The evidence behind
everything we do
Achieve P3M does not operate on assumption or convention. Every service, every assessment, and every recommendation is grounded in three decades of independent research into what actually determines whether projects succeed or fail.
The findings are clear. And they are not what most organisations expect.
0.5%
of projects deliver on time, on budget and on benefits (Flyvbjerg, How Big Things Get Done, 2023)
36%
software projects are delivered on time, on budget and to scope (Standish Group CHAOS, 2015)
5x
small, well-scoped projects (61%) are more likely to succeed: versus large ones (11%) (Standish Group CHAOS, 2015)
18%
large projects succeed just 18% even when run with agile. Size and scope outweigh methodology (Standish Group CHAOS, 2015)
Not significant
the difference in project success rates between agile, hybrid and predictive approaches (PMI Pulse of the Profession, 2024)
THE FINDING THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING
Methodology explains almost nothing
PMI's 2024 research found project performance varied only marginally across predictive, hybrid and agile approaches, with rates within one point of each other (74.4% to 75.4%), a difference that was not statistically significant (PMI, Pulse of the Profession 2024). Hence, whilst the choice of methodology is the thing most organisations argue about, it explains almost nothing about whether projects succeed.
What the research states actually drives and impacts outcomes:
-
Behavioural biases (optimism bias, strategic misrepresentation, the planning fallacy) are "a primary reason that projects underperform" (Flyvbjerg, Project Management Journal 2021, base rates from 2,062 projects).
-
Project size and scope is the single biggest predictor of success; small projects succeed more than five times as often as large ones (Standish CHAOS 2015).
-
Organisational capability and power skills correlate with measurably better delivery; organisations prioritising power skills met goals 72% of the time versus 65% (PMI Pulse 2023).
-
Executive sponsorship is consistently a top success factor in Standish's research (CHAOS).
-
Methodology and tools: project management approach makes no statistically significant difference to performance (PMI Pulse 2024).
This is why Achieve P3M does not sell methodology. We address the factors that actually matter: the human, behavioural, and organisational conditions that determine whether any methodology succeeds or fails.
Why Projects Really Fail
Across decades of independent research, one pattern holds. Project failure is not primarily a technical problem. It is a human and organisational one. Four findings stand out above the rest, and none of them is about the framework you choose.
First, behavioural biases drive underperformance. Bent Flyvbjerg's research, drawing on base rates from 2,062 projects, identifies base rate neglect as "a primary reason that projects underperform" (Project Management Journal, 2021). The biases that matter most are optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation. Optimism in scheduling and cost estimation is not always an honest error. For many projects it is a choice, driven by the political pressure to secure funding rather than the obligation to be accurate. Underestimate the costs, overestimate the benefits, and the project gets approved. Flyvbjerg's framing is blunt: "Cognitive bias is half the story; political bias the other half."
Second, executive sponsorship ranks first. The Standish Group names a skilled executive sponsor as the number one 'Factor of Success' (CHAOS Report 2015). A sponsor who removes blockers, protects the business case and makes timely decisions multiplies every other capability. One who applies political pressure or disengages does the opposite. It is among the most consequential variables in delivery, and one of the most rarely assessed.
Third, methodology does not drive performance. PMI's Pulse of the Profession 2024, based on a survey of 2,246 project professionals and 342 project leaders, found no statistically significant difference in performance between Agile, predictive and hybrid approaches, at an average success rate of 73.8% whichever was used. The profession keeps debating the wrong question. The real levers are discipline, capability and leadership, not frameworks.
Fourth, organisations that do not learn repeat their mistakes. Projects without honest, regular and timely project reviews (sound feedback loops) make the same mistakes indefinitely. Sanitised findings and lessons never-really-learned or applied are not a communication failure, they are a governance failure, and thankfully, this is fixable. The Victorian Auditor-General's 2024 review examined 113 major projects; 110 with a confirmed cost of $145.5 billion, found that entities 'do not specifically consider the impact of major changes to cost, time and scope on expected project benefits and economic viability' (VAGO, Major Projects Performance Reporting 2024, 2025).
REARCH SOURCES
The sources
-
Flyvbjerg, B. (2021). Top Ten Behavioral Biases in Project Management. Project Management Journal. Base rates from 2,062 projects.
-
Standish Group. (2015). CHAOS Report. Factors of Success and project resolution by size.
-
PMI. (2024). Pulse of the Profession. Survey of 2,246 project professionals and 342 project leaders.
-
Victorian Auditor-General's Office. (2025). Major Projects Performance Reporting 2024