It is a well-known issue in project management that the understatement of costs and timescales, coupled with the overstatement of benefits, can lead to the selection of projects that may not merit prioritization. This practice not only sidelines more deserving projects presented honestly but also raises concerns about overall project affordability.
What is less recognized, yet equally critical, is how misrepresentation leads to inefficient project delivery, resulting in waste and significant delays.
Consider a scenario where a project's realistic cost and timeline are £100 million and four years, respectively. If this project is inaccurately represented as costing £80 million and taking three years, the outcome is not a simple realignment to the original estimates. In fact, it's likely that the project will escalate to £120 million and extend to five years.
The crux of the problem lies in the integrity of the forecast: a corrupted forecast inevitably leads to a flawed delivery plan.
To understand this better, let's delve into a specific example. Imagine a project where the arrival of a construction contractor is scheduled to occur after the demolition and hazardous material removal by a preceding contractor. The uncertainty surrounding the duration of such clearance activities is high, as the extent of work involved becomes clear only once it commences.
In such a scenario, accurately gauging the optimal start date for the main contractor becomes impossible if the risks of delay and additional costs are misrepresented. This misrepresentation severely hampers the ability to optimize project execution.
Real-World Consequences: The Crossrail Example
The Crossrail project (now the Elizabeth Line) in London provides a stark illustration of the repercussions of adhering to an unrealistic and misrepresented timeline. By attempting to maintain an impracticable completion date, the project management initiated overlapping work streams, leading to a counterproductive outcome. This strategy, aimed at expediting the process, only resulted in further delays.
An insightful quote from the Crossrail Chair, Tony Meggs,1 illustrates this folly: "Had we recognized that more time was needed in 2016 or 2017, we would have been able to stretch out the schedule, and the project might be finished by now – we lost a year because of the failure to do that." This admission highlights a critical learning point: recognizing and accepting the true scope and requirements of a project early can prevent a cascade of inefficiencies and delays. It's a valuable lesson in the importance of honest scheduling and the willingness to recalibrate plans when faced with on-ground realities.
Wolmar, C. (2018). Crossrail, The Whole Story. London: Head of Zeus.