We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorised as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyse the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customised advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyse the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
The history of project management is somewhat similar to that of the production of matches. Initially, scientists had gotten it all wrong: matches were toxic, explosive, and huge in size. It wasn’t until two Swedes, Gustav Erik Pasch and Johan Edvard Lundström, came up with the red phosphorus prototype that matches became the safe commodity that we use today.
Software projects seem to follow the analogy, if distantly. Some 50 years since the inception of project management, more than 50% of IT projects still fail because they run out of time, resources, funds, etc. Will there come a day when we’ll be able to plan and execute projects successfully? We’ll live and see.
While the majority of modern companies realize they need a mature, best practices-based process for carrying out software projects, many don’t know where to start. Below, I’ve gathered some useful stats that point to the most critical aspects of project management that probably need to be addressed first.
As you can see, while the research mentioned above comes from different sources and has different timestamps on it, it covers a similar scope of problems. Hence, we can single out some key factors that can have a major impact on your project.
1. Professional PM/PMO needs to be there
Research data indicates that having someone take care of project management for you professionally correlates strongly with successful project outcomes. After all, there’s a reason so many companies employ Product Owners, Scrum Masters, Agile coaches, and other project management personnel.
2. A lack of explicit product ownership is a recipe for disaster
In the old Waterfall model, it was the Project Manager who single-handedly managed the project. With the new Agile way, we now have self-organizing teams where everyone is their own manager. Plus, there’s the Product Owner to keep the eyes on the business aspect and the Scrum Master to facilitate the process.
The new paradigm helps ensure the product is economically profitable and not just built to a specification. However, if the product does not have a dedicated owner, this is less likely to happen.
3. Business people (stakeholders) need to be involved
As a rule, senior management is too busy to get directly involved with the project, and that’s a shame. When there is a lack of such involvement, the requirements are not clearly communicated and changes are made late into development, which can even derail the whole project at some point.
The person responsible for providing sufficient C-Suite oversight is called a product sponsor. Unlike the Project Manager or the Product Owner, it’s not a full-time job, but it’s important that someone within your organization is available for communicating and clarifying strategic vision to the team from time to time.
4. Requirements should be aligned to business goals
Closely connected with the above two points (#2 and #3) is the idea that insufficient stakeholder involvement and the absence of a product owner (who is, essentially, your “voice of business”) may lead to misalignment of project requirements to the product’s business goals.
5. Requirements and scope need to be accurate
Many companies have learned (and this is especially true of large enterprises that have enough data to draw such conclusions) that when developers and business representatives take part in planning activities, this makes estimates more accurate. In addition, the shorter your release cycle, the bigger the odds that your estimate will be spot-on.
While every software project is unique, there are common problems that frequently lead to project failure. These include weak product ownership, little involvement of senior business execs, misalignment of business goals and development, inaccurate (overly optimistic) estimates, and making changes mid-way through the project.
If you are interested in knowing more about us and our team, you can visit our website! We believe that our values reflect who we are and how we work.
We can help you pioneer your vision! Contact our team today and let’s start making your ideas into reality. What are you waiting for? Schedule a call today!