Do changes to scope, schedule, or budget truly compromise the success of an information systems project?

Host: Hello, and welcome to A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge. I am Anna Ivy Summers, and today we are diving into a topic that touches nearly every modern enterprise: how we measure the true success of technology initiatives. We are exploring a fascinating study titled "Information systems project management success." Alex, this research really takes on some long-held beliefs about tech implementations, doesn't it?

Expert: It really does, Anna. For decades, the dominant narrative in business has been that information systems projects are plagued by failure. This study investigates the real-world performance and perceived success of organizational information systems projects by examining how experienced project leaders actually evaluate them against the traditional baselines of scope, schedule, and cost.

Host: Let's start with that conventional wisdom. If you talk to executives or flip through business headlines, you constantly hear horror stories about IT projects going off the rails. Where does that narrative come from?

Expert: Much of it traces back to landmark industry publications like the Standish Group's Chaos Reports, which have historically shown alarming failure rates. But the authors of this study point out a crucial flaw in applying that narrative broadly: those older benchmarks typically focused on technical software development, like coding an application from scratch. They measured success very rigidly—if you deviate from your day-one budget, timeline, or feature set by even a fraction, you are marked as challenged or failed.

Host: But real organizations don't operate in a vacuum. A new ERP, CRM, or data analytics platform isn't just about code.

Expert: Exactly. These are socio-technical projects. They involve changing business workflows, training employees, managing cultural shifts, and adapting to market volatility. In that kind of environment, sticking stubbornly to an initial plan drawn up twelve months ago might actually hurt the business rather than help it.

Host: That brings us to how the researchers investigated this. What approach did the study take to get to the truth?

Expert: The research team surveyed 107 seasoned project managers and chief information officers from across the globe, predominantly in Europe and North America. Over seventy percent of respondents had more than ten years of experience. Together, they reported detailed data on 472 distinct, real-world projects. The researchers then applied both parametric and non-parametric statistical analyses to see how variations in scope, schedule, and cost actually correlated with the overall perception of project management success.

Host: Four hundred and seventy-two projects gives us a substantial window into modern reality. What were the headline findings?

Expert: The first major takeaway is that information systems project management is overwhelmingly successful. More than 52 percent of the projects were rated at the very highest levels of success—scoring a nine or a ten out of ten. Only 7.4 percent were scored below the midpoint. That completely contradicts the popular claim that most projects are disasters.

Host: That is a staggering contrast to the gloomy statistics we usually hear. But did these projects actually stick to their initial baselines?

Expert: And that is the pivotal finding. Only 26.1 percent—about one in four projects—fulfilled their scope, schedule, and budget without adjustments to the original baseline plan. Yet, despite modifying their plans, the vast majority were still considered highly successful.

Host: So altering the baseline along the way is standard operating procedure, not an indicator of doom.

Expert: Precisely. The study demonstrates that project goals evolve as implementation proceeds. Interestingly, when the researchers tested each constraint individually, schedule adjustments showed no statistically significant difference in perceived project success. Business leaders care deeply about getting the right solution and managing costs, but minor shifts in delivery dates simply did not spoil the perception of success.

Host: That must be liberating for project leaders to hear, but what does this mean practically for enterprise executives and PMOs?

Expert: It means we need to modernize project governance. Measuring project success solely against an initial, rigid baseline—what we often call the traditional Iron Triangle—is fundamentally flawed for socio-technical initiatives. When organizations embrace agile adjustments, justified alterations in scope or timeline often represent smart responses to changing business conditions.

Host: Though, to be fair, projects that did finish on the original plan still had slightly higher ratings, right?

Expert: Yes, projects completed strictly on initial targets did report the highest average scores. Stability is always an asset, and unjustified changes can create friction across portfolios. However, the critical takeaway for leadership is that changes in scope, schedule, or cost should never automatically brand a project as challenged or failed. Flexibility is an essential mechanism for delivering true business value.

Host: That is a refreshing, grounded perspective that aligns much better with the reality of running a business today. Alex, thank you so much for breaking down this insightful study for us.

Expert: My pleasure, Anna.

Host: And thank you to everyone listening to A.I.S. Insights — powered by Living Knowledge. Be sure to join us next time as we continue unpacking research that shapes modern strategy and leadership. Until then, stay curious.