Is the use of project finance modelling driving businesses toward unnecessary over-budgeting?

97% of organisations agree—project management is critical to business success.

Businesses invest heavily in project finance modelling to stay on budget, yet projects continue to overshoot. So, where is the disconnect?

The hidden trade-off: Does a focus on accuracy come at the cost of agility?

Three of the biggest reasons for project failure are:

• Shifting organisational priorities
• Changing project goals
• Inaccurate requirement gathering

Even the most well-planned projects can struggle if they lack flexibility and alignment. Financial models provide structure, but without the ability to adapt to change, they can become a limitation rather than a guide. How can businesses strike the right balance between precision and adaptability? 

How project finance modelling creates ‘false safety’

Financial modelling is designed to keep projects on track, offering a structured approach to cost estimation, risk assessment, and budget control. Yet, despite these efforts, project overruns remain a persistent issue.

• 50% of projects exceed their budgets.
• 65% of mega projects (over $1 billion) fail, with failure often defined as a 25% budget overrun.
• The average project cost overrun is 27%.

If businesses are investing in financial models to maintain control, why do these failures keep happening? The issue is not with modelling itself but how it influences decision-making, sometimes creating a false sense of security rather than real financial discipline.

The over-cautious forecasting trap: Risk aversion vs. realism

Budget forecasts are often designed to mitigate uncertainty, but in doing so, they can become overly cautious. Contingency padding is added at multiple levels—departments account for risk, finance teams add their buffers, and leadership applies further adjustments. This results in inflated budgets that do not reflect actual project needs, leading to unnecessary constraints or unchecked spending.

The domino effect: How padded budgets lead to complacency

When budgets are set too high, they can foster a culture of complacency in cost control. Instead of driving efficiency, teams may view the available budget as a target to be spent rather than a limit to be managed. This creates a domino effect where cost discipline takes a backseat, leading to gradual yet significant overruns.

The psychological play: When bigger budgets justify bigger spending

A well-known behavioural bias in project management is cost justification—the idea that a larger budget makes higher spending acceptable. When teams perceive that there is financial flexibility, they may approve additional expenses that seem reasonable in isolation but add up over time. This is particularly evident in mega projects, where the scale of investment can make individual overruns feel insignificant until they accumulate into substantial losses.

Balancing project finance modelling with realistic cost control

Financial models are essential, but they must be paired with realistic cost governance and adaptive risk management. 

Instead of relying solely on upfront budget estimations, businesses should:

• Incorporate continuous cost monitoring to adjust financial projections as the project progresses.
• Encourage cost accountability at all levels, ensuring teams justify expenditures based on necessity rather than budget availability.
• Adopt agile financial planning, allowing flexibility without falling into excessive risk aversion.

Project finance modelling should not serve as a safety net for inefficiencies—it should be a dynamic guide that evolves with project realities. When used correctly, it can drive smarter decision-making rather than reinforcing a false sense of financial security.

The flip side: What happens without project finance modelling?

Project finance modelling is often criticised for creating a false sense of security, leading to inflated budgets and unchecked spending. However, the absence of structured financial planning is far worse. Without it, projects are left vulnerable to uncertainty, funding risks, and catastrophic overruns.

Organisations collectively waste $1 million every 20 seconds due to poor project management practices—amounting to $2 trillion in annual losses. This is not just a budgeting issue; it is a fundamental flaw in how projects are planned, executed, and controlled.

History is full of high-profile projects that failed due to inadequate financial forecasting. From public infrastructure projects running out of funds midway to tech rollouts that underestimated costs, the pattern is clear—when financial planning is weak, failure is almost inevitable.

Why structured forecasting is essential for securing funding

Investors and stakeholders rely on financial models to assess risk and feasibility. Without structured forecasting, securing funding for large-scale projects becomes significantly more difficult.

• Banks and investors need clear projections to justify loans and capital injections.
• Stakeholders require visibility on costs and timelines before committing resources.
• Governments and regulators demand transparent budgeting to approve public projects.

