The Impact of Politics on Project Success in Multi-Agent Projects

Authors: Professor Amos P Haniff, Professor Laura Galloway and Isabel Gilert

This research explores why multi-agent projects in the UK public sector succeed or fail. Projects involve government departments, private firms and third-sector organisations. We explore how political priorities, power shifts, and cross-organisational tensions shape outcomes and public value with the aim to identify lessons for better project delivery.

How to cite this research
Haniff, A. P., Galloway, L., & Gillert, I. M. (2026). The impact of politics on project success in multi-agent projects. Association for Project Management. https://doi.org/10.61175/A7F9K2QX

Why is this research relevant? 

UK public sector projects depend on collaboration between government, private, and third-sector organisations. Yet many fail to achieve their objectives. Why some succeed while others fall short remains an open question.

This research explains why multi-agent projects succeed or fail. It shows how political priorities, power dynamics, leadership, and organisational capability shape outcomes and public value.

The findings offer practical guidance for better project delivery. They highlight the importance of strong leadership, clear governance, skilled teams, and effective incentives. 

Who should read this report

• Senior civil servants and public sector leaders responsible for complex, cross-departmental programmes
• Ministers, special advisers, and policymakers involved in setting priorities and overseeing delivery
• Project and programme managers working on multi-agency initiatives
• Policy professionals and analysts focused on public value and governance
• Local authority leaders and public service commissioners managing partnerships and shared funding
• Private and third-sector partners engaged in government-led projects
• Researchers and students studying public administration, project management, or political governance

How was this research undertaken? 

The study used a qualitative research approach based on in-depth interviews with senior public sector figures who had experience of national-level government projects. Participants included elected parliamentarians and senior civil servants from Scottish and UK government departments. Local government officials were excluded to ensure consistency in project scale and context.

Ten experts took part following a targeted recruitment process and confidentiality assurances. Interviews used the Critical Incident Technique, which asked participants to reflect on specific project experiences, assess what worked or failed, explain outcomes, and identify lessons for future practice.

What did we discover?

Why government projects fail?

• Power dynamics: Political conflict, fragmented interests, shifting priorities, unclear funding, weak leadership.
• Public service challenges: Frequent role changes, uneven skills, lack of incentives.
• Project management issues: Poor planning, unclear objectives, limited training.

Why government projects succeed?

• Strong leadership: Clear authority, political understanding, effective coordination, conflict resolution.
• Collaborative communities: Cohesive, cross-departmental teams with shared goals.
• Effective power use: Political consensus and depoliticised delivery.

What improves performance?

• Promote cross-party collaboration and consensus.
• Enhance civil service skills, incentives, and leadership continuity.
• Provide structured training on project management and governance.

Key recommendations

• Strengthen leadership and accountability: Clarify roles, ensure governance, empower leaders.
• Build collaborative communities: Integrate stakeholders, encourage shared identity, hold problem-solving forums.
• Improve communication: Set clear roadmaps, maintain transparency, manage public and media perceptions.
• Improve project capability: Provide structured training, adopt standardised methodologies, adopt learning practices.
• Depoliticise delivery: Encourage bipartisan collaboration, use neutral mediation, protect teams from political pressures.
• Reform funding: Centralise budgets, tie funding to milestones, adjust resources based on risk.