Why Important Projects Keep Failing

We have the tools, but not the results

Project management has become a profession, and its practitioners are well equipped with a seemingly endless choice of new applications to record, direct, remind, de-conflict, and decongest pathways to project completion. Applied most often in complex IT implementations but increasingly in a wider variety of activities, project management is intended to aid completion by breaking big projects into discrete tasks, assigning responsibility for those tasks to groups and individuals, aligning the resources necessary for task completion, recording progress toward goal completion and constantly reminding people of what should be happening by when. ClickUp, Monday.com and Asana are among the most popular of these tools, but many more exist and increasingly are tailored to specific types of project management needs.

Despite the proliferation of project managers and much more sophisticated tools, the failure rate of large IT implementations hasn’t changed much since these tools became widely available. According to a 2025 study of 369 projects by Andre Ripla, only 23% were regarded as fully successful while the average cost overrun was 189%. Any of the platform providers will tell you that’s not the fault of their product. What’s going on then? Well, no surprise, it’s us.

Appointing professionals to manage projects without providing the necessary support they need is still far too common an occurrence. Even though they have better tools to help with documentation and communication, they can’t fix misaligned incentives, weak executive buy-in, under-resourced training, and poor change leadership. I say change leadership because contrary to some claims, change management is usually pretty good in instances of large, expensive projects. Change management is making sure the change is planned and communicated. Change leadership is getting people fully onboard and committed. It’s the latter where we struggle. In fact, the more project managers try to force commitment, the more they tend to just create resentment. Even though project managers are “officially” appointed by leadership, they are about as popular as your local zoning inspector. Employees know when leaders have delegated authority for tasks they don’t want to be involved in themselves and they resent the abuse of delegated power. “Either we’re all in this together or we aren’t in it at all”. That’s not the fault of the project manager, except in that they accepted a role for which there was plenty of evidence that they wouldn’t be loved.

Some of the common obstacles project managers run into are systems that are not customized for local implementation, under-funded training for end-users, poor data quality and migration, the inability to enforce new ways of working, a lack of cross-functional coordination, political maneuvering, and leaders washing their hands of problems. Then, it’s as if the entire system has been waiting for an opportunity to act out and this is it. Why does this happen, not just in one organization, but in so many? Clearly, project management itself is not the problem. There’s a deeper underlying cause.

People understand that large, complex projects like the installation of a new IT system or the integration of a strategic acquisition are intended to help the organization be more successful. They can even make the link between the success of such efforts and their own future. It’s not that they hate the organization and want these initiatives to fail. They may fear that they will lose their job due to automation and there’s some evidence to support that happening. But I don’t think that’s what’s behind the foot-dragging and sabotage.

I believe it’s that people need to feel that they matter. Large strategic change projects are all about the business results that they will produce and not at all about what will happen to people. No leader I know of starts a major IT project with the goal of providing something more meaningful for employees to do. Leaders and the project managers who act on their behalf too often assume unquestioning compliance, treating people like inert objects rather than sentient beings. It’s as if people only exist to enable new machines to do the work they do. In the face of such an assault on their feelings of status and self-worth, people push back or act out in ways that are both unexpected and unhelpful.

Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham developed a theory and accompanying instrument to measure the inherent motivating capacity of jobs that have been widely used for decades. The Job Diagnostic Survey measures five elements of jobs that produce motivation: Task significance, task identity (completeness), skill variety, feedback, and autonomy. If you are a senior executive, your job has all these things in abundance. If you work in accounting, not so much. You treasure the importance of the work you do and you may receive feedback from the work itself that you are doing it correctly or incorrectly. However, your role is probably lacking in feeling that you have control over how the work is done, using a wide range of your talents, or being able to improve the overall process of financial management. Along comes a new system you didn’t ask for that threatens to take away the few positive things you have and naturally, you aren’t very appreciative. You envision a future in which you funnel spreadsheets into a program that does the rest, like a tax accountant who organizes clients’ data but no longer has to use their expertise to complete IRS forms. Your job has been “dumbed down” for the sake of efficiency. Someone else decided that they didn’t need your help to redesign your work and your life. You’re just a cog in the machine (for those of you who haven’t been around a machine lately, a “cog” is an individual tooth on a gear, or simply a small replaceable part).

I’ve observed many people being incredibly helpful in redesigning work, even when their jobs are at stake. They are like loyal dogs who, even if mistreated, chase the stick every time you throw it. That’s because the need to be valued for one’s thoughts and contributions is so strong. Even if they know they are likely to be sent packing, they will help for now and find meaning in their next job. Not everyone, but a lot of people. On the other hand, almost no one appreciates being sent packing without being asked how they could help, as if they had nothing to contribute. “Treat me like a cog and I’ll act like a cog”.

It’s easy to dismiss such feelings if you think people don’t matter. But then, you need to be willing to accept a 23% success rate for your key projects.