---
# System prepended metadata

title: THE STANDISH GROUP - CHAOS

---

# THE STANDISH GROUP - CHAOS

[https://iclass.tku.edu.tw/course/146893/learning-activity/full-screen#/584383](https://)
For purposes of the study, projects were classified into three resolution types: -

- Resolution Type 1, or project success: The project is completed on-time and on-budget,
with all features and functions as initially specified.

- Resolution Type 2, or project challenged: The project is completed and operational but
over-budget, over the time estimate, and offers fewer features and functions than
originally specified.

- Resolution Type 3, or project impaired: The project is cancelled at some point during the
development cycle.

Overall, the success rate was only 16.2%, while challenged projects accounted for 52.7%, and impaired (cancelled) for 31.1%.
## Restarts
One of the major causes of both cost and time overruns is restarts. For every 100 projects that
start,  there  are  94  restarts.  This  does  not  mean  that  94  of  100  will  have  one  restart,  some
projects  can  have  several  restarts. 

## Cost Overruns 
For  combined  Type  2  and  Type  3  projects,  almost  a  third
experienced  cost  overruns  of  150  to  200%.  The  average  across  all  companies  is  189%  of  the
original  cost  estimate.  The  average  cost  overrun  is  178%  for  large  companies,  182%  for
medium companies, and 214% for small companies.

| Cost Overruns | % of Responses | 
| -------- | -------- |
| Under 20%     | 15.5%     |
|21 - 51% | 31.5% |
| 51 - 100% | 29.6% |
|101 - 200% | 10.2% |
|201% - 400% | 8.8% |
| Over 400% | 4.4% |


## Time Overruns
For the same combined challenged and impaired projects, over one-third also experienced time
overruns of 200 to 300%. The average overrun is 222% of the original time estimate. For large
companies,  the  average  is  230%;  for  medium  companies,  the  average  is  202%;  and  for  small
companies, the average is 239%

|  Time Overruns   | % of Responses |
| --- | -------------- |
|  Under 20%   |  13.9%              |
|  21 - 51%   |   18.3%             |
| 51 - 100%    |  20.0%              |
| 101 - 200%    | 35.5%               |
| 201% - 400%    |  11.2%              |
| Over 400%    | 1.1%           |

## Content Deficiencies
For  challenged  projects,  more  than  a  quarter  were  completed  with  only  25%  to  49%  of
originally-specified features and functions. On average, only 61% of originally specified features
and  functions  were  available  on  these  projects.  Large  companies  have  the  worst  record  with
only  42%  of  the  features  and  functions  in  the  end  product.  For  medium  companies,  the
percentage is 65%. And for small companies, the percentage is 74%

| % of Features/Functions | % of Responses | 
| -------- | -------- |
| Less Tan 25%     | 4.6%     |
|25 - 49% | 27.2% |
| 50 - 74% | 21.8% |
|75 - 99% | 39.1% |
|100% | 7.3% |

## Focus Groups Comments

 - "Being  that  it's  a  mindset,  it's  very  difficult  to  get  all  of the management -- it's even on the local level, not even on a worldwide level -- to get all of the management  to  agree  on  a  set  of  rules....  That's  a  challenge  in  itself  because  you  have  to,  in some cases, convince them that this is best for the company, not necessarily best for them, but best  for  the  company.  And  you  have  to  have  that  buy-in.  If  you  don't  have  that  buy-in,  you're going to fail. I don't care how big or how small the project is.
 
     *Jim,  the  Director  of  IT  at  a  major medical  equipment  manufacturer*

- Probably  90%  of  application  projectfailure is due to politics!"

    *John,Director of MIS at a government agency*

- "Sometimes  you  have  to  make  a  decision  you  don't like.  Even  against  your  own  nature.  You  say  well,  it's  wrong,  but  you  make  that  decision anyway. It's like taking a hammer to your toe. It hurts." 

    *Kathy, a programmer at a telecommunication company*

- "Changes, changes, changes; they're the real killers."

    *Bill, the Director of MIS at a securities firm*

- "Brain-dead users, just plain brain-dead users,"

    *Peter, an analyst at bank*

-  "We  just  had  a reorganizationtoday. So now that's going to sap all the resources. And explaining to senior management that,'Well, it's really taking us the time we said it was going to take. But because you've reorganized the  company,  I'm  going  to  take  another  six  months  on  this  other  project,  because  I'm  doing something else for you.' That's the biggest issue I have."

    *Bob, the Director of MIs at a hospital*

- "When  the  projected  started  to  fail,the  management  got  behind  it  --  way behind."
    *Paul, a programmer at a personal products manufacturer*

- "The  project  was  two  years  late  and  three  years  indevelopment,We  had  thirty  people  on  the  project.  We  delivered  an  application  the user didn't need. They had stopped selling the product over a year before."
    *Sid, a project manager at an insurance company*
    
## The Bridge To Success
Research  at  The  Standish  Group  also  indicates  that  smaller  time  frames,  with  delivery  of
software components early and often, will increase the success rate. Shorter time frames result
in  an  iterative  process  of  design,  prototype,  develop,  test,  and  deploy  small  elements.  This
process  is  known  as  "growing"  software,  as  opposed  to  the  old  concept  of  "developing"
software. Growing software engages the user earlier, each component has an owner or a small
set of owners, and expectations are realistically set. In addition, each software component has a
clear and precise statement and set of objectives. Software components and small projects tend
to be less complex. Making the projects simpler is a worthwhile 
endeavor  because  complexity
causes only confusion and increased cost.

There is one final aspect to be considered in any degree of project failure. All success is rooted
in either luck or failure. If you begin with luck, you learn nothing but arrogance. However, if you
begin with failure and learn to evaluate it, you also learn to succeed. Failure begets knowledge.
Out of knowledge you gain wisdom, and it is with wisdom that you can become truly successful.