Nearly one in three enterprise projects is failing to deliver meaningful financial or strategic value, highlighting the growing cost of rigid planning models in an increasingly volatile business environment, according to new research from Tempo Software.
The company’s 2026 State of Strategic Portfolio Management report, based on a global survey of 667 planning and PMO leaders across 43 countries, points to a widening performance gap between organisations that have adopted adaptive planning approaches and those relying on more traditional methods.
High-performing organisations reported achieving measurable returns or strategic value on 81 per cent of projects, compared with just 45 per cent among peers using conventional planning frameworks. In a modelled scenario, that disparity equates to as much as $260m in lost value a year for a large enterprise, driven by misaligned priorities, slow decision-making and investment in low-impact work.
The findings suggest that many companies continue to pay a high price for inflexible plans that struggle to keep pace with changing market conditions. Nearly a third of projects are cancelled or stopped early because they no longer align with strategy or fail to demonstrate a clear return — a figure the report frames as evidence of weak prioritisation rather than execution failure.
By contrast, a small cohort identified as “dynamic planners” consistently outperform by combining scenario planning, integrated portfolio processes and frequent re-evaluation of priorities. These organisations are more likely to stop underperforming initiatives early, reallocate resources quickly and maintain alignment between strategy and delivery.
Teams that use scenario planning reported project success rates 17 percentage points higher than those that do not, while companies with integrated portfolio processes achieved 14 percentage points higher returns than those operating in silos. Frequent review cycles were also associated with better outcomes, despite higher cancellation rates — a phenomenon the report describes as the “cancellation paradox”.
Visibility remains a major constraint. Only 37 per cent of organisations said they have good or complete oversight across projects, compared with more than 80 per cent among those with fully integrated portfolio systems. Understanding true team capacity was cited as the single biggest barrier to executing strategy, ahead of prioritisation and resource allocation.
Vic Chynoweth, chief executive of Tempo Software, said the results exposed the hidden cost of static planning. “Adaptive portfolio management is ultimately about whether money, people and time are being directed towards work that delivers measurable value,” he said. “The strongest performers review frequently, use real execution data and increasingly leverage AI to inform decisions — and the returns follow.”
The message, he added, was not about predicting the future, but being ready to adapt to it.
