Why Software Projects Fail: A Tech Leader’s Guide to Spotting the Early Signs

Intro

Think of the last software project you heard about that was delivered exactly on time, within budget, and with the right features. Hard to name one? You’re not alone. Studies show that most projects either run late, go over budget, or fail to meet expectations altogether.

The problem isn’t just technology. In fact, most failures have little to do with code. They come from poor decisions, unclear goals, unrealistic timelines, and teams that don’t have the right mix of skills. Code simply exposes the cracks that already existed.

The good news is that these failures follow a pattern. Once you understand the most common reasons projects go off track, you can prepare for them. You can build systems, teams, and habits that protect your project from the traps that derail so many others.

This article breaks down those reasons – based on real-world experience and research – and shows what to watch out for before it’s too late.

Why software projects fail – 6 reasons

Before we look at the specific causes, it’s important to recognize a deeper pattern behind them. Software projects rarely fail because of code – they fail because of decisions. Every delay, cost overrun, or feature that misses the mark usually stems from choices made long before development starts. Misaligned priorities, vague goals, and resistance to change all compound over time, eventually surfacing as “technical” problems. Understanding where those decisions go wrong is the first step toward preventing them – and it always starts with defining the right problem to solve.

1. Starting with the wrong problem 

Alberto Brandolini once said, “Software development is making decisions.” The first and most critical decision is whether the project deserves to exist. Too many don’t.

From my experience, teams often realize after launch that they solved the wrong problem. At that stage, they try quick fixes and refactors, hoping to bring the product closer to the real need. But, in reality, the system requires a restart. Yet, fear of sunk costs and business fallout prevents leaders from making that call. Managers protect budgets, executives avoid difficult conversations, and developers resist discarding months of effort. The result is a product that never achieves what it should.

A Redditor described this well: software development is closer to research than to engineering. Research accepts uncertainty, exploration, and failure along the way. Organizations demand predictability, they expect blueprints and schedules. Waterfall once promised that certainty and Agile introduced more flexibility. But neither changes the core fact that software creation unfolds as a process of discovery, not simple execution.

This connects directly to another major cause of failure i.e., unclear business outcomes. Research highlights three recurring issues – unclear goals (43%), unrealistic timelines (42%), and insufficient resources (36%). None of these problems sit in the code; they originate at the leadership level.

‍

Business is constantly learning its business. Any project that ignores this reality drifts off course. That is why the role of the technology partner becomes decisive.

A weak partner refuses every adjustment. They say, “We cannot change, we are locked in.” Another poor vendor nods to every new request, then later admits, “We cannot deliver on time, because the plan shifted.” 

The right partner accepts that change is natural but does not allow chaos. They separate what truly matters from what can wait. They help the client adapt while still setting boundaries so the team can deliver. That balance marks the difference between a vendor that drags a project down and a partner that leads it forward.

Leadership defines whether a project succeeds or stalls. Too often, CTOs join too late or fail to create measurable outcomes. They must balance complex technical decisions with organizational politics, often without proper support. Business leaders add pressure by misunderstanding IT’s scope. They punish delays but rarely reward delivery that exceeds expectations.

Clear purpose separates strong projects from weak ones. A team that starts with the right problem, well-defined goals, and honest alignment stands a real chance to succeed. Without that foundation, no methodology – waterfall, agile, or anything else – can rescue the effort.

2. Unrealistic planning

Another issue why software development projects fail that I see frequently is the attempt to deliver on multiple goals at once. It never works. A project needs one clear objective. Everything else, i.e., milestones, priorities, or roadmaps, should flow from it.

Often, many projects go wrong, because the plan looks solid on paper, but it’s built on unrealistic assumptions. It relies on the idea that developers will “just figure it out.” But developers aren’t superheroes, and they can’t bend time. There’s no amount of late nights that will help them deliver on everything to save the project.

That’s why ironing out goals and requirements first is non-negotiable. 

A well-understood scope of work should show exactly what it will take (and how long it will take) to build your software. I particularly recommend running an event storming workshop for this purpose.

Rushing this step creates the risk of new bugs, cutting corners on design, and compromising usability. This leaves a product that looks finished but doesn’t work in practice.

