Why do large-scale projects fail?

Why do large-scale projects fail?

Attached: D.jpg (640x619, 62K)

i usppose the very concept of "large scale projects" is prone to failure. If you can't just split it up into smaller ones you probably made a design flaw somewhere.

Simply put too many cooks spoil the broth

Too many dissenting opinions and people constantly trying to please others instead of providing a useful solution won't work

Humans aren't capable of planning for the long term.

Successful businessmen who claim they have long term vision just got lucky. For every success, there are hundreds of others who had "long term vision" and failed.

Over 60% of large scale projects fail.
Mostly because they were doomed from the start.
The people running the show will only have a "Big Picture" view of the requirements; no idea what is involved in actually delivering.
The people doing the delivering will not have a very clear idea of the ultimate goal.
Everybody is assuming that if they do what is required the outcome is assured. They are Process Oriented. The Outcomes Oriented people will abandon the project as soon as it becomes apparent that failure is inevitable.
Since the failure is going to be huge, nobody wants to own it so there's nothing else to do but build a "Pearl Harbour" file that proves it's not your fault.

>immortality panel
way to ruin the joke

The official answer is
1) over budget
2) not to desired quality
3) not delivered on time

Any 1 of those 3 is a failed project.

I just studied project management btw

Because unplanned changes from the client.

Oh, surely you can add feature X.
Are you sure, its not designed for that.
Yeah, it's necessary to meet [random standard]

That's one of the most inaccurate answers you could possibly give to this question. Large scale projects do not have "changes" like you are suggesting, to the point the project failed as a result. Specifications and contractual obligations are made in the planning stage of a project, which if large is rock solid. Have fun trying to make a change.

That's the what, it doesn't answer why.

I can't tell if this is ironic or if this is what they actually teach PM's

too large to succeed.

You just recited the iron triangle senpai.
t. also had to memorize PMBOK pieces.

things=bad
large things=badder

iq of the programmer team is of its lowest member

humans don't scale very well

Uhh, sorry m9 but those are the Why's.

the what.... as in 'what' causes those things (fucking retard) - can include mountains of shit with the top being cost estimations grossly below the realistic cost, to the tune of billions (to secure the contract in the first place), outsourcing work to foreign countries who dont deliver and you end up paying twice as much than the little extra for local work, -- allllllll the way down to bottom feeder shit like theft, replacing panels which need replacing due to being a fire hazard (can cost millions), levels of lead in the water being too high (million)

it goes on and on. the 3 fundamentals are pretty basic.

even death only has 5 fucking causes:

- suicide
- natural
- accident
- homicide
- undetermined

do I have to list 'what' causes all those?

Projects fail because dumb faggots like you are put in positions that require decision making. suck my dick

That is definitely what they teach PMs.

There's this new methodology I'm being taught at my company. It goes:

Explore: Meeting with high value company sponsor to set the scope.
Discover: Shadowing and field work to gauge the scope and work to be done, also talking to the users for a better understanding.
Prototyping: visual clickable prototype in one of the free tools, so they can validate the feel and flow.
Delivery: showing a working MVP (not connected to anything), an integration plan and scalability roadmap.

Forgetting:
4) Tactical implementation does not work, it creates islands.

What you got against islands bro? Islands are cool.