I told them I only used it to obtain summaries of their research (because it is free) to quote in my presentations. I said I had little insight or interest in their paid services. I agreed to schedule some time with them next week, to give them the opportunity to talk to me about their services. After reading your post, I am sure it will be a very interesting conversation.Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist. Hi Steve, I’ve read through your comments a number of times in order to make sure I understand it correctly.

The point I found so amazing is your admission (which I suspect represents a larger culprit audience) that you choose to use a study, which you agree is flawed and misleading, just to be able to make a point!!!Do I really need to elaborate on the ethical and professional issues associated with such an admission?The Chaos report is incorrect – full stop! To make use of such report just to advance an agenda, whatever the agenda is, is incorrect, to say the least.Shim Marom. I completely understand your response Shim.

I should have taken greater care in explaining my willing use of a “flawed and misleading” report.First, I cite numerous studies in my presentations. Upon citing the Standish Report, I tell audiences I believe the report is flawed and I explain the basis of my views. The reasons I even bother to take audiences through the exercise of citing flawed research are as follows:– Many people are aware of the Standish Group– The study shows a high degree of failure which ignites discussion– Their flawed (in my view) approach to project failure characterization underscores the need for enterprises to define project failure in terms that result in their acquiring the data essential to making good project investment decisionsI came to much higher level conclusions than those cited in this post.

I did not have near the insights I have now, which is why I have to provide even more explanation when citing the Standish Chaos report.Steve Romero, IT Governance Evangelist. “What I do care about is inciting Enterprises to take action regarding their ability to understand project failure and increase project success.”I love that and your passion shows in your wonderful posts on the IT Governance Evangelist blog.Steve, first of all, I want to thank you for your candid comments about your experience with the Chaos Report.It is very helpful to me to understand how others have used the Chaos Report figures. I can appreciate how its findings can be a powerful tool to motivate executives to establish proper governance structure in their organizations.This conversation we are having was exactly my hope from interviewing Chris and getting the word out about his team’s findings. It is through these conversations that we gain a better understanding of how we can help our organizations better understand failure and increase project success.It is funny that I got introduced to your blog just the day before by a tweet from Rick Morris. I enjoyed your recent post: “IT Governance Stops the Hate between the Business and IT”.Thank you again Steve. Hi Samad,I seriously fail to understand how using a “flawed and misleading” (to quote Steve’s comment) can be used as the basis for “findings can be a powerful tool to motivate executives to establish proper governance structure in their organizations” (to quote your comment).I don’t think the end justifies the means, which means that just to convince organizations to adopt proper project management disciplines should not be used as a justification for using the wrong data.

If this was the case we could all write our own imaginary reports and present them to executives, every-time we wanted to convince them of that point or another. Clearly it is wrong and as professionals we should shy away from using shoddy data to strengthen our arguments (irrespective of how valid our arguments are). Shim,Totally agree with you. The end should not justify the means.My point, which I didn’t do a good job articulating in my previous comment, is that the report figures are astounding and shocking.

I can see how, when used as a persuasion tool, their shock and awe impact can be very effective with executives. I am not saying that this is justified.

I am just saying that as a persuasion tool, fear is much more effective than reward. And this is what I think makes the Chaos Report very widely quoted.With research, such as the one that Chris and his team produced, we can begin to show that the Chaos Report is not the right persuasion tool. We will then have the opportunity to think of more effective ways to help our organizations increase their awareness about how to reduce project failure and increase success.

Not to over elaborate the point, both you and Steve seem to suggest that we have too many project failures. I actually totally disagree. I have elaborated on this, extensively in a comment to a post published by Patrick Richard (see ) so I will just refer to it briefly here.The current level of project failures represents an acceptable level based on the the fact that:a. It is not possible to consistently achieve 100% success rate (that’s almost a physical law); andb. Where 100% success rate is required (for instance in space exploration missions), exuberant amounts of money are required to make it happen. So, in principle, the current level (more or less) of success rate represents a socially acceptable level based on the opportunity cost involved with changing it either way (up or down).My conclusion: Let’s stop talking about a problem that doesn’t really exists.Cheers, Shim. Shim, I now have to completely disagree with you.