Vendors promising to “deliver everything”

When stakeholders want results “yesterday” and build plans based on guesses instead of facts, they often fall into another trap. They hire a vendor who doesn’t question any plans or goals. If a vendor promises to “deliver everything” without asking to see, for example, your discovery workshop results, it’s a red flag. Blind execution almost always fails.

Metrics like team velocity and performance aren’t just Scrum checkboxes. They show whether a team is moving toward stable delivery or stuck in endless brainstorming. If progress stalls, it usually means the business side hasn’t clarified what it really wants. Constantly shifting direction only makes things worse, and the proof shows up in a growing list of bugs.

At the end of the day, successful projects aren’t about pushing harder or hiring “better” developers. They’re about clarity, focus, and humility. Start with one goal, define it thoroughly, respect the process, and listen to the experts guiding you through it. That’s how software projects succeed — and actually deliver the value they promise.

Adding too many non-essential features 

Piling on features that don’t belong usually starts quietly. Stakeholders push for “nice-to-have” additions to the MVP – or, in the worst case, there is no MVP at all. Without a strong project manager to guard the priorities, non-essential requests slip into the scope.

Even projects that start strong can suffer this fate. Developers hold things together for a while, especially if the initial architecture is solid. But every patch weakens the foundation. Eventually, previously lean, reliable software becomes bloated and unstable.

Naturally, it’s not that changes themselves hurt projects, after all, requirements and priorities naturally shift during development. Efficient planning reduces the number and cost of revisions, but some changes always appear. 

It’s communication between business and product teams that plays a critical role here. Everyone can have an answer to every question, but often nobody listens. Teams that talk openly can manage priority shifts and revisions without derailing the project or breaking the system. Without this alignment, minor changes turn into major architectural risks that cost time and money to fix.

The key takeaway for anyone starting a software project? More features do not always bring more value. A disciplined MVP, supported by strong governance and clear communication, ensures the software remains functional, sustainable, and is able to grow safely.

3. Poor requirements gathering

Every solid project starts with a strategy – that’s non negotiable. Without it, developers have no direction and no idea of what success should look like. The skeleton of the project, i.e, discovery, planning, scope often gets skipped. Why? Because people idolize stories of visionaries like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, without paying attention to how much preparation and research their teams actually did. You cannot build a product without research, clear decisions, and accountability.

Responsibility matters

In-house teams often carry both discovery and execution. That means huge responsibility. The question is whether they receive the resources and rewards that match that responsibility. Unfortunately, many times they do not. That’s why companies bring in vendors. 

A strong vendor has run hundreds of projects; they come with specialized experts who know what works and what doesn’t. That expertise explains the price. You are not just paying margin – you are paying for structure, speed, and depth of knowledge.

Where failure begins

Many projects fail before coding even starts. Business leaders skip the homework, then hand the mess to the technical team. Developers end up treated like a production line with no context and no guidance. Poor preparation at the business level almost always guarantees a weak outcome.

Even when the core problem is clear, requirements can still fall apart. This step should connect business goals to technical delivery. Instead, key details vanish. Some stakeholders assume certain requirements are “obvious” and never write them down. In other cases, the entire knowledge base sits in one person’s head. When that person leaves, the project loses its foundation.

Knowledge that lasts

Strong teams avoid this trap by creating clear documentation and repeatable knowledge transfer. Standards matter. They protect projects across time zones, cultures, and staff changes. A well-prepared foundation turns requirements into a reliable guide instead of a fragile memory.

4. Making suboptimal technological choices

Making the wrong technological choices in software development can create serious risks and costs. It’s often a result of the two mistakes I’ve mentioned earlier, i.e., a lack of requirements’ documentation or focusing on the wrong user goal.

You can tell a technology choice is failing when development slows, implementing changes becomes increasingly difficult, and the system starts to feel brittle. 

Throughout my work in software delivery, I’ve noticed how the quality of development work reflects the clarity and completeness of the business’s input. A bad choice upfront – like picking a framework that cannot scale efficiently or relying on soon-to-be-obsolete technology – can strain the architecture and limit flexibility.

These decisions create technical debt, increase maintenance costs, and make future development slower and more complex. 

