Your portfolio hits 98% of its spending target. Leadership celebrates. But individual projects tell a different story: delayed scope, panic Q4 purchases, work pushed to next year.

Albert Brier and Nate Habermeyer dissect why annualized capital budgets consistently fail to deliver planned value despite meeting spending goals.

The data is clear: 20% of projects run behind schedule and 80% over budget. Yet organizations continue locking specific scopes to rigid annual funding windows. When delays hit—and they always do—spending shifts to outer years, creating artificial shortfalls and forcing low-quality purchases to avoid "use it or lose it" budget losses.

They outline two proven fixes:

Lean and continuous budgeting allocates funds to programs rather than specific projects. Quarterly planning sessions determine which projects to execute based on current conditions. Manufacturing facilities use this approach extensively.

Risk-adjusted annual planning maintains project-specific budgets but applies realistic timelines based on historical performance. If projects typically run 30% behind, budget for 9 months instead of 6. Use freed capacity to start additional projects mid-year.

The conversation includes anecdotes of ExxonMobil's 25% schedule contingency practices, GAO's Navy shipbuilding research from the 1990s, and refinery debottlenecking program examples.

Both approaches require one critical first step: quantify your historical schedule variance. Without data proving current failures, you cannot build the business case for change.

Presented by Dokainish & Company www.dokainish.com

The Risky Planner podcast delivers expert insights on project controls, capital project management, and strategic planning for today's complex business environment. Subscribe for regular episodes featuring industry leaders and practical advice.