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 #11 – Risk Mitigation vs. Innovation

7. May 2026

Professional services firms are designed to minimize risk. Their business model depends on trust, reputation, and consistency. Clients rely on them for assurance, judgment, and reliability, which means failure is not just a delivery issue, but a firm-level risk. A single incident can have disproportionate consequences, whether through litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational damage. That

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #10 – Client Intimacy vs. Platform Standardization

28. April 2026

Professional services firms win through relationships. The closer they are to the client, the more value they create. Understanding the client’s context, adapting to their needs, shaping solutions around specific situations rather than applying generic ones. That is where trust is built, where differentiation happens, and where premium pricing becomes possible. Standardization moves in the

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #8 – Short-Term Revenue vs. Long-Term Capability

23. April 2026

Professional services firms are built around revenue. Revenue is visible, measurable, and immediate. It drives partner compensation, signals performance, and anchors decision-making across the firm. Every client won, every project sold, every hour billed translates directly into current-year outcomes. Capability building works differently. It requires investment upfront, often without immediate return, and pays off over

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #7 – Partner Autonomy vs. Firm-Level Strategy

18. April 2026

One of the defining features of professional services firms is partner autonomy. Partners are expected to build and run their own business. They originate clients, grow revenue, manage teams, and are rewarded based on the performance of what they directly control. This creates strong ownership, high accountability, and a culture where individual success is tightly

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #6 – Service Lines vs. Firm

16. April 2026

One of the most persistent illusions in professional services is the idea of “one firm.” From the outside, large firms present themselves as unified organizations. One brand, one client proposition, one set of capabilities delivered across audit, tax, advisory, and deals. The expectation is clear: if the firm is integrated in the market, it should

Read more

The Professional Services Transformation Paradox #5 – Global Standardization vs. Local Economics

12. April 2026

One of the least discussed challenges in large transformation programs is the illusion of standardization. From the outside, global professional services firms look highly uniform. One brand, one set of services, one methodology, delivered across countries in a way that suggests consistency and control. Audit, tax, consulting, deals all appear to operate within the same

Read more

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
Next