When $100 Million Technology Projects Fail, It’s the Board’s Fault—Every Single Time

2. January 2025
Kategorien
Subscribe to our newsletter

In Switzerland, rumors suggest that both Bank Julius Bär and Raiffeisen Schweiz are grappling with failed technology projects, each costing over $100 million so far. Bank Julius Bär is reportedly trying to replace its existing core banking system for the Swiss booking center with Temenos, while Raiffeisen Schweiz is attempting to build a modern e-banking app.  

Both organizations have allegedly hired third parties to review what went wrong and determine who’s to blame. While learning from failure and engaging external reviewers is sensible, the question of blame should already be crystal clear.  

When a multi-million-dollar technology project collapses under its own weight—costing shareholders, employees, and stakeholders dearly—there’s no escaping the brutal truth: the fault lies squarely with the board.  

You can explore my 20+ technology project failure case studies. Without exception, the boards involved failed to fulfill their responsibilities.  

The Board’s Job Is Oversight, Not Rubber-Stamping

Boards exist to govern. They approve strategy, allocate resources, and oversee risks. They are not passive observers—they are active stewards of an organization’s success. Yet in failed projects, it’s evident that many boards sleepwalk through their responsibilities. They fail to ask tough questions early, challenge overly optimistic assumptions, or ensure mechanisms are in place to detect and address problems before it’s too late.  

A board’s oversight role is not ceremonial. If a project spirals into disaster, the board either ignored the warning signs, delegated oversight to those ill-equipped for the job, or worse, never bothered to establish adequate checks in the first place.  

If a board lacks the expertise to fulfill its duties, it must seek external help. This could mean forming an advisory board with independent specialists or adding a temporary board member with the requisite expertise and experience. 

Failing Is Acceptable; Failing Late Is Not 

Failure is a natural part of innovation and growth. No board can eliminate risk entirely—nor should they try. But there’s a monumental difference between failing fast and failing late.  

Early failure allows a company to pivot, salvage resources, and preserve credibility. Late failure, on the other hand, is catastrophic. It burns cash, destroys morale, and erodes stakeholder trust.  

Boards must demand stage-gated project governance that clearly delineates when to proceed, pivot, or pull the plug. If a multi-million-dollar project reaches the point of no return before its inevitable demise, the board has failed in its primary responsibility—to safeguard the organization from reckless escalation.  

Why Boards Get It Wrong

So why do boards allow projects to go off the rails? Common reasons include:  

> Blind Faith in Leadership: Boards often rely too heavily on the CEO or project sponsor’s assurances. Trust is important, but blind faith is a recipe for disaster. A board’s role is to verify, not just trust.  

> Lack of Expertise: Some boards lack the technical or industry-specific knowledge to challenge assumptions. Instead of addressing this gap, they defer to management, undermining their oversight role.  

> Cognitive Biases: Boards are just as susceptible to biases as anyone else. The sunk cost fallacy, groupthink, and overconfidence often lead boards to double down on failing projects instead of cutting losses.  

> Weak Governance Processes: Many boards fail to establish robust governance frameworks for major projects. Without clear accountability, transparency, and regular checkpoints, projects are allowed to drift toward failure.  

The Path to Accountability  

To prevent future multi-million-dollar disasters, boards must:  

> Ask Hard Questions Early: Why are we doing this? What are the critical assumptions? What would make us stop? These questions must be asked before a single dollar is spent.  

> Insist on Independent Assurance: Boards should mandate independent audits and reviews for major projects. An objective view can often identify risks that insiders miss.  

> Monitor Progress Ruthlessly: Quarterly updates are not enough. Boards must demand real-time reporting on key metrics and intervene when milestones are missed.  

> Be Willing to Pull the Plug: The hardest decision for any board is to stop a failing project. But it’s also the most responsible one. Better to write off millions now than to lose billions later.  

