CHAOS Report on IT Project Outcomes - Revision history

Pinfold at 20:09, May 14, 2025

2025-05-14T20:09:49Z

Pinfold at 20:03, May 14, 2025

2025-05-14T20:03:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, May 14, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Historical (1994) ===__NOTOC__		=== Historical (1994) ===__NOTOC__
	In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).		In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget [1] ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
	Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).		Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
	Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).		Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).

Pinfold at 20:02, May 14, 2025

2025-05-14T20:02:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, May 14, 2025
Line 82:		Line 82:
	#[[Media:project-success-qrc-standish-group-chaos-report-2020.pdf\|CHAOS Report 2020 (Standish Group)]]		#[[Media:project-success-qrc-standish-group-chaos-report-2020.pdf\|CHAOS Report 2020 (Standish Group)]]
	#[[Media:state-software-budgeting-handbook.pdf\|18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail]]		#[[Media:state-software-budgeting-handbook.pdf\|18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail]]
	#[[Media:Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government.pdf\|Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government]]		#[[Media:Belfer Center- IT Failures in Government.pdf\|Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government]]
	#[[Media:WhydoPublicSectorITProjsFailforINFOS2Mar10.pdf\|ResearchGate: Project Failure Rate in IT Sector]]		#[[Media:WhydoPublicSectorITProjsFailforINFOS2Mar10.pdf\|ResearchGate: Project Failure Rate in IT Sector]]

	<references />		<references />

Pinfold at 19:59, May 14, 2025

2025-05-14T19:59:21Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-=== Historical (1994) ===
+=== Historical (1994) ===__NOTOC__
 In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
 Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 == Sources ==
-*[https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group CHAOS Report 1994]
+<references />

Pinfold: Created page with "=== Historical (1994) === In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]). Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]). Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mr..."

2025-05-14T17:29:01Z

Created page with "=== Historical (1994) === In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]). Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]). Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mr..."

New page

=== Historical (1994) ===
In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
Large organizations fared worst – only 9% of their projects succeeded, with 61.5% challenged and 29.5% canceled ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
Even completed projects delivered far less than planned: projects in large firms averaged only 42% of their original features ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).
Overall, across 3,682 projects in that sample, only 12% were on-time and on-budget ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]).

=== “CHAOS Manifesto” (2012) ===
By 2012, Standish data showed improved results: 37% of projects succeeded (on time, on budget, with full scope), 42% were challenged, and 21% failed ([https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2012/ InfoQ summary of CHAOS Manifesto 2012]).

=== Recent (2020) ===
The latest CHAOS data shows renewed difficulties: only 31% of projects were “successful” ([https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary]).
Fully 50% were challenged and 19% failed ([https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary]).
Small projects performed far better (~90% success), while large projects had <10% success ([https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary]).

== Global Outcomes ==
Across all regions, approximately 30–34% of projects meet all goals ([https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary]).
Cancellations dropped from ~31% in 1994 to ~19–21% in 2020.
In 1994, successful projects in large firms delivered only ~42% of planned features ([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994]); by 2012, full-scope delivery was expected as part of success ([https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2012/ InfoQ 2012 Summary]).

== U.S.-Specific Figures ==
Standish surveys include many U.S. firms. In 2020, 31% of U.S. projects were canceled, and 53% were challenged – implying only ~16% succeeded ([https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary]).
Government IT projects fare worse:

Only 13% of major U.S. state and local IT projects succeed ([https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/11/13/why-government-digital-services-fail/ 18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail]).

Only 13% of large federal IT procurements (>$6M) succeed ([https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/it-failures-government-why-they-occur-and-how-fix-them Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government]).

== Europe and Other Regions ==
Standish doesn’t regularly publish EU- or Asia-specific breakouts. However, regional reviews suggest similar trends:

A European analysis found 30% of projects succeed and 20% fail outright ([https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338245725_Project_Failure_Rate_in_IT_Sector_and_Its_Impact Project Failure Rate in IT Sector – ResearchGate]).

== Summary Table ==

{| class="wikitable"
! Region / Year || On Time/On Budget (Success) || Within Budget || Meeting Scope || Canceled (Failure)
|-
| Global (1994) || 16.2% || 16.2% || ~42% of features || 31.1%
|-
| Global (2012) || 37% || 37% || 37% || 21%
|-
| Global (2020) || 31% || 31% || 31% || 19%
|-
| U.S. Projects (2020) || ~16% || ~16% || ~16% || 31%
|-
| U.S. Gov't IT (2019) || 13% || 13% || 13% || 87%
|}

''Note:'' 1994 scope data approximates features delivered. 2020 U.S. figures inferred from reported challenge/failure rates.

