From Overruns to Abandonment:

The True Cost of Software Project Failures

No one talks about it much, but software project failure is alarmingly common. According to research, 70% of organizations experience at least one project failure each financial year, and between 65-80% of IT projects are considered failures by leadership.

But what does failure actually mean? It’s not just catastrophic, headline-making disasters—it’s often more subtle.  A project might technically “launch,” but if it doesn’t meet its objectives, runs over budget, or drags on past its deadline, it’s still a failure in the eyes of stakeholders.

In fact, a report from the Standish Group’s CHAOS study found that:

• Only 31% of software projects are deemed truly successful (delivered on time, within budget, and meeting expectations)
• 52% are “challenged” (meaning they either went over budget, missed deadlines, or didn’t deliver what was promised)
• A staggering 19% of projects fail outright—completely abandoned or scrapped before launch

The Cost of Failed Software Projects

There are both direct and indirect costs associated with failed software projects. While the financial losses are often the most discussed, the true impact extends far beyond just money.

Direct Costs: The Immediate Financial Hit

• Wasted Development Costs – Every hour spent by engineers, designers, and project managers on a failed project is money lost. A Harvard Business Review study found that large IT projects run on average 27% over budget, and some exceed costs by more than 200%.
• Scrapped Investments – Some projects are so misaligned that they are abandoned entirely. The Standish Group estimates that 19% of software projects are outright failures, meaning millions—sometimes billions—of dollars are written off as sunk costs.
• Operational Disruptions – Failed projects can disrupt existing operations, leading to additional costs in maintaining legacy systems or rebuilding from scratch.
• Legal and Compliance Issues – In regulated industries like BFSI or healthcare, a failed IT project can result in regulatory fines or even lawsuits due to data breaches, compliance violations, or missed reporting obligations.

Example: The FBI’s Virtual Case File (VCF) project was meant to modernize case management, but after five years and $170 million, it was scrapped due to shifting requirements, poor oversight, and an unmanageable codebase. The agency had to start over, ultimately spending hundreds of millions more on a replacement system. (Scholarworks)

Indirect Costs: The Hidden Consequences

• Opportunity Costs – The time spent on a failed project is time that could have been spent building something successful or innovating elsewhere in the business.
• Reputational Damage – If a high-profile software project fails, customer trust can erode, potentially leading to lost business. This is especially critical in industries like finance, where reliability is paramount.
• Employee Morale and Turnover – Nothing demoralizes a team faster than pouring months (or years) into a project that gets scrapped. High-profile failures often lead to burnout and attrition, making it harder for organizations to retain top talent.
• Technical Debt and Future Risk – Companies often patch together short-term fixes after a project failure instead of properly rebuilding, creating long-term maintenance headaches and increasing future costs.

Example: In 2012, Knight Capital, a major trading firm, deployed a faulty software update that caused its trading algorithm to go rogue. Within 45 minutes, the company lost $440 million, wiping out its capital and forcing it into a fire sale. This wasn’t just a financial hit—the firm’s reputation was destroyed, clients fled, and it was acquired at a fraction of its former value. One bad software release didn’t just cost Knight Capital money—it cost them their entire business. (Henrico Dolfing)

The Global Scale of Software Project Failures

To put these costs into perspective:

• The global cost of unsuccessful IT projects is estimated at $260 billion annually in the U.S. alone. (IT-CISQ Report)
• Organizations waste 109 million dollars for every billion spent on failed IT and software development projects. (Project Management Institute)
• Large-scale digital transformation projects exceed budgets by an average of 45% and deliver 56% less value than expected. (McKinsey)

Software failures aren’t just bad projects—they can be business-ending mistakes.

In-House vs Outsourced

Both in-house and outsourcing strategies for projects have their problems, and many organizations struggle with both.

In-House Development

While building an internal development team offers control and alignment with company goals, it comes with significant risks:

• High Overhead Costs: Maintaining an in-house team requires substantial investment in recruitment, training, and infrastructure (DistantJob).
• Limited Talent Pool: Companies may struggle to access specialized skills, leading to capability gaps and slower project delivery (12Tech).
• Scalability Challenges: Expanding or shrinking an in-house team quickly in response to project needs can be difficult, leading to inefficiencies.

Outsourced Development

Outsourcing is often seen as a way to reduce costs and gain access to external expertise, but it comes with risks:

• High Failure Rates: Studies show that 25-50% of outsourced software projects fail due to misalignment of goals, lack of communication, and unclear expectations (Tsh.io).
• Communication Barriers: Differences in time zones, languages, and cultural expectations can lead to misunderstandings and project delays (Neontri).
• Quality Control Issues: Maintaining consistent quality can be difficult when development is handled externally, often requiring extra oversight (Neontri).
  
  

Co-Sourcing: A Balanced Alternative

For organizations looking to balance flexibility with control, co-sourcing can be an effective middle ground. While it doesn’t eliminate all risks, it allows companies to supplement internal teams with specialized expertise, reducing the common pitfalls of both fully in-house and outsourced projects. Some key components of co-sourcing are:

• Access to Specialized Skills: Co-sourcing allows organizations to bring in external experts as needed, ensuring that specialized knowledge is available when required (McKenna Consultants).
• Shared Responsibility & Risk: By distributing project ownership between internal and external teams, companies reduce the likelihood of failure while maintaining oversight (McKenna Consultants).

Co-sourcing provides an adaptable, cost-effective way to execute software projects without the downsides of fully in-house or outsourced models. It offers flexibility, risk mitigation, and access to expertise—all while keeping projects aligned with business objectives.

Wrap Up

Software development failures are common, with both in-house and outsourced projects facing significant risks. While in-house development offers control, it often struggles with talent shortages and scalability, while outsourcing introduces communication barriers and quality concerns. Co-sourcing presents a compelling alternative, balancing internal oversight with external expertise to improve project success rates. By leveraging the strengths of both models, organizations can reduce risks, optimize costs, and increase the likelihood of delivering successful software projects.

Is co-sourcing the missing piece in your development strategy? Let's explore the possibilities together. 

Contact us today for a no-obligation conversation.