Why so many software projects fail – and what successful tech firms do differently

(AI-translated content - original DE)

It is a paradoxical situation that we observe time and again in our daily work with digital projects: companies invest millions, introduce the most modern agile frameworks, and yet the projects end up far over budget or fail to deliver what is actually needed. If, according to surveys, only about one in three software projects is considered a real success, we have to ask ourselves whether we are not at an impasse with the current methods.

The biggest problem we encounter in practice is what we call the "Scrum myth". There is a prevailing belief that if a process is followed strictly enough, it will automatically lead to a good product. However, we often experience the opposite: the process becomes an end in itself and takes precedence over the actual result.

When the process stifles craftsmanship

Scrum was originally developed to create flexibility. In reality, however, it has become a bureaucratic straitjacket in many organisations. We see teams getting lost in an endless cycle of daily stand-ups, refinements and retrospectives, while the actual development work becomes secondary.

This often results in a "mini waterfall". Planning is done in two-week chunks, but the long-term vision is lost. The focus is on keeping the Jira board clean and estimating story points that ultimately never reflect reality. If a team spends more energy justifying why a ticket wasn't completed than thinking about the best technical solution for a user problem, then the balance between process and product is severely disrupted. Software development is a creative craft, not assembly line work. A stubborn focus on metrics and velocity kills the very creativity that is necessary for innovation.

The mistake of perfection: Why 70% is a success

A major driver of stress in many projects is unrealistic expectations regarding goal achievement. We often see teams slavishly adhering to the "definition of done" for each individual ticket. The prevailing mindset is: If 100% or even 120% of the planned tasks are not completed, it is considered a failure. This creates enormous pressure, which leads to teams playing it safe and no longer daring to take bold, innovative approaches.

Successful tech companies take a completely different approach here. They deliberately set themselves extremely ambitious goals, known as stretch goals. In this culture, achieving 70% of such a goal is celebrated as a great success. Why? Because it is better to set a goal that really moves you forward and achieve most of it than to achieve 100% of a conservative goal that actually only maintains the status quo. We need to learn to look at the big picture instead of getting lost in the minutiae of individual tickets.

The illusion of the "code factory"

Another reason for failure is the misconception that software can simply be "ordered". Many people have an image of a code factory in their minds: you throw your requirements in at the top and the finished product comes out at the bottom. This completely ignores the fact that the most valuable work is not writing code, but solving problems.

We often observe a lack of translation skills. Business decision-makers specify solutions without understanding the technological implications. Developers, in turn, implement these specifications without knowing the underlying business problem. The result is software that works technically but misses the mark in the market. Successful role models do exactly the opposite. They follow the principle of "context, not control". Teams don't need detailed instructions, but rather a deep understanding of the "why". When developers are allowed to think entrepreneurially and take responsibility for the result, the outcome, rather than just the output of code, completely different solutions emerge. It's about understanding the purpose of the work. In our experience, when a developer understands why they are building something, they make better decisions on their own.

Outcome over output: a necessary change of course

To truly make projects successful, we need to move away from focusing on completed tickets. There is no point in delivering 50 features on time if none of them solve a real user problem. The success of software should be measured by real business metrics, not by adherence to an artificially inflated process. Measure success by real user numbers and customer satisfaction, not by velocity in the sprint.

This also means that we need to bring technical expertise back into the decision-making process. In companies that successfully understand software as a core competence, technicians sit at the table when strategy is being defined. It is not a matter of simply "throwing" finished concepts over the fence for implementation. Rather, the economic background is incorporated into the technological planning from the outset. Only when business and tech work in sync towards the same goals from the very first second can a solution be created that is not only technically sound, but also truly supports the strategic vision.

Ultimately, building software is a continuous learning process. Anyone who believes they can write down all the answers in the form of a backlog at the start of a project is bound to fail. True agility means having the humility to validate assumptions early on with real prototypes instead of hiding behind process certificates. Success comes when the product is back in focus and the process serves only as it should: a supporting tool, not a dogma.