Why do tech projects fail and can we learn from past mistakes?

Two-thirds of large-scale technology programs still fail to deliver on their promises. Decades of lessons, billions spent, and yet the same mistakes repeat. Why? The Economist (May 2025) recently highlighted that IT initiatives continue to suffer from scope creep, poor stakeholder alignment, and weak execution discipline—patterns that repeat across industries regardless of scale . At the same time, newer trends such as AI bring their own challenges. A recent MIT study (August 2025) found that 95% of corporate generative AI pilots fail to deliver measurable returns, often because organizations chase hype rather than embedding AI into well-defined business processes. Together, these examples remind us that while technologies evolve, the underlying reasons for failure—unclear goals, lack of governance, and misalignment between strategy and execution—remain stubbornly persistent.

The Persistent Problem of Project Failure

Research consistently shows that large-scale programs such as ERP transformations, cloud migrations, or AI deployments are especially vulnerable. According to BCG, more than two-thirds of large-scale tech programs fail to meet timing, budget, or scope expectations. Panorama Consulting data, cited by BCG, shows that roughly a third of projects run over budget, with nearly 20% taking longer than expected . The impact goes beyond financial loss—when projects stall, they often create toxic environments marked by stress, misaligned priorities, and finger-pointing.

Lessons from the Trenches: Why Some Projects Beat the Odds

If failure is so common, the natural question becomes—why do some projects manage to succeed against the odds? The answer rarely lies in better technology alone. Instead, successful initiatives share a set of consistent practices:

• Clarity of Purpose – Projects that deliver measurable value start with clearly defined business goals, not aspirational slogans. Success depends on translating the “why” into practical guidance that every level of the team understands — from executives shaping direction to developers making daily trade-offs. Without that shared understanding, even strong execution loses direction.

• Disciplined Governance – Governance only works when it has teeth. Accountability must be supported at two levels: management backing to enforce priorities, and delivery leads enforcing checkpoints on the ground. Without both, misalignments grow quietly until they surface as budget overruns or scope chaos.

• Stakeholder Engagement – Engagement is not the responsibility of a single role — and pretending it is, guarantees failure. When executives set direction without owning trade-offs, or when architects aren’t asked to validate feasibility, no amount of goodwill can save delivery.

• Pragmatic Execution – Execution is where ambition meets reality. Teams that succeed align around achievable timelines, incremental wins, and open communication. True alignment across business, delivery, and technology prevents the endless cycle of adjustment and rework that derails so many programs.

Closing Thoughts

Project failure is not inevitable, but avoiding it requires discipline beyond technical expertise. The lessons are clear: define goals that matter, enforce governance that actually holds, engage stakeholders at every level, and execute with realism—not wishful thinking.

In my 30 years of building and leading large-scale programs for banks and insurance companies, I have seen how quickly good intentions collapse without these fundamentals. I’ve also seen how applying them consistently can turn even struggling initiatives into success stories.

I help organizations not only avoid these pitfalls but also establish repeatable practices that turn technology into a measurable driver of growth. 

What do you see as the biggest cause of project delays—unclear goals, weak governance, or something else?