Standish CHAOS Report: The Source Behind "Two-Thirds of IT Projects Fail"
The CHAOS Report is the single most-cited source on IT project failure. This page gives the methodology, sample, definitions, and the canonical citation so you can use the number with confidence.
What is the Standish CHAOS Report?
The Standish CHAOS Report is the most-cited study of IT project outcomes, published by the Standish Group since 1994. It sorts every project into three buckets: successful, challenged, or failed. In CHAOS 2020, about 31% of projects were successful, 50% were challenged (late, over budget, or under-scoped), and 19% failed outright, which is the source of the widely-quoted claim that roughly two-thirds of IT projects do not fully succeed. The full report is paywalled; the figures below are the versions reported in open secondary sources.
The classification: success, challenged, failed
CHAOS uses three buckets, defined consistently since 1994. A project is "successful" only if it delivered on time, on the original budget, and with the agreed feature set. Anything that slipped on cost, schedule, or scope is "challenged". Anything that was cancelled before completion or never used post-delivery is "failed".
| Outcome | Definition | 2020 share (all projects) |
|---|---|---|
| Successful | On time, on budget, agreed features delivered, user-satisfaction met | About 31% |
| Challenged | Completed but late, over budget, or with reduced scope | About 50% |
| Failed | Cancelled, never used, or written off | About 19% |
Shares vary slightly by report year and project-size band. Small projects fare considerably better than large ones.
Success by project size: the strongest signal in the data
Standish has argued since 1994 that project size is the single most important factor in project outcome. The CHAOS 2015 breakdown (Modern Resolution, FY2011–2015) makes the point starkly: only 6% of the very largest "grand" projects succeed, against 61% of small projects. Small projects succeed at roughly ten times the rate of the largest, which is why the report's central recommendation is to break big projects into small ones.
| Project size | Successful | Challenged | Failed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grand | 6% | 51% | 43% |
| Large | 11% | 59% | 30% |
| Medium | 12% | 62% | 26% |
| Moderate | 24% | 64% | 12% |
| Small | 61% | 32% | 7% |
Resolution of all software projects by size, Standish Group CHAOS Report 2015, page 3 (Modern Resolution: OnTime, OnBudget, with a satisfactory result; FY2011–2015). Each row sums to 100%. Figures read directly from the primary report.
The trend: success has held near a third for a decade
On the Modern Resolution definition the all-projects success rate barely moves year to year. Across the five fiscal years in the CHAOS 2015 database it sat between 27% and 31%, and by CHAOS 2020 it was about 31%. The headline that "only about a third of IT projects succeed" has held for the past decade.
| Fiscal year | Successful | Challenged | Failed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 29% | 49% | 22% |
| 2012 | 27% | 56% | 17% |
| 2013 | 31% | 50% | 19% |
| 2014 | 28% | 55% | 17% |
| 2015 | 29% | 52% | 19% |
| 2020 (Beyond Infinity) | 31% | 50% | 19% |
Modern Resolution of all software projects, Standish Group CHAOS Report 2015, page 2 (FY2011–2015 rows); the 2020 row is the CHAOS 2020 "Beyond Infinity" split as reported in open secondary sources. Each year sums to 100%. FY2011–2015 figures read directly from the primary 2015 report.
CHAOS 2020: Beyond Infinity, the latest (and last) edition
When people search for "the CHAOS Report 2020", they mean CHAOS Report: Beyond Infinity, written by the Standish Group's Jim Johnson. It is the most recent full CHAOS Report and, by the Standish Group's own account, the last: the firm has said it is turning its research toward a "Flow" model and does not plan a further complete edition. Standish had issued a new CHAOS Report roughly every two years since 1994, so 2020 remains the current reference point, not a figure that a newer report has superseded.
Beyond Infinity moves past the raw successful / challenged / failed split and argues that outcomes are driven by three Factors of Success: a Good Sponsor, a Good Team, and a Good Place. It names decision latency (how long an organisation takes to make project decisions) as the root cause of project failure, and traces poor decision latency back to low emotional maturity in the people making the calls.
The report also presents its outcome figures under several definitions side by side (traditional, modern, pure, and its "Bull's Eye" measure), which is why the same 2020 report is quoted with different success percentages depending on which definition a source uses. The 31% successful / 50% challenged / 19% failed figures on this page are the classic (modern-resolution) split, the version most widely cited.
Standish Group International, CHAOS Report: Beyond Infinity (2020). Edition status and the Good Sponsor / Good Team / Good Place framework confirmed against the Standish Group product listing at standishgroup.com and a contemporaneous review of the report (verified August 2026).
Sample, methodology and limitations
Standish surveys IT executives directly. The CHAOS database is reported to hold more than 50,000 project records, with samples drawn for each annual report. The exact sample frame is not published, and the raw data is proprietary, which has drawn academic criticism (Eveleens and Verhoef 2010 in IEEE Software argued the report's definitions inflate failure rates).
For citation purposes you should treat CHAOS as an industry survey, not an audited dataset. It is reliable for direction (large projects struggle more than small ones, agile delivery outperforms waterfall) but the absolute percentages should be paired with methodology context.
Agile versus waterfall: the CHAOS 2015 finding
The single most-quoted result from the CHAOS Report is the agile-versus-waterfall comparison in the CHAOS Report 2015. Across more than 10,000 software projects (FY2011–2015), scored on the Modern Resolution definition (OnTime, OnBudget, with a satisfactory result), agile projects succeeded at almost four times the rate of waterfall projects, and waterfall projects failed at roughly three times the agile rate. The gap widens sharply with project size: waterfall barely scales, while agile holds up.
| Project size | Method | Successful | Challenged | Failed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All sizes | Agile | 39% | 52% | 9% |
| Waterfall | 11% | 60% | 29% | |
| Large | Agile | 18% | 59% | 23% |
| Waterfall | 3% | 55% | 42% | |
| Medium | Agile | 27% | 62% | 11% |
| Waterfall | 7% | 68% | 25% | |
| Small | Agile | 58% | 38% | 4% |
| Waterfall | 44% | 45% | 11% |
CHAOS RESOLUTION BY AGILE VERSUS WATERFALL, Standish Group CHAOS Report 2015, page 7. "Successful" here uses the Modern Resolution definition (OnTime, OnBudget, with a satisfactory result), not the older OnTime/OnBudget/OnTarget definition, so the success percentages are lower than in reports that use the traditional metric. Figures verified against the primary report.
How to cite
Authoritative source: standishgroup.com
Direct CHAOS report PDFs are paywalled. The PMI library and IEEE Software contain peer reviews and secondary citations that are openly accessible.