There are far too many project failures – again, if the project failure is defined as: “the project does not meet its intended and stated commitments.”Project failure does not only occur when the solution doesn’t work. Very interesting comments. I used to quote the standish survey, as did the PMI in their PMI Fact BookI can understand that definitions of ‘Project success” & “Project challenged” are not reliable. However, ‘Project cancelled” seems to be stronger.My concern is the standish report is the only one I know on that topic. Maybe wrong, I agree.Where are reliable datas??? As i said, the PMI was using these datas a few years ago as a reference for project succes rate. Is it still the point?regardsTannguy.

Many years ago, in an undergraduate math class, I learned that when solving a problem, more than half the effort goes into thoroughly defining it. In software development, if we really understand the problem we need to solve, the solution almost pops up before our eyes.

If we can’t get a clear idea about what the software should do, it’s fine to build prototypes as long as we know we are building prototypes. We get into trouble whenever we make ourselves and others believe that we are building a solution while pretending we know what’s needed. So when we are measuring the success of projects we should not mix projects that have a clear understanding of what needs to be build with those that don’t.My advice: If you don’t know, ask. Never pretend you know while you don’t. Don’t rely on people who pretend. Er bestaat er ook de nodige kritiek op het Chaos Report, deels omdat vastgehouden wordt aan de ouderwetse Triple Constraints en voorbij gegaan wordt aan meer moderne inzichten als de Six Triple Constraints (met als toevoegingen: Quality Risk Customer Satisfaction). Verder is er ook veel kritiek op de gehanteerde methodes voor het verzamelen en interpreteren van de onderliggende data.

Zie hiervoor onder meer: The Rise and Fall of the Chaos Report Figures en: The “Chaos Report” Myth Busters.

Few days back I was having some work with PDF. I wanted to merge 2 PDF files in one. I searched on Internet which can merge PDF files offline.

I downloaded one small software is called “PDF Split and Merge”. I used it for my work and the output was really surprising! This tool is really awesome to edit PDF files easily!

Standish Chaos Report 2017 Pdf

Everyone knows that all these features are available with Adobe Acrobat which needs payment. This small software is free of cost and doesn’t leave any sort of watermarks. You can split, merge, extract, rotate, and reorder your PDF very easily! Let us see how it works! This simple Windows software comes with the plethora of features which is really very good and a!

If you are facing issues with Acrobat, this will work well for you. Just input the PDF files and get desired output. As I said this application can merge, split, or reorder. You can extract some pages out of PDF. You can also merge two PDF and obtain as if they are one document! Also, it helps to rearrange the page or rotate the pages.

You will get output in a new PDF! Below are the steps and download link to combine two PDF files. Merge two PDF File into One.

You can combine multiple PDF files easily. This example shows to merge two PDF files with “PDF Split and Merge”. Download and Install it on your Windows PC. Open PDF Split and Merge.

Go to Merge/Extract tab on left side. Click on “Add” button which is on the right side. Add your PDF files which you want to merge. Now define the destination output folder. Browse where you want to get the new merged PDF. After that, select the PDF version number.

Standish Group Chaos Report 2018 Pdf

Select the higher one if you don’t know about this or leave it as it is. Now, click on “Run”. The process will start and within seconds your new merged PDF file will be in your destination folder!It is very easy and the user interface is somewhat easy to understand.

If you use it a couple of times, you will get all things easily. Below is the step by step procedure to rearrange the PDF pages.Also Read: Visually Rearrange Pages in PDF. Open PDF Split and Merge software. Hugo meyer serial numbers lookup. Click on “Visual Reorder” on the left menu. Click on “Open” button and import the PDF file which you want to reorder. Select the page which you want to rearrange.

Click on “Move Up” or “Move Down” as per your requirement. After the satisfactory result, set a destination path. You can keep the file same or your create a new file altogether which will have properly arranged pages. After setting the destination path click on “Run”.

The process will start and in few moments you will get the reordered PDF file!Isn’t it simple? All in one solution for offline PDF editing! We discussed only two features of this software. It can also split the PDF and extract some pages from a big PDF file. It is simple to understand and edit the files. The best thing about this tool is that this is completely free and it doesn’t leave any watermark in the output file. So your edits will be clear.If you have any doubts regarding this software please feel free to message below!

Standish Group Chaos Report 2018 Project Failure

You will get a reply as soon as possible!Also Read:!Share with your friends and family too! This is a very useful application for Windows users!