Friday, 30 May 2014 00:00

The 6 Ps of Public Sector Project Failure: Profit, Periodicity, Politics, Passion, Press, and Pay

Rate this item
(12 votes)

"The government is incapable of running projects. Simply put, their miserably high failure rate proves that government should be out of the project management business." There are plenty of examples of this. We have heard this line, or ones similar to it, time and again and rarely hear how the projects failure reasons support the hypothesis. The reason? The prognosticators purporting this are part of the problem. Coming to that conclusion does not take any superior intellect—just listen to the nightly news. However, to try to get closer to the truth, I candidly and confidentially interviewed a number of government project managers and executives to gather their views. Following is a summary of those conversations.


How often are government projects geared to make a profit? Not often. In the past few months, though, we have heard of an inordinate number of for-profits government endeavors as many of the healthcare exchanges are required to carry their own weight. Therein lays one of the challenges. When people who have never worked in a for-profit company are chartered to run one, their world is turned upside down. Their measures of success are not the number of people covered, mouths fed, and roofs over heads, but rather revenue, expense, cash flow, and profit. It is a different, less compassionate world that is unforgiving of financial overruns. This is not to say that public projects have less of a fiduciary responsibility, but the focus on the use of the money is different. Therefore, if a project to house homeless is 20% over budget, but houses the people it should, it is often considered successful. In the private sector, there is not necessarily a pot of cash to meet that 20% overrun. Scope may need to be cut to deliver a positive result.

On one recent visit to a government agency that had a six million dollar overrun on a project that delivered three years late and had over a thousand bugs on release, I asked "Would we be sitting here is the system had no bugs?" The answer came quickly, "No." The budget overrun and delay were not worthy of investgation, only functionality. Try that excuse with your private sector boss.


Periodically corporate leadership changes, but not with such predictability, public influence, and political process as with the public sector. Every two to four years the public has the opportunity to change the government's direction. This fosters many behaviors that we do not contend with in corporate life.

  • Waiting it out: In hopes that the next election will bring new direction. Elected officials who disagree with a direction have the ability to procrastinate and drag out projects. Just the fact that they can delay its delivery, gives them the fodder that the project is "running late and behind schedule," building their political platform.
  • Continual questioning: In a democracy, decisions never seem to be final. Repeatedly questioning direction in a corporate setting can get you fired. In the government, it can get you re-elected. The ability to create and sustain roadblocks to success is far easier in the public sector.
  • Uncertainty. Even people with the best positive attitudes who work in an environment where there is daily questioning of the direction and uncertainty looms over your project destroys morale. Politically contentious projects create this atmosphere.

These factors reduce the public sector project effectiveness, increasing their costs, and delaying their deployment.


What gets you up in the morning? Is it your goal to achieve new heights or make it a day closer to retirement? Although a rash generalization, incentives for most government positions are rooted in the beliefs of the sixties—working at the same job for life. Long-term, tenured employees are good, but only if their goal is to better the organization and, in turn, grow themselves. Marking time and concern over rocking the boat in order to get your pension does not help projects move forward.


Many of us live in a democracy. It is not the ideal place to get something done. Too many people have to be pleased. In our oligarchic corporate world, we do not have the joy of democracy. In well run companies, however, we are blessed with decisions and directions. When they are wrong, the company disappears. In a corporation, mismanagement's reward is failure. Only recently have we seen municipalities fail; taxes usually keep them afloat. The difference is that in a democracy there is no CEO. Decisions are made, votes are cast, and still the majority of the population can disagree and fight the decision—again, impeding progress.


Project transparency is a great thing—in moderation. Baring your soul to the world, though, is a little much. Corporations have a level of secrecy provided to private individuals. Public sector projects must be transparent since the money funding them belongs to the public. The result is a risk-averse culture frightened of ending up on the newspaper's front page or the nightly news. The fear of public humiliation nearly paralyzes any attempt at innovation, borrowing corporate's tried and true processes, and even decision making.


Money is not everything, but as Daniel Pink has taught us, you need to pay enough to get money off the table. Government jobs are notoriously lower paying jobs that do not attract and retain the correct proportion of best of the best. And, when they do show up, they are quickly drawn away into the higher paying corporate world.

