The weakest link: you

Many project failures are, in part, down to human error. Edward Moore and Tony Llewellyn ask why this factor never gets listed in traditional risk registers

Many project teams see the traditional approach to risk management – via the creation of a risk register – as ineffective.

The problem is that risk (under this traditional approach) is typically constrained by a narrow focus on technical risk (will the project actually do what it is supposed to?) or commercial risk (will it take longer or cost more than planned?). The reality of project life is that technical and commercial factors only reflect a part of the project dynamic.

It is people who deliver projects, not machines. People are emotionally driven. Each of us has individual filters and perspectives. It shouldn’t be a surprise that, when things go wrong, human ‘error’ is often found to be the cause. It therefore makes sense to include human behaviour in the risk equation.

Behavioural risks are those that arise when the people involved in your project don’t behave in the way you expect them to. This ranges from a lone engineer selecting the wrong switch at a critical moment to the project leadership team ignoring evidence that an important aspect of the project is about to fail. Given such a wide scope for potential human error, surely it’s impossible to monitor so many possible problems?

The secret to managing behavioural risk lies in taking a systemic approach. This requires looking beyond the immediate symptoms of a problem. You need to understand what is happening in the wider project environment that is influencing human behaviour.

While we all have individual quirks and preferences, we tend to react to our circumstances in a consistent manner. When people feel threatened or disrespected, they will typically disengage from the situation. This can lead to a drop in the care and attention that they would otherwise pay to their work. Analysing the root causes of a project’s failure will often identify three common factors:

• lack of alignment, whereby individuals in the project team have different objectives to those of the sponsor or stakeholder;
• lack of engagement with the project, leading to lower levels of commitment and minimal creative problem-solving; and
• lack of resilience in the team – pressure from repeated deadlines and a lack of capable resources reduces productivity, and increases stress and the likelihood of errors.

If a portion of your project team feel stressed and disengaged, just when you’re relying on them to be energised and committed, then behavioural problems are likely. In small project teams, it is often easily noticeable when the group is not functioning as a cohesive unit. As the team grows and splits into a number of sub-teams, you need to start collecting data to monitor which parts of the team are aligned and engaged, and show signs of resilience.

The simplest way to monitor for behavioural risk is to create some sort of feedback tool, usually in the form of a questionnaire. What kind of data you collect will vary according to where you are in the project cycle. Common environmental factors include: budgetary constraints, realistic programmes, communication strategies, client/sponsor experience, clarity of scope and physical working conditions.

Many web-based tools can help you collect data, from simple DIY options such as SurveyMonkey to bespoke systems such as RADAR. Successful mitigation requires the identification of the appropriate behavioural risk and then monitoring on a regular basis. It is better to collect small amounts of data on a regular basis than to do periodic temperature tests that ask too many questions.

Here’s an example of what we mean. Consider a multimillion-pound residential scheme planned for a large site in north London. The site put a lot of constraints on the design; it needed to deal with difficult underground conditions, as well as being subject to strict planning criteria. Between 100 and 150 people were involved over the two-year design period, drawn from many design and development backgrounds. They had to work through a number of gateways to get sponsor approval, and the environment was pressured. The client took an active approach to risk management from the start, and initially appointed a risk manager who took the team down the traditional risk register route. Having learned from previous projects that the human factor can derail the best plans, they also commissioned a RADAR survey programme to monitor the progress of a series of behavioural indicators on a bimonthly basis.

The questions covered areas that indicate alignment, engagement and resilience within the different sub-teams. These included: adequate resourcing, communication, coordination, team morale, project complexity and effective meetings. These indicators were expressed as a point on a sliding scale, but the system also provided the opportunity to identify any specific concerns using open text. The responses were sent out to the whole team to coincide with project leadership meetings, and were collated by a third party to allow for anonymity. The resulting report was presented to the project leadership team, who then agreed a course of action to respond to issues that were likely to be counterproductive to the design delivery process.

It was interesting to note how the indicators moved over a 12-month period. As alignment and engagement improved, so did the team’s productivity, as measured by the ability to deliver to specific milestones.

Of course, it’s still important to monitor technical and commercial risks, but, contrary to how project management skills are often taught, the delivery of a project is not mechanistic.

People are the essential component of successful project delivery, but can also be the weakest link. When planning your risk mitigation strategy, pay attention to the factors that impact on human behaviours. It may save your project from disaster.

Edward Moore is chief executive at Resolex

Tony Llewellyn is collaboration director at Resolex

3 failures related to human error

Overpass oversight

In 2016, an $11m (CAD) overpass in Montreal had to be demolished a year after being opened to the public on the grounds that it did not “fit” with a highway redevelopment. According to press reports, contributing factors behind this failure include a lack of coordination, a lack of internal communications and the absence of effective long-term planning.

Borehole bungle

A report on the outcome of a programme designed to develop community water resources in sub-Saharan Africa indicates that as much as $360m was spent on boreholes that quickly became inoperative. The reasons cited for poor construction quality include operational dysfunction, failure to ensure the availability of sufficient resources and a lack of project management capability.

Camo calamity

As part of an initiative to upgrade the uniforms for the Afghan army, a wooded camouflage pattern was chosen without consultation with actual troops or their commanders. At a reported cost of $28m, this may seem like a poor investment, given that only two per cent of Afghanistan is covered in forest.