To give you an example of what could be a suboptimal choice, let’s take a scenario where a team picks an authorization tool without considering the organization’s structure. 

At first, it might seem to work, but later customization becomes a nightmare. In cases like this, I make sure the team discusses technology decisions together. Specifically, that a solution architect takes ownership and the project management oversees alignment with business goals. This reduces risks and helps keep the project on track.

The wrong technology can also create serious security risks, through aspects like:

• outdated libraries
• weak encryption practices
• poorly compliant third-party tools
• use of compromised open-source dependencies.

A poor choice might not break a project immediately, but over time it erodes performance, maintainability, and long-term success.

5. Lack of experienced/skilled talent (especially PMs)

Every project rises or falls on the quality of its people. Teams staffed with specialists consistently outperform those with only basic skills. The difference becomes most visible in the role of the project manager. Strong project management brings direction, coordination, and the ability to make hard calls. Without it, even the best technical team risks drifting.

Research confirms it – investing in high-skill talent pays off. Upskilling project managers and technical leaders produces improvements in project success rates. Building technical depth across engineering roles provides stability, while strong leadership transforms that stability into momentum.

That said, many organizations still struggle with skill gaps. Project managers lack experience, developers are stretched thin, and architects juggle too many priorities. This leads to project slow downs and delivery slips.

How vendors close the gap

One practical way to address these gaps is to work with a vendor who already has the right expertise. Clients should ask how that vendor identifies and fills skill gaps during a project. A strong vendor has processes in place. For example, they may run internal audits with senior specialists who step in, spot weak points, and guide the team.

The beauty of this model is flexibility. Instead of hiring a full-time employee to cover every need, a client might add just twenty hours of a specialist’s time in a given month. The project gains expert input without the overhead of a new permanent hire. That range of available skills is what separates an average vendor from a strong one.

Where the market heads

The market also pushes talent toward versatility. A modern developer is expected to deliver across the stack, i.e,  write back-end and front-end code, handle release pipelines, set up automated tests, and manage DevOps tasks, when required. That expectation adds pressure but also creates opportunities for well-rounded engineers to thrive. Vendors with broad competence pools adapt faster to these demands and pass that advantage on to their clients.

6. Overconfidence in skills, third-party solutions, or abstract ideas

I recently read a great piece by IT consultant Vadim Kravcenko, who named this as one of the reasons why many of the projects he worked on have failed. 

He called it a “silent killer” – one of those subtle issues that don’t show up immediately but can derail timelines if no one catches it early on. Overconfidence can take a whole range of forms, like the developers:

• Being too confident in their current coding abilities
• Assuming they can quickly master new technologies without issues
• Overestimating the reliability of the abstractions they’ve built
• Placing too much trust in external dependencies, like third-party services or open-source libraries.

It’s tricky to spot overconfidence because even experienced developers can misjudge the complexity of a task or the effort needed to learn a new technology. 

For example, one developer might be excited about a new solution — say, an AI-recommendation engine — and want to integrate it immediately. Enthusiasm can be great on projects, but the question remains. Does this actually solve a problem the project needs to address? Often, the answer is no.

What helps is having someone on the team who can evaluate time estimates and skill assessments critically. This is usually the tech lead or solution architect. They can challenge assumptions, consult with other experts, and push the estimates back to the drawing board if needed. A PM works closely with them to track risks and ensure that proposed solutions actually align with project goals.

This leadership-level synergy is essential. Without it, a developer’s well-intentioned innovations can create technical debt or misalignment with business priorities. With it, the team can find middle ground between creativity and staying on course, and avoid surprises that could derail timelines or functionality.

Why do software development projects fail? Reasons vary, but the right partner can help

Failure in software projects can come from many angles – whether it’s an internal team overestimating their abilities, external vendors agreeing to unrealistic timelines, or visions that simply don’t hold up in practice. This short-term “yes to everything” strategy rarely works. 

That’s why it’s crucial to work with a team that asks the right questions, challenges assumptions, and stays realistic about what’s achievable both technically and within your schedule.

The right partner respects your business priorities and uses its technical expertise to deliver solutions that actually support your goals.

Learn more about our software development and delivery approach at Brainhub and how we could help your project succeed.