Government's Disadvantage

Yes, government projects seem to fail at a disproportionate rate due in part to multiple factors that make them different from corporate projects. There is no data, though, to prove they actually run worse. As opposed to the corporate brethren, public sector projects run in the light of day, hence, every hiccup, glitch, and misstep is in full public view to be criticized by every armchair quarterback. As leaders, our job is to look at the failure modes and determine how to mitigate the risk in our projects—whether they are public or private.

Read 19826 times

Related items

  • Process Mapping

    Process is at the core of any business. It makes work predictable, repeatable, and transferable. Without it we cannot scale our businesses. However, process can be a bane to making progress. Processes that work for a $10 million company have difficulties supporting a $30 million company. Trying to scale them to a $300 million company will not only fail but not address the issues that larger companies have that were never dreamt of in a smaller organization. Processes need to be discarded, revamped, and built—all of that without creating an overburdening bureaucracy.

    Anytime you need to go someplace, you first have to know where you are. Processes are never static and your company's current state is probably far from where you think it is. Hence, the first step is mapping out you company's current state followed by defining the future state. This is more than a logical map of the process; it must also include physical maps. Whether your process is solely to provide a service (say, website development) or physical (say, manufacturing) there are logistical issues that complicate the process flow. Without fully understanding those nuances, future state processes will not reach the desired efficiencies.

    For more information about process mapping fill out the form to the left and we will get in touch with you.

  • Success vs Culture

    The other day a Latvian student contacted me for my views the connection between culture and success criteria—an important and intriguing topic. After working in Taiwan, Singapore, Korea, Japan, Israel, United States, and Canada, I wear many scars of both blatant and subtle cultural violations. I also know that within a culture one person's success is often another person's failure. So, after dispelling concerns about clicking on some random email link, I completed her survey (please feel free to take it yourself). In the process, I struck up a friendship with the student, Kristine Briežkalne, who is studying at Riga International School of Economics and Business Administration . She has some interesting views and presented me with a Venn diagram showing four frames to a project (business, client, project management, and growth perspectives) and how they intersected. As the diagram is part of her Master's thesis, I will let you ponder the how to label the overlapping areas (an eye-opening exercise).

  • Kill The White Knight

    There is a reason we do not teach classes on fixing failing projects. Many a cynic feels that we simply do not want to teach our trade, however, our reason is far nobler—we should be teaching prevention rather trying to create white knights to save the day. It is the same philosophy as building a fence at the cliff's edge rather than an emergency room at its base. Our language is replete with idioms telling us to look past the symptom and address problems at their root cause. 'An ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure' or 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Please, feel free to supply your own in the comments. Unfortunately, most of our businesses loathe this philosophy, waiting to address an issue until it is irrefutably broken.

  • Tales of an Expert Witness: Sex, Lies, and Video Tape (Part II)

    Trust relationships, certifications, and standards sound like such a safe harbor. These sound like such great words in a proposal or statement of work. How could you possibly go wrong building a trusted relationship with a customer by committing to follow a standard? In fact, this can burn you… in court.

    No one ever starts a project with the goal of ending up in court. In fact, litigation may never cross your mind; after all, you have built a trusted partner relationship. Taking a few cautionary steps, however, will make your life easier if you end up in that ill-fated litigious position. Your best chances for success come long before you enter the courtroom—even before the project starts.

  • The Executive-Project Manager Gap

    It was such an innocuous question, "Working on an article; what is the biggest problem you see with project governance at orgs? Can you comment?" Can I comment? Really? That is like cheese to a mouse. Where could I start—bureaucracy, draconian process, poor executive sponsorship, disengaged leaders? Plenty of fodder, because they all lead to project failure. I fired off, "Creating an over bureaucratic morass stifling innovation & implementing process instead of cultivating leaders." Then the maelstrom started and it went directly to the gap between the executives and projects managers. Naomi Caietti, Robert Kelly and I had a great conversation. Most of the thread is below.

Leave a comment

More Info on Project Recovery

Tell me More!

Please send me more information
on fixing a failing project.

Rescue The Problem Project

Internationally acclaimed

Image of RPP

For a signed and personalized copy in the US visit the our eCommerce website.

Amazon logo
Buy it in the United States Buy it in Canada Buy it in the United Kingdom
Buy it in Ireland Buy it in Germany Buy it in France
Buy it in Italy Buy it in the PRC
Buy it in Japan
Book sellers worldwide.

Upcoming Events

Other's References