Experiences and results in general

So far, amongst the approximately 250 controlled analyses of projects, ranging in scale from the moderate to the ‘mega’, not a single negative report has been received during more than 20 years of operation. The wide range of projects includes, for example, major, challenging software-intensive development projects, Olympic Game investments and offshore projects.

Typical of the feedback received is surprise at how close the prognoses are to the actual results which are subsequently achieved. A large portfolio of public and private companies in Scandinavia and beyond consistently testifies to the undoubted benefits of using the Successive Principle.

Many users liken the Successive Principle to an ultra-sound scan of plans, estimates, budgets, cost schedules etc. or to a quality assurance of budgets and plans; partly because of the specific and realistic picture of how matters will progress in terms of the budget and partly because of the ranked list of the most important external and internal sources of uncertainty. These are either concrete threat factors, hidden opportunities or simply grounds for uncertainty.

The value of this list lies in allowing the client to take timely preventive or protective action against threats and at the same time to make the most of the positive opportunities in order to improve competitiveness, or simply to achieve greater efficiency.

Control and optimisation of major project schedules has been a particularly successful sphere of application. It has often been possible to accelerate timely progress by using the analysis results to inject impetus into a project.

Positive side effects

The analysis process itself is conducted by a group of key persons, chiefly through a very restricted number of’ half or full day sessions. In addition to this there is the preparatory work of the analysis moderator and analysis manager: defining the task, setting up the analysis group and then, after the analysis sessions, processing and reporting on the results.

There is an additional bonus from this work structure and the nature of the analysis work: the flow of communication and the relations between the participants will often be considerably improved, and clear consensus is normally achieved. Problems are put on the table, clarified and then processed in the prescribed manner. Many misunderstandings and biases are disposed of when a small – but still broad-based – analysis group has been in session for some days and has brought all the aspects out into the open (or more precisely up on the wall or screen). Some use this process quite simply to reinforce collaboration during the various start-up phases of a project.

However, users have also experienced the limitations and other drawbacks to the method.