In a Nutshell

When a multi-million-dollar project fails, the board cannot claim ignorance or absolve itself of responsibility. Failure at this scale is a governance failure, plain and simple. Boards that tolerate late-stage disasters are not just failing the organization—they’re failing every stakeholder who placed their trust in them.  

The lesson is simple: you can fail, but not that late. Boards must act as the last line of defense, ensuring that failure—when it happens—is swift, contained, and instructive. Anything less is negligence. 

That could also be of interest for you

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #4 – Accountability vs. Alignment

1. April 2026

In large transformation programs, accountability is rarely missing. It is distributed. It sits with executive sponsors, steering committees, transformation offices, service line leaders, and partner groups, each with a defined role and a legitimate claim to involvement. On paper, this creates alignment. In practice, it often removes ownership, because when accountability is spread across too

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #3 – Long-Term Investment vs. Short-Term Management

27. March 2026

One of the most underestimated constraints in professional services transformation is not technology, capability, or even funding. It is time. Real transformation takes longer than most firms are structurally able to tolerate. Core systems such as ERP platforms, data architectures, AI capabilities, or global workflow solutions are not incremental improvements. They are foundational changes. They

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #2 – Internal vs. Client Execution

26. March 2026

One of the most persistent, and least openly discussed, tensions in professional services firms lies in how they execute their own transformations. It is a tension that does not reveal itself in strategy decks or partner presentations, but in the day-to-day reality of large internal programs that quietly struggle to deliver. At first glance, the

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #1 – Technology Alliances vs. Internal Fit

20. March 2026

This article is part of a series exploring the tensions at the core of the Professional Services Transformation Paradox. The paradox itself is straightforward, yet deeply consequential. Firms that excel at transforming their clients often struggle to transform themselves. Not because they lack capability, but because their own structures, incentives, and operating models create resistance

Read more

The Five Elements of a Strong Governance Structure for Critical Projects

16 January 2025

Every executive has nightmares about that project-the one that spirals into an unmitigated disaster. In general there are four ways a project can end up in a boardroom-shaking failure that can destroy value, reputations, and trust in one fell swoop. 1 The Titanic Failure: The project chugs along, oblivious to the iceberg ahead, burning millions

Read more

Why Every Critical Project Needs Board Supervision

15. January 2025

Projects are like icebergs—what you see above the surface is just the tip. Below lies the complexity, risk, and opportunity that can sink your ship if ignored. Too often, boards treat projects like black boxes, leaving management to deliver results without sufficient oversight. This hands-off approach might work for routine initiatives, but when it comes

Read more

Why Every Critical Project Needs Independent Reviews

14. January 2025

«Trust, but verify.» That timeless adage applies as much to critical projects as it does to diplomacy. Without an independent review, even the best-run projects can veer off course, leaving organizations blindsided by delays, cost overruns, or outright failures. Here’s the uncomfortable truth: internal stakeholders are often too close to the project to see the

Read more

Why Every Critical Project Needs an Executive Sponsor

13. January 2025

Launching a critical project without an executive sponsor is like sending a ship to sea without a captain—good luck steering through the storm. Projects don’t fail because of bad intentions. They fail because of a lack of alignment, authority, and support.  That’s where the executive sponsor steps in—not just as a figurehead but as the

Read more

Why Every Critical Project Needs a Dedicated Project Manager

12. January 2025

Far too often, organizations assign critical projects to people who already have full-time roles or, worse, delegate management to a loosely organized team with no single point of accountability. The results? Missed deadlines, blown budgets, and a whole lot of finger-pointing. Here’s the hard truth: if the project is important, it deserves a dedicated project

Read more

Top Ten Leading Indicators of Troubled Projects for Executives

5. August 2024

If you are a senior executive or a board member in the role of executive sponsor, project sponsor, or steering committee member it is key to recognize potential issues before they become critical.  Recognizing early warning signs can make the difference between a project’s success and failure.  Whilst lagging indicators are metrics that reflect past

Read more
Next