Why waiting time is one of the biggest hidden drains on project performance
Most organisations talk about speed, efficiency and time to market. Yet many projects still suffer from long periods of waiting – often without anyone fully understanding why they occur, what they cost, or how they can be reduced.
Waiting time in projects is rarely neutral. It delays delivery, increases costs, drains motivation and, in some cases, brings progress to a complete halt. Despite this, waiting time is often accepted as “just the way projects are”.
It doesn’t have to be.
In collaboration with Aarhus University and Aalborg University, kaastrup|andersen has conducted an in‑depth study of waiting time in projects. The results reveal clear patterns – and equally clear opportunities for action.
What do we mean by waiting time?
Waiting time occurs when a project cannot progress as planned due to missing input, decisions, resources or actions. Sometimes it is expected and built into the plan. At other times it is unexpected and disruptive.
The distinction matters – but both types of waiting time have consequences.
Our study shows that while many waiting periods allow partial progress, around 30% of all waiting time causes projects to come to a complete standstill. And once a project is stalled, it becomes fragile: one waiting period easily triggers the next.
A project at a standstill creates no value. At best, it consumes time and attention. At worst, it erodes trust, increases costs and weakens engagement across the organisation.
Where waiting time really occurs
The study is based on 25 technology projects in large Danish companies, all following a traditional, phase‑based project model. To ensure comparability, the projects were analysed across three main phases:
- Business Case
- Development
- Test
The results are striking.
Nearly half (48%) of all unexpected waiting time occurs during the Development phase, while only 26% occurs in each of the two other phases.
This is not accidental. Development is where uncertainty peaks, estimates are hardest and dependencies are most complex. It is also where projects rely most heavily on timely decisions, cross‑functional coordination and access to scarce resources.
In other words: this is where weak governance and unclear responsibilities hurt the most.
The real cause is not technology
Perhaps the most important insight from the study is this:
90% of unexpected waiting time is caused by human factors.
Only 10% is caused by technical issues.
Waiting time is rarely about systems failing or technology not working. It is far more often about:
- decisions that are delayed or never made
- unclear roles and responsibilities
- steering committees that are hard to access
- key stakeholders who are over‑committed
- priorities that shift without alignment
Crucially, most causes are internal. That means organisations can do something about them.
Steering committees: the bottleneck few talk about
One pattern stands out across the data: waiting time is often linked to missing access to – or action from – the steering committee.
When decisions are postponed, meetings cancelled or authority unclear, projects wait. And projects rarely recover lost time on their own.
This points to a fundamental leadership question:
If projects are critical to strategy execution, why is governance so often under‑prioritised?
Experience shows that organisations reduce waiting time significantly when they challenge how steering committees work and ask questions such as:
- Are we truly decision‑ready at this level?
- Do members understand and act on their role?
- Is steering committee work prioritised in calendars – not just on paper?
- Is decision authority clearly defined and respected?
Waiting time is not a project management problem alone. It is a governance issue.
Development delays are predictable - and manageable
That waiting time peaks in the Development phase should not come as a surprise. This is where tasks are hardest to estimate and uncertainty is highest.
But this also makes the opportunity clear.
Organisations that:
- break work down more rigorously
- rely systematically on experience from previous projects
- and treat uncertainty as something to manage, not ignore
…are far better equipped to reduce waiting time where it hurts most.
Don’t accept waiting as the cost of doing business
Completely eliminating waiting time is unrealistic. But minimising it is absolutely achievable – and the gains are significant.
The study points to a simple conclusion: Waiting time is best reduced by looking closely at organisation, roles and decision‑making, not by adding more tools or processes.
At a strategic level, leaders should ask themselves:
- If time to market is critical, why are long decision delays acceptable?
- Why is it acceptable to cancel key governance meetings, knowing the knock‑on effects on cost and delivery?
Waiting time is not an abstract inefficiency. It is a measurable drain on value creation.
And once you start paying attention to it, it becomes very hard to ignore.
Want to know more?
Practical advice to help minimise waiting time in your projects
- Ensure that members of the steering committee are accessible, understand their roles and have the right decision‑making authority.
- Make the project manager’s decision‑making authority explicit, so it is exercised effectively and the steering committee does not become a bottleneck for minor decisions.
- Break down tasks into the smallest possible units to reduce dependencies and uncertainty.
- Draw on experience from similar projects. Look closely at where waiting time arose previously and incorporate these insights into new project plans.
- Maintain close and continuous dialogue with areas where experience shows that unexpected waiting time is likely to occur.
- Be proactive and anticipate that unexpected waiting time may arise. Early attention makes it easier to address issues constructively and make productive use of the time.
- Keep a strong focus on stakeholder management, as human factors are the most common cause of waiting time.
