Process Improvement Project Failures: A Global Study

Abstract

Process improvement (PI) is a critical endeavor for organizations seeking to achieve sustainable performance. However, the high failure rate of about two-thirds of PI projects remains a significant concern, negatively affecting organizational resources and undermining performance. While previous researchers have investigated the reasons behind the failure of PI deployment, real-world solutions and guidelines to proactively mitigate failures are overlooked. Therefore, this thesis aims to develop a structured framework that not only identifies risks but also provides targeted strategies to avoid failures and reduce negative impacts. The project involves an exploratory sequential mixed approach starting with 20 semi-structured interviews to gain an in-depth understanding of all failure aspects that guide the development of holistic mitigation actions in response to Early Warning Signs (EWSs), Critical Failure Factors (CFFs), and failure consequences. Subsequently, the effectiveness of mitigation strategies was assessed through a global survey returning 126 complete questionnaires. Findings reveal that failure is perceived as the inability to complete the project, achieve the minimum targeted improvement, or sustain results over time. The study reveals 14 CFFs, spanning from issues at the top-level management down to challenges at the project level and shortcomings at the individual level. Budget overruns, data unavailability, deviation from the project timeline, decreased management support, priority changes, and low team commitment signal EWSs of project failure. Failure leads to adverse impacts on organizational reputation and resources, employee morale and productivity, operational performance, PI credibility, and resistance in future projects. Building on the thematic analysis and definition of failure, we developed a stage-wise framework that integrates 41 key mitigation practices. It encompasses recommendations to ensure organizational readiness, pre-project planning, proactive actions during execution, reactive interventions to minimize impact, and post-project strategies to sustain results. Quantitative analysis suggests that while strategies like a well-defined project charter and accurate data collection demonstrate higher effectiveness scores, all actions contribute positively to mitigating failures, with ratings consistently falling within a moderately effective range from 3.7 to 4.8 on a 0-6 scale. The framework was further validated using PLS-SEM to evaluate the relative contribution of each strategy to its respective stage in the project lifecycle. This study equips organizations with the best real-world practices for proper project planning from the early phases, focusing on key considerations before, during, and after implementation to avoid failure and reduce its consequences.

Date of Award	2025
Original language	American English
Supervisor	Ravindra Goonetilleke (Supervisor)