Gartner's recent study found that larger projects fail 66% more often than smaller projects. Similarly a McKinsey/Oxford report confirmed that larger projects run almost 50% over budget, 7% over schedule and deliver half as much functionality as promised.
Intuitively, it makes sense. Larger projects are typically more complex, involve more people, have more pressure and take longer. Hefty projects are also magnets for unforeseen risks, major scope creep and politics. They also under-perform in terms of managing internal and external stakeholder expectations.
So what options do you have when major change is required that demands extensive resources?
Instead of taking on large projects that are likely to fail, divide them up into small chunks by ensuring:
- the core project team stays small (5-7 people showed the highest performance)
- scope remains tight (clearly identified success criteria)
- timing from start to finish is fast (less than 6 months correlated to success)
Besides the improved chance for overall success, here, according to project post mortem reviews, are the advantages of small versus large projects.
Read 6 Research-Backed Reasons Small Projects Beat Large Projects 2 Out of Every 3 Times
Learn 3 Proven Steps to Better Manage Project Stakeholder Risks
About LSA Global
Founded in 1995, LSA Global is a leading performance consulting and training firm that helps high growth technology, services, and life-science companies create a competitive advantage by powerfully aligning their culture and talent with their strategy. Learn more about getting aligned
