I was engaged for several weeks on a commercial document publishing project, which exhibited the normal elements of “critical schedule, high complexity, limited budget, conflicting technologies, and parochial infighting”. They are normal elements; they are not necessarily handled well in most projects.

Which got me thinking and philosophizing…. Why is success [in anything] so rare? Why is failure [in everything] so common? Can “the odds” be predictably beaten? Etc.

I’ve studied achievement, success, and leadership of high performance teams since 1975. I’ve experienced my own personal and professional trials, tribulations, failures, and successes. And, in the case of Isogen International, Inc. (now Innodata Isogen), I had collected and built an unparalleled high-performance team of conceptual, technical, and project management specialists, who for 15 years have consistently delivered predictable and odds-defying success to clients.

So … I may possess an idea (or two) about the particulars of success and failure in general, and in particular, success and failure related to publishing processes, document production, knowledge management, etc. In December 2005, I particpated in a symposium where a research paper reported that failure rates were 77% in this genre of project. We all thought that was a great improvement over previously reported and observed failure statistics, until we heard the fine print:

1. Failures were defined as projects that did not complete.
2. Successes included projects wherein:
   • Projects were stopped and restarted, with or without scope changes.
   • Features were delivered at or above 50% of original specification.
   • Final cost was at or below 200% of original budget.

By the way, the other old codgers who were in attendance all agreed that success would be defined as (1) specified features (2) on time and (3) within budget. We explicitly operate in the realm where pre-defined features, budgets, and timelines are essential.

Without the fixed boundaries of the paying field and without the enforced rules of the game, no definition of winner or loser, and therefore no definition of success and failure, has meaning or importance. So the first essential unnatural act is to set the boundaries and the rules of the game, inviting in objectivity and empiricism. Eliminating self-serving bias is unnatural, yet it is essential for success.

Only then can we get to playing the game and improving our play. More on that later.

Category: Management