Oxford Business School states that only 0.5% of projects are delivered on their forecast cost, time and benefits. However, this metric is not particularly useful, if not outright misleading. It combines factors that are not directly comparable.

💡 A project is likely to be deemed successful if it delivers more benefits than expected, even if it runs over time or budget.

Time and cost are the primary enabling factors of benefits, not the goal of project delivery. However, these elements don’t contribute equally to the overall value delivered. Sometimes, accelerating delivery may be worthwhile even at a higher cost. In other cases, extending the timeline to reduce expenses may result in a better overall outcome.

Projects involve constant trade-offs between time and cost. Focusing on meeting both targets (time and cost) usually come at the expense of realising full benefits. Conversely, focusing on maximising benefits may result in missing schedule or cost targets.

💡 So, while the 0.5% statistic may be technically accurate, it says little about what truly defines project success.

Oxford Business School hasn’t provided details on how this metric was calculated, nor has it released supporting data on the “on-time” and “on-benefits’ aspects. As a result, we’re only seeing part of the story.

Additionally, direct comparison of the original project duration and cost with the final results only makes sense if the scope of the project is the same. Scope is the third primary factor that impacts benefits. Increased cost and duration may be beneficial when the scope is increased.

There is nothing wrong with allowing scope adaptability if it increases the project outcomes.  It just requires appropriate methods for planning and control.

The Project management community should be cautious when referencing this research, which was popularised in the bestseller ‘How Big Things Get Done’. It risks reinforcing a potentially false narrative of widespread project failure.