Solving for alignment attrition
Success is improbable.
Most technology projects fail—some estimates suggest that 68% never meet their objectives. Emerging research indicates that AI projects fare even worse, with failure rates of 70–85%. In fact, nearly half of AI proofs-of-concept are abandoned before reaching production.
After decades of Agile, design thinking, and “fail fast” mindsets, why are outcomes still so poor?
Years ago, Harvard Business Review published an article by Jon Kolko entitled Dysfunctional Products Come from Dysfunctional Organizations. That insight holds true, but most conversations that I’ve seen on this topic to organizational design and process improvements as the solution. Necessary, maybe – but insufficient.
Why Do Projects Fail?
I’ve led many large implementation programs at SAP, and have overseen the development of hundreds of licensable and bespoke software solutions. Whether configuring solutions or building software from scratch, the challenges are largely the same:
- Unclear business goals. The goals are unclear, are not well aligned (or fail to adapt with) with the business opportunity, or have been poorly communicated. As the HBR article said “bad products point to bad alignment”.
- Incomplete or shifting requirements. The product / service requirements are not adequately captured, leading to a lack of shared understanding (or divergent understanding) of the “why” over time.
- Misallocation of resources. When goals are vague, investments are harder to justify, and being “on time and on budget” can overshadow whether the right thing is even being built.
- Poor project hygiene. Weak planning, rework, unrealistic timelines, insufficient risk management, and governance breakdowns are the symptoms that cascade from the issues above.
In startups, the pressure to act or scale quickly can overwhelm the ability to pause, test, and iterate. In enterprises, the sheer number of stakeholders creates complexity that makes alignment brittle.
The deeper cause is what HBR described as alignment attrition. Teams begin with a shared vision, but over time, individuals make hundreds of micro-decisions that move them incrementally away from that vision. The result a slow drift away from the original vision and intent.
The Cure: Shared Visualizations
Fortunately, HBR proposes a pretty clear solution, and that is visualizing the product strategy in a consumable way. This is not a requirements document. It’s not a set of screens either – the interface is not the strategy! Neither communicates the why.
True alignment requires shared visualizations of strategy – living artifacts that tell the story of intent, not just deliverables. When crafted well, they reduce drift, become rallying points, and unlock the IKEA Effect, because people value what they had a hand in shaping.
Some of the most effective alignment artifacts I’ve seen came from gifted UX leaders whose ability to visualize complexity provided senior stakeholders and project teams clarity about purpose and direction.
—
Projects don’t fail because of engineering or process alone. They fail because alignment drifts—and no one notices until it’s too late. A well-crafted visualization can anchor the “why” and keep teams on course.
👉 In your own work: how do you ensure alignment and keep your team on course over the life of a project ? I’d love to hear what has worked for you.
Leave a Reply