== Sources ==

*[https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group CHAOS Report 1994]
*[https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2012/ InfoQ: CHAOS Manifesto 2012 Summary]
*[https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf CHAOS Report 2020 (Standish Group)]
*[https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/11/13/why-government-digital-services-fail/ 18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail]
*[https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/it-failures-government-why-they-occur-and-how-fix-them Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government]
*[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338245725_Project_Failure_Rate_in_IT_Sector_and_Its_Impact ResearchGate: Project Failure Rate in IT Sector]

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, May 14, 2025
Line 82:		Line 82:
	#[[Media:project-success-qrc-standish-group-chaos-report-2020.pdf\|CHAOS Report 2020 (Standish Group)]]		#[[Media:project-success-qrc-standish-group-chaos-report-2020.pdf\|CHAOS Report 2020 (Standish Group)]]
	#[[Media:state-software-budgeting-handbook.pdf\|18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail]]		#[[Media:state-software-budgeting-handbook.pdf\|18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail]]
	#[[Media:Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government.pdf\|Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government]]		#[[Media:Belfer Center- IT Failures in Government.pdf\|Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government]]
	#[[Media:WhydoPublicSectorITProjsFailforINFOS2Mar10.pdf\|ResearchGate: Project Failure Rate in IT Sector]]		#[[Media:WhydoPublicSectorITProjsFailforINFOS2Mar10.pdf\|ResearchGate: Project Failure Rate in IT Sector]]

	<references />		<references />

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:09, May 14, 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=== Historical (1994) ===__NOTOC__		=== Historical (1994) ===__NOTOC__
	In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget [1] ~~([https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994])~~.		In the original Standish Group survey, only 16.2% of software projects were delivered on-time and on-budget [1].
	Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion ([~~https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994~~]).		Meanwhile 31.1% were canceled before completion [1].
	Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate ([~~https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994~~]).		Budget overruns were massive: over half (52.7%) of projects ran 189% over the original cost estimate [1].
	Large organizations fared worst – only 9% of their projects succeeded, with 61.5% challenged and 29.5% canceled ([~~https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994~~]).		Large organizations fared worst – only 9% of their projects succeeded, with 61.5% challenged and 29.5% canceled [1].
	Even completed projects delivered far less than planned: projects in large firms averaged only 42% of their original features ([~~https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994~~]).		Even completed projects delivered far less than planned: projects in large firms averaged only 42% of their original features [1].
	Overall, across 3,682 projects in that sample, only 12% were on-time and on-budget ([~~https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf~~ Standish Group 1994]).		Overall, across 3,682 projects in that sample, only 12% were on-time and on-budget [1] Standish Group 1994]).

	=== “CHAOS Manifesto” (2012) ===		=== “CHAOS Manifesto” (2012) ===
	By 2012, Standish data showed improved results: 37% of projects succeeded (on time, on budget, with full scope), 42% were challenged, and 21% failed ([~~https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2012/ InfoQ summary of CHAOS Manifesto 2012~~]).		By 2012, Standish data showed improved results: 37% of projects succeeded (on time, on budget, with full scope), 42% were challenged, and 21% failed [2].

	=== Recent (2020) ===		=== Recent (2020) ===
	The latest CHAOS data shows renewed difficulties: only 31% of projects were “successful” ([~~https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary~~]).		The latest CHAOS data shows renewed difficulties: only 31% of projects were “successful” [3].
	Fully 50% were challenged and 19% failed ([~~https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary~~]).		Fully 50% were challenged and 19% failed [3].
	Small projects performed far better (~90% success), while large projects had <10% success ([~~https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary~~]).		Small projects performed far better (~90% success), while large projects had <10% success [3].

	== Global Outcomes ==		== Global Outcomes ==
	Across all regions, approximately 30–34% of projects meet all goals ([~~https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary~~]).		Across all regions, approximately 30–34% of projects meet all goals [3].
	Cancellations dropped from ~31% in 1994 to ~19–21% in 2020.		Cancellations dropped from ~31% in 1994 to ~19–21% in 2020.
	In 1994, successful projects in large firms delivered only ~42% of planned features ([~~https://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/StandishGroup1994.pdf Standish Group 1994~~]); by 2012, full-scope delivery was expected as part of success ([~~https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2012/ InfoQ 2012 Summary~~]).		In 1994, successful projects in large firms delivered only ~42% of planned features [1]; by 2012, full-scope delivery was expected as part of success [2].

	== U.S.-Specific Figures ==		== U.S.-Specific Figures ==
	Standish surveys include many U.S. firms. In 2020, 31% of U.S. projects were canceled, and 53% were challenged – implying only ~16% succeeded ([~~https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research_files/CHAOSReport2020.pdf Standish CHAOS 2020 Summary~~]).		Standish surveys include many U.S. firms. In 2020, 31% of U.S. projects were canceled, and 53% were challenged – implying only ~16% succeeded [3].
	Government IT projects fare worse:		Government IT projects fare worse:

	Only 13% of major U.S. state and local IT projects succeed ([~~https://18f.gsa.gov/2015/11/13/why-government-digital-services-fail/ 18F: Why Government Digital Services Fail~~]).		Only 13% of major U.S. state and local IT projects succeed [4].

	Only 13% of large federal IT procurements (>$6M) succeed ([~~https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/it-failures-government-why-they-occur-and-how-fix-them Belfer Center: IT Failures in Government~~]).		Only 13% of large federal IT procurements (>$6M) succeed [5].

	== Europe and Other Regions ==		== Europe and Other Regions ==
	Standish doesn’t regularly publish EU- or Asia-specific breakouts. However, regional reviews suggest similar trends:		Standish doesn’t regularly publish EU- or Asia-specific breakouts. However, regional reviews suggest similar trends:

	A European analysis found 30% of projects succeed and 20% fail outright ([~~https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338245725_Project_Failure_Rate_in_IT_Sector_and_Its_Impact Project Failure Rate in IT Sector – ResearchGate~~]).		A European analysis found 30% of projects succeed and 20% fail outright [6].

	== Summary Table ==		== Summary Table ==