Chaos study

The CHAOS study (actually CHAOS report) by the Standish Group (in the first version from 1994, updated again and again later) deals with the success and failure factors in IT projects . It is one of the best-known and most important long-term studies in the field of project management, since 1994 over 40,000 individual projects have been scientifically examined.

content

Chaos study
year	Types		percent
1994	Type 1		16%
	Type 2		53%
	Type 3		31%
1996	Type 1		27%
	Type 2		33%
	Type 3		40%
1998	Type 1		26%
	Type 2		46%
	Type 3		28%
2000	Type 1		28%
	Type 2		49%
	Type 3		23%
2002	Type 1		34%
	Type 2		51%
	Type 3		15%
2004	Type 1		29%
	Type 2		53%
	Type 3		18%
2006	Type 1		35%
	Type 2		46%
	Type 3		19%
2009	Type 1		32%
	Type 2		44%
	Type 3		24%
2010	Type 1		31%
	Type 2		47%
	Type 3		22%
2011	Type 1		34%
	Type 2		51%
	Type 3		15%
2012	Type 1		39%
	Type 2		43%
	Type 3		18%
2013	Type 1		31%
	Type 2		50%
	Type 3		19%
2014	Type 1		28%
	Type 2		55%
	Type 3		17%
2015	Type 1		29%
	Type 2		52%
	Type 3		19%
Results of the Chaos Study 1994–2015.

The study examined projects in as many companies as possible with a management information system. The projects examined were divided into three groups:

• Type 1 project successfully completed: The project was completed on time, without cost overruns and with the originally required range of functions.
• Type 2 - project partially successful: The project was completed, but cost and / or time overruns or the full, planned range of functions was not achieved.
• Type 3 - project unsuccessful: The project was canceled.

For example, in 1994 there was a distribution of for these three types

• Type 1: 16.2%
• Type 2: 52.7%
• Type 3: 31.1%

The study examines the causes of success and failure and establishes a correlation between the probability of success and the size of the project.

The main success factors identified are:

1. Involvement of end users
2. Senior management support
3. Clear requirements

The main points that lead to the failure of the projects are:

1. lack of input from users
2. incomplete / unclear requirements
3. frequent changes in requirements

Evaluation and criticism

The study confirms the paradigm of modern project management systems that all stakeholders should be involved in the project. However, the research methodology has provoked strong scientific criticism, as the results cannot be replicated with reliable methods. Studies show, however, that the most important negative influence does not come from average projects, but from outliers .

On the one hand, there is criticism of the study, which questions the high numbers for the project abandonment rate and the average cost overrun. On the other hand, many projects that failed according to the original definition are subsequently “nicely lied”, so that many project managers, based on their experience, consider the figures to be absolutely correct.

Media reception

The media reception in the project environment is evidenced by the large number of citations from this study.

Individual evidence

1. ↑ C. Sauer, A. Gemino, BH Reich: The impact of size and volatility on IT project performance. In: Communications of the ACM. 50 (11), 2007, pp. 79-84.
2. ^ RL Glass: The Standish Report: Does It Really Describe a Software Crisis? In: Communications of the ACM. 49 (8), 2006, pp. 15-16.
3. ↑ J. Eveleens, C. Verhoef: The rise and fall of the Chaos report figures. In: IEEE software. 27 (1), 2010, pp. 30-36.
4. ↑ Bent Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier: Why Your IT Project Might Be Riskier Than You Think . In: Harvard Business Review . tape 89 , no. 9 , September 2011, p. 23-25 ( hbr.org ).
5. ↑ The fairy tale of the failed IT projects. (PDF; 232 kB).
6. ↑ ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: IHK North Rhine-Westphalia 9th Management Forum )
7. ^ Markus Gaulke: Risk management in IT projects. P. 46.
8. ↑ SISE-Zurich / ETH Success Factor Certification ( Memento from March 31, 2010 in the Internet Archive ).

swell

• The Standish Group - company website
• infoq.com