The Silent Crisis Over the past 20 years project professionals and management experts have focused on improving the formal systems related to program governance, project management, and project-related technologies. However, while these new approaches have substantially improved results, today two-thirds or more of projects still miss their mark. Something is clearly missing. This Silence Fails study dives below the formal systems to identify what's missing. This worldwide study involved over 1,000 executives and project management professionals across 40 companies and encompassed analysis of over 2,200 projects. The results show that failures can be both predicted and prevented with surprising reliability. The surprising finding is that most projects fail for reasons that are widely perceived but rarely discussed. The study shows that the best predictor of the future of a project is the quality of just a handful of high-stakes conversations that must occur along the way—but tend not to. This silent crisis plays out in a deceptively simple dynamic that produces failure 85% of the time. More importantly, the Silence Fails study suggests that leaders can substantially improve their organization's ability to execute on high-stakes projects and initiatives by breaking a code of silence on five astoundingly common yet largely ignored problems that contribute significantly to almost all project failures. Increased effectiveness at any one of the five crucial conversations that address these problems improves project performance by 50-70% or more. This study shows the problem is not that we have problems—even the five outlined here. Anytime an organization launches an initiative that requires abnormally high levels of interdependence among levels and functions, there will be problems. In fact, Silence Fails shows that 90% of project participants regularly experience these problems. And yet these problems are not a project death sentence. What determines whether these five problems derail an initiative is whether they can be discussed. The data show that when people are able to discuss these problems in effective ways, projects come back on course. But when one or more of these five problems is not confronted—or not confronted well—they fester, workarounds proliferate, politics prevail, and project failure becomes almost inevitable.

The Study Researchers spent more than 150 hours observing various phases of project chartering, approval, and execution. In addition, interviews, focus groups, and surveys were administered to more than 1,000 senior executives, project sponsors, project managers, and project participants. Projects considered ranged from $10,000 IT projects to billion dollar organizational restructuring efforts. Participating organizations came from a wide variety of industries including pharmaceuticals, a fast food conglomerate, an international construction company, airlines, financial services, government agencies, and consumer products. While most of the forty participating companies were Fortune 500 multinational companies, about ten percent were smaller, regional firms. In addition, study participants ranged in experience from veteran, university-trained and certified project managers to newly minted managers with little formal training in project management. Some organizations had sophisticated project governance and management processes and policies, and others had far less mature approaches. Interestingly, the frequency of the problems identified in the study does not seem to depend on the maturity of the organization's project management strategy. It depends instead on whether and how project participants handle crucial conversations related to the project. The case of Bob Kelley , a seasoned project leader in a relatively sophisticated project-management environment, illustrates the nature of the problem.

The Last Roundup Bob Kelley led an effort codenamed “Roundup” to in-source the billing system of a major business services company. The billing system was the life blood of the company—responsible for drawing hundreds of millions of dollars into the company on a monthly basis by issuing timely and accurate bills to more than 20 million customers. For twenty years the billing system had been handled by a vendor. For three years Kelley led a sometimes unruly and loose confederation of over 1,000 professionals drawn from various functions in his company as well as contractors to change over to a company-owned system. Roundup was a particularly tough assignment given that he was the line manager of only a few of these people, and yet his mission depended on the unflagging support of all of them. The stakes couldn't have been higher. And Roundup's status could not have been worse. By the time we met Kelley the project was already 100% overdue and 300% over the original budget—an investment of well over $250 million to that point with no end in sight. Kelley believed, however, that there was light at the end of the tunnel. The first cutover date for a small contingent of customers was two weeks away. As he walked out of a “release review” he believed that all was in order and the chance of success was high. A month later, Kelley was handed his head. The release was a disaster. The vendor managing the legacy system failed to transfer data when required. Once they did, the new bills were pocked with errors and the system suffered from multiple “Severity 1” glitches—causing it to crash uncontrollably during the billing cycle. When he was dismissed, Kelley was escorted to his desk by a security guard who then walked him out of the building. Kelley's demise was the direct result of failure at the five crucial conversations identified in this study. Each of the five key problems emerged at one time or another during the course of the initiative. And yet, as we'll see, the complete undoing of Roundup was not guaranteed by the existence of these problems, but by how they were handled. Most were never fully discussed with the people who needed to hear them. Others were raised, but then muffled by the very executives who should have listened and taken action.

The Good News Although this report has centered so far on important findings that predict and explain failure, the most important implication of the study is the potential leaders have to influence success. While the data show that fewer than one in five project managers and executives effectively engage in crucial conversations needed to solve these five problems, the good news is that one in five do. And much can be learned by studying them. The study examined whether these unique individuals produce different results than their stymied peers. Research on this contingent of crucial conversations successes helps answer questions like: o Does it affect project success when they speak up effectively? o Can others be taught to do speak up more skillfully with similar results?

What Happens When People Speak Up? In each of the five key problem areas, the study found a clear difference between speaking up and speaking up well. Across the problem areas, about half of project participants make some attempt to speak up. But most are ineffective. Some speak up but don't share their full concerns. Since they water down their concerns, the issues are never fully aired. Others speak up but do so in a way that provokes defensiveness from others. And a handful—about one in eight—are able to share their full concerns and, by the end of the conversation, feel their views are understood and respected. The research showed also that while the skillfulness of the initiator is a key ingredient in ensuring these crucial conversations are held well, the receptiveness of the other party is key as well. Project managers who are adept at holding crucial conversations are far more effective in dealing with even prickly and defensive executives. But their skill isn't a 100% guarantee that their concerns will be addressed. Unless and until leaders take extraordinary measures to ensure their environment is conducive to holding crucial conversations, a significant number of these issues will remain unaddressed, invisible, and fatal. However, when a skillful project manager finds even a moderately safe environment, the results are astounding. For example, the likelihood of a project failing to meet budget is reduced by almost half. The likelihood of hitting schedule and quality specs are equally impressive. When projects participants effectively step up to these crucial conversations, hitting schedule is at least 40% more likely, quality improves almost 60% and the likelihood the project will end with strong morale and intact stakeholder relationships is almost 70% greater.

Can People Be Taught To Speak Up More Effectively? Our research and consulting experience demonstrate that it is possible to rapidly and profoundly change these patterns of silence in an organization with significant results. In one organization, for example, within just a few months surveys documented a 25% improvement in project participants' frequency of speaking up. With no changes in process, governance, or management techniques, productivity shot up 100%, quality improved 30%, and on-time deliveries rose by more than 50%. Not surprisingly, morale also increased measurably.

For more information on Silence Fails, please visit www.silencefails.com

Extended Abstract Status: File Uploaded