In the interview with Dr. Klaus Wagenhals

Current studies clearly underscore the urgency of the topic of “IT project failures.” According to a survey by the Standish Group, 66% of all IT projects worldwide fail completely or partially. Reasons for this include unrealistic time and budget plans, unclear requirements, and inadequate stakeholder involvement. Another study by McKinsey and the University of Oxford shows that large-scale IT projects, on average, exceed their budgets by 45% and deliver 7% fewer functions than originally planned. The growing complexity is proving to be one of the main factors pushing IT projects into difficulties.

Dr. Klaus Wagenhals, a leading expert in change processes, leadership, and project management, will share his in-depth insights and experiences on the topic of "IT Project Failures" in an interview with Silicon Valley Europe. For over two decades, he has supported companies in the IT, automotive, life sciences, and high-tech industries and is the network manager of metisleadership. With his solid expertise as an organizational psychologist and industrial sociologist, he has not only guided companies through complex transformation processes but has also significantly shaped the discussion on new approaches in project management as an author and speaker.

Dr. Wagenhals explains why simply following common project management standards is not enough and what framework conditions must be created to make projects successful. He demonstrates how early involvement of key stakeholders and an iterative approach make projects more adaptable and resilient.

Silicon Valley Europe: Mr. Dr. Wagenhals, you have been guiding companies through change processes for decades. What has fascinated you about this topic from the very beginning?

Dr. Klaus Wagenhals:

What fascinated me was that in companies there was always a point at which it became clear: "this can't go on," we need "something new," and that the ability to sense this point isn't just down to the "bosses," but also to clever employees who independently kept an eye on trends, current developments with customers, etc. Thirty years ago, when I started this work, it was usually processes that needed to be optimized or redesigned – back then as today – often linked to the implementation of IT systems such as document or workflow management systems, or early attempts to electronically maintain and process customer data. So it was always about the interplay of processes/structures/culture/competencies and potential of employees, as well as leadership and technology. And with regard to this interplay, I found it fascinating that there were and are leaders who manage to listen to, take seriously, and involve even the "doom-mongers" or "problem-seers" in the workforce, as well as those who are uncertain, thereby not only "turning around" the mood in the workforce but also avoiding mistakes others have made. This points not only to a different "digitalization concept" than the mechanistic one applied for decades, but also to a different inner attitude towards the various thought models, attitudes, and behaviors of people involved in the company's dynamics: it's not just about superficial understanding, but about "feeling with" others, about a "sense" for other ways of thinking and behaving. This isn't possible without a fundamentally humanistic orientation and an ability for self-reflection regarding changes at the personal level ("successful change in companies needs inner change too").

Silicon Valley Europe: IT projects are considered particularly prone to failure. How would you describe the extent of failure based on your experience and current studies?

Dr. Klaus Wagenhals:

IT or digitalization projects, in our understanding, are always change projects if the introduction of new technology changes processes and possibly structures (e.g., the allocation of departments) and if consequences are expected or observed in terms of how people work together (cultural aspects) and in terms of leadership. Such a concept considers the effects of an intervention at a specific point – e.g., when customer data is used at different process locations and interfaces – in a broader context. This “systemic thinking” leads to the idea of an organization, and thus a project, as a multi-part mobile that moves at several points – which cannot be precisely predicted – when you pull at one point. This expresses the internal interdependence of the factors that determine an organization and their inherent dynamics. The “susceptibility to failure” of IT or digitalization projects lies precisely in this diversity and unpredictability of “organizational behavior” and should therefore be understood and addressed using suitable change concepts. If digitalization is reduced to the adaptation or introduction of an IT system and processed “logically” according to a classic PM plan, there will likely be many failure risks.

It is therefore not surprising that various studies we have had to consider in recent years (e.g., McKinsey, PwC, Standish Group, etc.) report a failure rate of 60–70% and repeatedly cite the same “failure points”:

• The goal is not clear – not well communicated
• The project mandate is unclear – not well clarified – leading to repeated debates
• Plans are unrealistic: deadlines are not met – they are dictated “from above” – bear little relation to the project progress (often justified differently), efforts are not compared against estimates – feedback systems are flawed (the traffic light has long been on amber even though it should be on red)
• Project risks are only formulated at the beginning – but often play no role in the further course of the project; VUCA is underestimated or hardly considered conceptually (dealing with complexity, uncertainties, etc. – instructions for action are rarely applied)
• Project personnel 1: The allocation of line employees is formally clear – but informally, multitasking is practiced even in agile projects;
• Project personnel 2: High fluctuation in projects – problems finding equally qualified replacements; is a career still possible?