The Insider Lens is a weekly newsletter on leadership, risk, and delivery in public sector projects. Get practical insight every Friday — sign up here.
There’s something I’ve seen over and over again on large projects — and it almost always starts early. The bigger the project, the more excited teams are to dive in and dream big.
Which is only understandable: so many public sector services have been around for a long time, so it can be exhilarating to be a part of building something new.
But that enthusiasm can plant the seeds of its undoing pretty quickly if the team jumps too far, too fast.
How?
By not even figuring out where they’re meant to go.
What Columbus Taught Us About Failed Smart City Ambitions
Obviously every project will have a set of outcomes that drive the project. No one actually begins work on something without first figuring out the very basic premise.
But the form of any one outcome can take a thousand directions, and failing to identify the project needs is where many projects, well, fail.
As an example, I recently did a deep dive on a well-documented smart city project failure in Columbus, Ohio – its “Smart City” program – devised a dozen initiatives to make their transit system more modern, more accessible, and easier than ever to use.
So they developed multiple apps, each one designed to serve a specific purpose: plan a transit trip, arrange shared transportation, find medical services for pregnant women.
They were all forward-thinking ideas, and all built to make their citizens’ lives easier.
The only problem?
Those citizens didn’t seem to want them.
The Need That Was Assumed, Not Tested
The over-arching need behind the program seemed obvious to everyone involved: there were communities within the city that did not have as much easy access to public transit as others.
And when the federal government announced a competition for funding to solve this very type of problem – and Columbus won $40 million from that competition – the city was eager to put their big plans into action.
They identified the problem and they asked stakeholders for feedback – so we can’t say that the project team operated in a silo.
But the “need” part of a needs analysis is, surprisingly, the most overlooked element. Because teams often employ the needs analysis to fill in the blanks after the plan is already half-cooked, and many “needs” are then assumed.
The Columbus case is a reminder that every smart city project failure begins when teams assume needs rather than validate them.
In a metropolitan area of 2.2 million people:
- the flagship user app, named “Pivot,” was downloaded only 1,100 times, resulting in 447 trips;
- the app designed to offer pregnant women trips for medical purposes gained 143 users; and
- the Smart Mobility Hubs was leveraged to plan a grand total of eight (not 800) trips.
With so many options already in the marketplace, Columbus residents apparently felt that they didn’t need more alternatives.
A Common Missed Step
Like so many standard project management procedures, sometimes the most-performed ones can seem the most routine.
But there are some steps – like conducting the needs analysis – that can make the difference between innovation and smart city project failure.
Because while it’s easy to fill out the form and call it “done” in the early days, it could very soon be that your project is “done” before you’ve even had a chance to turn it around.
What’s the most overlooked “obvious” step you’ve seen getting skipped? I’d love to hear how it played out – just hit reply and let me know what shows up in your world.
Many public sector projects — including high-profile smart city project failures — fall apart because no one asked the right questions early enough. The Project Health Check helps you spot the early warning signs before it’s too late.
