Chapter 4

Discussion

Government projects and programs are unique and complex, and hence suffer from a high rate of failure. In order to better understand the major reasons for failure and propose recommendations to enhance performance, this study has analyzed audit reports of 39 government projects and programs in three developed countries (United States, United Kingdom, and Australia). Data were collected from audit reports from the U.S. GAO, UK National Audit Office (NAO), and Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). This section elaborates the discussions based on the content analysis and statistical analysis of the data.

4.1 Most Common Frameworks and/or Principles Used

Across 39 projects and programs that were analyzed, the most commonly used framework and/or principles for successful projects were: research/forecasting (cost-benefit analysis, implementation studies, etc.), resource management, monitoring and evaluation (committees/ support groups), and a continuous or final review process. Key findings at the end of multiple project evaluations stated that these characteristics were directly responsible, in part, for the completion of projects in a satisfactory manner. Conversely, projects that failed had many layers of governance (complication and communication issues), did not have scheduled check-ins, and lacked cooperative efforts between units. Not all cases resulted in project terminations, but most required significant restructuring, including reduced scope, increased budgets, or extended time.

4.2 Critical Factors Affecting Project Performance

Based on our data, we identified common factors affecting performance. We categorized these factors into those affecting poor performance and those affecting good performance. Common factors for poor performance include:

• Lack of support from users;
• Underestimation of project complexity and cost; and
• Lack of leadership/management skills needed.

The most frequently cited issues were related to lack of project management skill and underestimation of project complexity/cost due to underperformed feasibility studies. Additionally inefficient allocation of resources, competing management styles, and other factors contributed to poor performance. Common factors affecting good performance include:

• Established timelines and check-points;
• Clear leadership and accountability;
• Quality planning; and
• Effective and comprehensive feasibility studies.

Additionally, projects that drew knowledge from multiple expert sources often resulted in faster completion times or decreased complications. Project groups that engaged multiple parties but maintained a clearly defined leader were able to utilize skilled individuals and avoid conflicts. One major risk in this tactic is the potential for lack of due diligence. If this occurs when seeking a potential contractor, references may not be contacted or examined, providing an opportunity for an underperforming player to join the group. This is easily mitigated by proper due diligence in pre-screening efforts, but has been skipped in some instances to reduce planning timelines and cost.

4.3 Statistical Analysis

To better understand the importance of project management in the government sector, all collected projects have been evaluated on a seven-point Likert scale for the following measures:

• Project management capabilities—represented by the government department's use and implementation of project management methodologies, tools, and techniques.
• Project management success—represented by the project manager's performance in achieving the project plan in terms of schedule, cost, and scope/quality.
• Project ownership success—represented by the project owner's performance in realizing the business case (Zwikael & Smyrk, 2012).

Statistical analyses suggest positive and significant correlations among the three measures. These results mean that project management is positively related to project performance of both project management and project ownership success. The correlation table is presented in Table 1.

Following the positive results from the correlation analysis, we tested whether project management capabilities have a positive impact on project management success using a more robust regression analysis. Results were controlled for project duration and cost, as these are variables that can potentially explain the variance in the dependent variable. Results are presented in Table 2.

Results show that neither of the control variables have significant impact on project management success. The only variable that significantly impacts the dependent variable is “project management capabilities” (Standardized Coefficient = 0.539, significance value = 0.002). The regression results are significant (F = 5.329**) with 35.5% of the variance explained by these variables. The conclusion from this analysis is that project management positively and significantly improves project management success.

Further, the impact of project management capabilities on project management success was tested for four project type dimensions (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). All analyses were controlled for project duration and cost. Results suggest project management has the following impact:

• Novelty–project management positively affects performance in low and medium levels of novelty (derivative and platform), but not in breakthrough projects;
• Technology–project management positively affects performance in low to high levels of technology (low, medium, and high), but not in projects that involve super-high technology;
• Complexity–project management positively affects performance in very complex projects (array), but not in projects with low and medium levels of complexity (assembly, system); and
• Pace–project management positively affects performance in time-critical projects, but not in regular, fast, and blitz projects.

4.4 Project Typology

Project characteristics (novelty, degree of technical difficulty, system complexity, and pace) are not definitively linked to project success. Projects may be complex, high-tech systems, but still complete on time and according to last approved budgets. Instead, it is important to further examine the project management techniques that have contributed to successful or unsuccessful projects. Good performance can be attributed to project management efforts, particularly in the early stages of development. Projects with a greater amount of planning and forecasting appear to have received higher scores than other projects in terms of their overall success and stakeholder satisfaction. Meanwhile, poor performance has been attributed to too many “players,” lack of organizational structure and timelines, and competing interests. These factors resulted in reduced scope, increased expenditure, or in some instances, cancellation of projects.

4.5 Additional Key Findings and Implications

Additional key findings from the content analysis are summarized in terms of status of projects completed, key reasons for performance outcome, and most commonly used project management principles, as shown in Table 3.