A well-structured financial model serves as a critical tool for decision-making, ensuring that projects are viable and accountable.

The difference between ‘over-budgeting’ and ‘financial discipline’

Critics argue that financial modelling often leads to over-budgeting, creating excess buffers that inflate costs. However, there is a key distinction between padding budgets and maintaining financial discipline:

• Over-budgeting assumes higher costs without clear justification, leading to complacency in cost control.
• Financial discipline uses data-driven forecasting to plan for risks while ensuring resources are allocated efficiently.

The goal should not be to eliminate financial models but refine them—ensuring they provide accurate, flexible, and realistic insights rather than artificial safety nets.

While financial modelling is not perfect, the alternative—operating without it—is far riskier. The key lies in finding the right balance between structured forecasting and adaptability. 

Projects must:

• Continuously refine financial models based on real-time data.
• Encourage accountability in budgeting rather than blind adherence to forecasts.
• Differentiate between necessary risk management and excessive caution.

Ultimately, financial modelling should act as a guiding framework rather than a rigid rulebook. Without it, projects risk falling into chaos, with costs spiralling out of control and funding drying up before completion.

Breaking free from the over-budgeting cycle

Traditional financial modelling has long been seen as the foundation of project success, but the reality tells a different story. Only 18% of companies prioritise strategic alignment, 14% focus on expected benefits, and another 14% consider ROI when making financial decisions. This suggests that financial models are often designed with a risk-first mindset, rather than one that drives real business value.

Is it time to rethink how projects are budgeted?

Rethinking assumptions: Are your risk buffers realistic or excessive?

Risk buffers exist to protect projects from unforeseen challenges, but when these buffers are excessive, they can lead to inflated budgets and inefficient spending. The question is not whether risk management is necessary, but whether risk-averse forecasting is costing more than it saves.

Organisations need to ask:

• Are contingency funds based on historical data, or are they arbitrary?
• Do buffers encourage accountability or create a “use it or lose it” mentality?
• How often are budgets reassessed in response to real-time changes?

A more strategic approach would mean calibrating risk buffers based on project complexity and actual probability, rather than worst-case assumptions.

Smarter forecasting: Leveraging AI and real-time data for leaner budgets

Traditional financial models rely heavily on static data and historical trends. But AI and real-time data analytics now allow for dynamic forecasting, where budgets adjust to actual project performance rather than relying on fixed assumptions.

Smarter forecasting enables:

• Predictive budgeting – Identifying cost overruns before they happen.
• Scenario modelling – Stress-testing different financial outcomes in real time.
• Automated cost tracking – Reducing manual errors and improving budget accuracy.

By integrating AI-driven forecasting, businesses can reduce unnecessary padding while maintaining financial resilience.

Dynamic modelling: Moving beyond static spreadsheets

Many companies still rely on static spreadsheets to manage project finances. The problem? Spreadsheets lack adaptability and fail to reflect real-time project changes. 

Dynamic financial modelling offers a more flexible approach by:

• Updating projections continuously based on new data.
• Providing real-time visibility into cost variations.
• Enhancing collaboration between finance and project teams.

With cloud-based financial planning tools and AI-driven analysis, businesses can move beyond rigid, one-time budget settings and instead implement adaptive financial planning that evolves with project realities.

Reinvent the project finance modelling with Kronos Group

Despite the advances in financial modelling, challenges remain:

• 91% of project managers report project management issues in their organisations.
• 55% cite budget overruns as a leading cause of project failure.
• 44% of projects fail due to misalignment between business and project objectives.

It is time for organisations to ask a critical question: Are your financial models enabling success or holding you back?

A true transformation in project finance modelling will not come from adding more risk buffers—it will come from rethinking how budgets are created, managed, and adjusted. With project management consulting expertise in governance, strategic alignment, and financial forecasting, we empower businesses. 

It is time to move beyond static projections and reactive decision-making. Let us help you transform your approach to project finance—so you can deliver projects on time, within budget, and with measurable impact.

Get in touch with Kronos Group today and rethink the way you manage projects.

FAQs