Why technology initiatives still go off course—and what leaders can do about it.
Since I first wrote about IT project failure rates, this article has remained one of the most-read pieces on my website. That tells me the problem has not gone away.
The statistics have changed over time, as have the ways organizations define project success. But one conclusion has remained remarkably consistent: technology initiatives rarely succeed or fail because of technology alone.
Leadership, communication, decision-making, governance and relationships all play a major role.
Recent research gives us a more nuanced picture than the old idea that every project is simply a success or a failure.
PMI’s 2024–2025 research found that among IT projects, 53% were rated successful, 37% produced mixed results and 10% were rated failures. Importantly, PMI now evaluates success more broadly—looking at whether a project creates value that justifies the effort and expense, rather than relying only on schedule and budget. (Project Management Institute)
At the same time, BCG’s 2024 research into large-scale technology programs found that more than two-thirds were not expected to be delivered on time, within budget and within their defined scope. Only about 30% met all three expectations. BCG also identified weak business-and-technology collaboration, unclear scope, poor governance and difficulty managing dependencies among the recurring causes. (BCG Global)
The percentages are not directly comparable because the studies define projects and success differently. But the underlying message is consistent: complex technology initiatives remain difficult, and many of the reasons have less to do with technology than with how people lead and work together.
Having spent years working with and coaching CIOs, technology executives and business leaders, I continue to see the same issues surface.
Before a project begins, leaders need to agree on what success actually means.
That sounds obvious, yet organizations often move into execution before answering some basic questions:
Without that clarity, teams can work very hard and still arrive at different conclusions about whether they delivered what was promised.
Large technology initiatives often begin with optimism. That is understandable. Leaders need conviction to fund and launch difficult work.
But optimism should not replace scrutiny.
A weak or superficial business case, poorly defined scope, unrealistic planning assumptions and reluctance to accept sunk costs can keep organizations committed to a path long after the warning signs appear.
The most effective leaders keep asking: What has changed? What have we learned? Does the original case still hold?
Good governance is not about defending the original plan. It is about making better decisions as reality becomes clearer.
Technology projects cannot become “the IT department’s project.”
Business leaders and users may be heavily involved at the beginning and then get pulled away by competing priorities. When that happens, requirements become less clear, decisions slow down and testing or change management becomes something people try to fit around their regular jobs.
That creates risk.
Successful technology delivery requires continuing ownership from both the business and technology sides. BCG’s recent research similarly found that poor business–technology collaboration and lack of shared leadership can undermine sponsorship and execution. (BCG Global)
The business cannot simply hand off a problem and wait for technology to return with the answer.
I have seen this repeatedly throughout my career: organizations underestimate the importance of disciplined project management.
A strong project manager does much more than maintain schedules and run meetings. He or she surfaces risk, forces decisions, tracks dependencies, challenges assumptions and keeps people accountable.
Senior leaders also have a role.
They do not need to manage every task, but they do need enough visibility to understand what is changing, where risk is building and which decisions require their involvement. They also need to understand which change management activities are critical to successful adoption and ensure those efforts receive the attention and resources they need.
The best senior executive I worked with on major projects understood the details well enough to ask difficult questions and hold people accountable without trying to do everyone else’s job.
That kind of attention matters.
No project begins with perfect information, and modern development methods rightly allow teams to learn and adapt along the way.
But flexibility is not the same as ambiguity.
Whether an organization uses agile, waterfall or a hybrid approach, teams still need clarity about the business problem, intended outcomes, priorities and decision-making authority.
“Just give me something and we’ll figure it out later” may feel fast in the moment. It often creates expensive rework later.
The goal is not to eliminate change. It is to make sure change is deliberate rather than accidental.
This is the point I would emphasize even more strongly today.
Technology leaders operate at the intersection of competing priorities. They negotiate with business partners, manage expectations, resolve conflict, deliver difficult messages and frequently have to explain complicated issues to people who do not share their technical background.
That requires more than technical expertise.
It requires emotional intelligence, communication skills and strong relationships.
A CIO, CTO or technology leader may have the right technical answer and still struggle to move an organization forward if stakeholders do not trust the process, understand the tradeoffs or feel heard.
As responsibility grows, the ability to influence across the organization becomes as important as technical knowledge.
There is no formula that can eliminate the complexity of major technology initiatives. But leaders can improve the environment in which those projects operate.
Agree on the outcomes, value and priorities before arguing about technology. Everyone should understand what the organization is trying to accomplish and why.
Bring accountable leaders from both sides to the table. Build trust, surface problems early and make decision rights clear.
If a delivery date will be missed or expected functionality will change, say so. Transparency builds credibility; surprises destroy it.
Technology should not sit downstream waiting for strategy to arrive.
Technology leaders need to understand where the business is going, and business leaders need to understand the technology capabilities and constraints that will shape what is possible.
People need to understand what is coming, what depends on what, and what value should be delivered at each stage.
BCG’s research emphasizes the importance of a clear roadmap, transparent tracking and deliberate management of dependencies in successful large-scale technology programs. (BCG Global)
Do not wait for a status report to turn red before having the difficult conversation.
Pick up the phone. Bring the right people together. Discuss tradeoffs before they become crises.
A process can support good relationships, but it cannot replace them.
For organizations developing technology internally, the development process needs to be repeatable, flexible and capable of delivering value incrementally.
At the same time, invest in the people leading that work.
Project discipline, technical capability and leadership capability reinforce one another. Organizations need all three.
Technology projects will always involve uncertainty, competing demands and technical complexity.
But many of the problems I have seen over the years ultimately come back to alignment, communication, accountability, trust and relationships.
Those are leadership issues.
And unlike many technical constraints, they are capabilities leaders and organizations can deliberately strengthen.
For CIOs, CTOs and other technology executives, that is increasingly part of the job: not simply delivering technology, but helping the organization make good decisions about technology and bringing people along with those decisions.
Whether you’re stepping into a broader role, leading a growing team or navigating complex organizational dynamics, a conversation with Frank is a good place to start.