Reasons for project failure: Poor procurement practices
If your Procurement Department is not skilled or experienced to address your IT solution and services requirements: Chances are that your project is set up for failure.
10 hard lessons from poor procurement practices that cause project failure:
- Unclear or ambiguous requirements
Failure to define business needs in precise, measurable terms leads to confusion, misinterpretation, and poor alignment between the solution offered and the problem to be solved. Ambiguity in the tender often results in numerous change requests, cost overruns, and timeline delays.
- Lack of stakeholder alignment
When internal departments or user groups are not consulted or aligned before procurement, it leads to conflicting expectations and requirements during implementation. This causes resistance, rework, and disengagement that ultimately derail the project.
- Overemphasis on cost over value
Choosing vendors based solely on the lowest price often sacrifices quality, innovation, and long-term performance. The true cost emerges later—through rework, service gaps, and poor scalability.
- Rigid or overly complex RFP process
Overengineered procurement processes slow down decision-making, discourage quality vendors from bidding, and fail to reflect real project needs. A box-ticking mentality often selects the "compliant" bidder—not the best partner.
- Inadequate vendor due diligence
Assuming vendor competence without verifying their delivery record, references, technical capabilities, and capacity is a costly oversight. Surface-level assessments often miss deeper performance issues.
- Inexperienced adjudication team
If the evaluation team lacks the skills to interpret technical, financial, and operational proposals, critical red flags may be missed. Poor scoring practices and biased decisions undermine fairness and effectiveness.
- Procurement bureaucracy
Overly centralized or bureaucratic procurement functions may delay decisions, disconnect from business needs, or apply one-size-fits-all methods to complex projects. Layers of approval stifle agility and innovation.
- Political or internal power struggle
Hidden agendas, legacy loyalties, or power plays often override rational decision-making. Political interference can bias vendor selection, influence project scope, or block implementation entirely.
- Excessive customisation requirements
Forcing suppliers to retrofit solutions around outdated internal processes adds complexity, cost, and delivery risk. It often undermines the benefits of proven, off-the-shelf solutions.
- Unclear contracting and payment terms
Ambiguities in deliverables, service levels, payment milestones, or liability clauses create room for dispute. Without structured enforcement mechanisms, underperformance becomes difficult to challenge.
