Index
- False myths about software project failure
- The real neglected causes
- Too many doubts, few answers
- The illusion of technological choices
- Software development is not an end in itself
- A change of perspective
- Conclusion
Over the last years, software project failure rates have remained surprisingly high. According to recent studies, a large proportion of projects fail to achieve their goals; only 33 percent are considered complete successes, while many others are plagued by budget, time, or functionality problems. But why does this happen so often?
Many false myths exist and are put forward as the main causes: outdated technologies, poorly qualified teams or over-ambitious requirements. While there is some truth in these clichés, the reality is much more complex. The true reasons that lead to failure are often hidden beneath the surface. In this article, we will explore the real causes that undermine the success of software projects and discuss how to avoid the most common mistakes. We will also look at what can be done concretely to improve project management, to make software a strategic ally rather than a problem to be solved.
False myths about software project failure
Quando un progetto software fallisce, spesso si tende a cercare la colpa in errori di pianificazione o nell'adozione di tecnologie errate. Si pensa immediatamente che il problema risieda nella selezione dell'architettura, nei processi di sviluppo o nella mancanza di competenze tecniche del team. Tuttavia, la realtà è più complessa.
Per esempio, si potrebbe pensare che la pianificazione sia superficiale, ma nella maggior parte dei casi, le aziende e i team dedicano moltissimo tempo a decidere quali tecnologie adottare. Ogni decisione, dall’architettura monolitica ai microservizi, fino all’approccio client-server, viene valutata accuratamente, bilanciando vantaggi e svantaggi.
Anche il processo di sviluppo selezionato non sembra essere la causa principale del fallimento. Molti team adottano metodologie affermate come Scrum o altre varianti agili, che sono generalmente riconosciute come strumenti efficaci per organizzare il lavoro e raggiungere gli obiettivi. Sebbene questi approcci non siano perfetti, sono comunque ampiamente utilizzati e, se implementati correttamente, offrono buoni risultati.
Cosa dire, allora, delle competenze del team? In genere, le persone che lavorano ai progetti software sono selezionate proprio per le loro conoscenze specifiche. Se un'azienda sceglie una tecnologia come Elixir, si forma un team di esperti in quel campo. Eppure, nonostante tutto questo, il progetto potrebbe non rispettare le tempistiche, sforare il budget o fallire nel raggiungere lo scopo previsto.
La domanda quindi rimane: perché così tanti progetti software falliscono?
When a software project fails, there is often a tendency to blame planning errors or the adoption of the wrong technologies. The problem is immediately thought to lie in architecture selection, development processes or the team's lack of technical skills. However, the reality is much more complex.
For example, you might think that planning is superficial, but in most cases, companies and teams spend a lot of time deciding which technologies to adopt. Every decision, from monolithic architecture to microservices to a client-server approach, is carefully evaluated, balancing advantages and disadvantages.
Even the development process selected does not seem to be the main cause of failure. Many teams adopt established methodologies such as Scrum or other agile variants, which are generally recognised as effective tools for organising work and achieving goals. Even though these approaches are not perfect, they are still widely used and, if implemented correctly, deliver good results.
So what about the skills of the team? Usually, the people working on software projects are selected precisely for their specific knowledge. If a company chooses a technology such as Elixir, a team of experts in that field is formed. Yet in spite of all this, the project may not be on schedule, may go over budget or may fail to achieve its intended purpose.
The question therefore remains: why do so many software projects fail?
The real neglected causes
Software project failure is almost never a mere technical issue. While tools, technologies and processes can certainly play a role, what is often missing is another fundamental element: an understanding of the project's context and objectives.
Most teams are perfectly aligned from a technical point of view, but are completely disconnected from the overall project vision. This disconnection becomes evident when you step in as an external consultant. Imagine a project to develop an order management platform for an e-commerce company. During a meeting, someone asks: ‘How does the order management process currently work within the company?’. Instead of a clear answer, the team looks at each other bewildered: no one has a clear understanding of the workflow or the actual needs of the logistics department. If developers do not know how an order is handled from purchase to delivery, how can they build an appropriate solution to improve it? This kind of gap in basic understanding inevitably compromises the project.
If a development team does not understand the underlying problem that the software is supposed to solve, how can it realise a valid solution? Developing software is not an end in itself, but a means to solve specific problems. When teams ignore the real context or do not ask enough questions, it is inevitable that projects will derail.
Too many doubts, few answers
Software development requires a deep understanding of the problem you are trying to solve. However, it is common for many teams to work in isolation, implicitly assuming that they know the answers. Not enough questions are asked about business processes, end-user needs, or the contexts in which the software will be used. And even when there are exchanges between team members, everyone often speaks a different ‘language’, interpreting the same problem differently. This leads to misunderstandings that accumulate over time, until the common vision of the project is compromised.
A project that already starts with conceptual gaps is likely to fail to live up to expectations. At that point, attempts are made to patch up the problems, increasing costs and time. But addressing only the symptoms without resolving the root causes does not improve the quality of the software, which ends up being unsuitable, full of compromises and ineffective with respect to the initial objectives.
The illusion of technological choices
When a project fails or does not turn out as developed as imagined, someone often suggests that a different technology should have been chosen. Technology becomes the scapegoat: choices such as using Java instead of Python, or a monolithic architecture instead of microservices are blamed. Yet, this diagnosis is almost always misleading. Technology is only a tool and its failure is more often the result of wrong strategic choices or a lack of understanding of the problem, rather than of the technology itself.
Software development is not an end in itself
To improve the quality of software development and reduce time and costs, we must start from a different basis: a collective, interdisciplinary understanding of the project. It is not enough to be technology experts, it is necessary for each team member to have a solid understanding of the problem that the software must solve. Although not everyone needs to become an expert in the specific domain, a basic understanding is essential to develop accurate and targeted functionality.
The key to achieving this is good communication. The team must continuously exchange information and understand the dynamics of the project and the business processes involved. Tools such as domain-driven design or design thinking can be useful to create a common language and ensure that everyone is aligned.
A change of perspective
Many developers are used to thinking in terms of data, objects and static structures. However, the real value of software lies in the functionality and processes it enables, not simply in the management of data. The transition from a data-oriented to a business process-oriented mindset is crucial. Software does not exist to manage data, but to automate and support real business processes. Data is certainly important, but it is only a means to realise the functions that bring the system to life.
Conclusion
To reduce the failure rate of software projects, it is not enough to focus only on technologies and processes. It is crucial to create a shared vision and common understanding of the project from the very beginning. The key to success is the continuous involvement of all participants, from the technical team to business stakeholders, in an open and interactive communication process. It is only through interdisciplinary collaboration, supported by methodologies such as domain-driven design, that we can develop software solutions that not only work, but truly solve the problems for which they were created.
If you want your software project to have a solid foundation, it is crucial to rely on experienced partners who know how to combine technology and business. DevInterface specialises in the development of tailor-made solutions, offering not only advanced technical expertise, but also UX/UI design services to ensure that the software is intuitive and pleasant to use. With experience in Fractional CTO, technology consulting, and effective user interface design, DevInterface helps you create software that not only works, but meets user needs and aligns with your business objectives.
By working with us, you benefit from comprehensive support covering all aspects of development, from business process analysis to intuitive interface design and technical development, ensuring successful results, reduced time and optimised costs. Contact us now.
