Is the small-project advantage in CHAOS really that consistent?

Yes — the size-success relationship is one of the most stable findings the Standish Group has reported across CHAOS editions. Smaller projects show materially higher Successful rates and lower Failed rates than larger ones. The full reports are paywalled; the size-success relationship is widely cited in academic and industry literature.

Doesn't a smaller scope mean less business value?

Less scope does not mean less value if the scope chosen targets a real bottleneck. Ries's MVP definition (2011) is explicit on this: an MVP must be a complete enough slice to test the value hypothesis, not just a fragment. A focused first build is a narrower bet, not a smaller one.

How does this relate to McKinsey's findings on large IT projects?

The McKinsey–Oxford 2012 study of 5,400+ large IT projects found average 45% budget overrun and 56% value shortfall, with poor up-front problem framing repeatedly cited. A smaller first build is the operating response: contain the bet until the assumptions are tested.

Why the Right First Build is Usually Smaller than Leadership Expects

An insight on why the right first build is usually smaller than leadership expects from CodeCraft Enterprise.