Missing: Bullish Tech Project Leaders!

Tech Project Leaders are feeling a lot less bullish these days. That is the inescapable conclusion from our latest research. Some are deliberately lowballing project estimates and ambitions, with the aim of managing runaway expectations (especially around Ai). For others, it is a facing up to the practical realities of delivering multiple projects at a time of scarce resources.

Where’s the ambition gone?

What is the level of confidence and ambition behind key tech projects? Well, put aside the confident press release and project vision; it is time to get real! Those running tech projects (in smaller UK banks) rate both confidence and ambition in the 60% zone, as you can see below.

Looking at these numbers, you are most likely thinking that such levels of confidence and ambition are not going to set the world on fire! You may also be thinking that this is too much business as usual—a clear demonstration of the need for greater innovation.

There are other interpretations, however. For example, do the levels of confidence & ambition reflect:

Tech leader pragmatism (given the experiences of the past)?
A deliberate lowballing of estimates and forecasts in an attempt to control expectations (especially runaway expectations around AI).
The practical challenges faced by leaders juggling multiple projects and scarce resources?

To back this up, leaders say their CEOs are 13% more confident and ambitious than those running the projects day‑to‑day—often reflecting distance from delivery complexity. So, what are those complexities? Well, let’s explore them next.

What about Performance?

Delivering tech projects is complex, as this snapshot of the typical tech project team reveals:

So what did these numbers mean? Well, they describe the reality of performing under pressure. They suggest that the typical tech project team is some way from being a peak performing team – take the figures for performance and potential at 67 and 68%. Clearly, these teams have a lot more to give – indeed up to 33% more!

The figure of 70% for the effectiveness of collaboration stands-out, as projects cannot be delivered by one or a few people working in isolation. Those leading projects often find themselves pushing and pulling against the rest of the organization in their attempts to make it happen.

Why don’t teams do better? Well, many factors shape these numbers, as we will see next.

What’s Happened to Productivity?

Productivity and efficiency overall are running at 62%, suggesting a performance loss of up to 38%. That has major implications given the growing number of projects and pressure on resources.

Importantly, however, it is not that people are not working hard enough or are not fully committed. There are other factors at play, let’s explore them next:

Major Drain on Performance (≤60%)

Right Rewards: 49%
Right Resources: 55%
Right Place (WFO/WFH fit): 59%
Right Results (outcomes clarity): 60%

To put these numbers in context, the right results figure could be interpreted as suggesting that tech teams are off course in terms of the right result up to 40% of the time.

Other Performance losses

Right Time: 66%
Right Roles: 62%
Right Way (ways of working): 62%

Strengths (≥75%)

Right People: 76%
Right Work (prioritized): 75%

What are the implications? Well, the people and work foundations are largely in place; but role clarity and ways of working need improvement. However, the biggest drains are rewards, resourcing, workplace setup, and outcomes clarity.

It is difficult to see how the numbers for performance and potential (67 and 68% as seen above) can be increased, without addressing these factors.

The figure of 49% for right rewards could be considered evidence of a motivational crisis regarding project work. Often there is too much pain and not enough gain associated with new projects, especially when added to an already busy day job.

While there are questions about financial project incentives, this ‘isn’t just a matter of paychecks, but of passion too.’ This is particularly, true where leaders have multiple projects, many of which may be lacking a meaningful project why.

The great paradox is that resources are rated at 68%, while we have seen that the typical tech team is operating at just 67% of its full potential.

Here is another way of visualizing the data in this report: