1. WHY-L1 projects aren't set up for success
1.1. WHY-2 other initiatives take focus away from that project
1.1.1. WHY-3 other initiatives that use same people/resources are still finishing (running late themselves)
1.1.1.1. WHY-4 they were themselves started prematurely and are now overrunning as a consequence
1.1.1.1.1. WHY-5 leaders feel pressure to deliver and believe that starting the project will get them to completion faster
1.1.1.2. WHY-4 any of the other reasons already stated for projects overrunning...
1.1.2. WHY-3 other initiatives that use same people/resources are run in parallel
1.1.2.1. WHY-4 prioritisation process is ineffective
1.1.2.1.1. WHY-5 information about how many of the top initiatives can effectively run in parallel is not available
1.1.2.1.2. WHY-5 information about how many of the top initiatives can effectively run in parallel is ignored
1.1.3. context:
1.1.3.1. either the right people and resources are not available or they are being time-sliced across other initiatives
1.2. WHY-2 the operating model under which the delivery teams work do not support the effective execution of the project
1.2.1. possible countermeasures
1.2.1.1. agile operating model
1.2.1.1.1. small, sticky membership, long-lived, end-to-end teams with as few dependencies between teams as possible
1.2.1.1.2. ...
1.3. WHY-2 external forces disrupt the project
1.3.1. possible countermeasures
1.3.1.1. adaptive planning
1.3.1.2. ...
2. WHY-L1 project plan and budgets aren't adapted to take into account the changing landscape
2.1. WHY-L2 plans and budgets are purposely made difficult to change
2.1.1. WHY-L3 leaders treat initial plans, budgets and estimates as firm commitments (that are treated like contracts and only renegotiated when absolutely necessary)
2.1.1.1. WHY-L4 leaders want to ensure the delivery teams don't become complacent, succumbing to Parkinson's law ("work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion")
2.1.1.1.1. possible countermeasures
2.1.1.2. WHY-L4 leaders believe they must hold their people to their 'commitments'
2.1.1.2.1. possible countermeasures
2.1.1.3. WHY-L4 sponsor wants to stop the impulse for projects to repeatedly come back and ask for more money, so only large changes are considered
2.1.1.3.1. possible countermeasures
2.1.1.4. context
2.1.1.4.1. there is of course no problem with fixing the schedule/budget/scope if at least one of the other constraints is left variable (i.e., iron triangle/triple constraint)
2.1.2. WHY-L3 deadlines/budgets are truly firm
2.1.2.1. possible improvements
2.1.2.1.1. ensure scope is not fixed as well
2.1.2.1.2. monitor that project is still viable/valuable with the identification of any new issues/risks
3. WHY-L1 projects that have reached negative return/value are allowed to continue
3.1. WHY-L2 no one wants to be the messenger of doom (people fear it will limit their career progression/employment)
3.1.1. WHY-L3 org culture does not provide safety to speak up (people don't have the courage to speak out)
3.1.1.1. possible countermeasures
3.1.1.1.1. make it safe for anyone to speak up without fear of retribution
3.2. WHY-L2 big projects have big buckets of money that allow 'plenty' of wiggle room ("surely we can get it back on track")
3.2.1. WHY-L3 money is allocated to cover the full cost of the whole project
3.2.1.1. WHY-L4 a belief that if we don't allocate the full budget we wont be able to find the rest later
3.2.1.1.1. possible countermeasures
3.3. WHY-L2 project fails to clearly communicate meaningful progress (or rather their lack of) and setbacks
3.3.1. WHY-L3 it's not in the interests of key leaders to stop a project without being absolutely sure that it's going to be a trainwreck
3.3.1.1. WHY-L4 KRAs of leaders are aligned to project success
3.3.1.1.1. possible countermeasures
3.3.1.2. WHY-L4 leadership perceives stopping a project as a failure
3.3.1.2.1. possible countermeasures
3.3.2. WHY-L3 indicators of progress and setbacks are not established
3.3.2.1. WHY-L4 capability gap
3.3.2.1.1. possible countermeasures