uk

Article

Organisational problems as the root cause of systemic failures of IT projects

Viktor Rovinsky Halyna Melnyk Vasyl Melnyk
Abstract

The relevance of the study was determined by the chronic failures of government information technology projects, which are accompanied by budget overruns and missed deadlines, representing a global problem. These failures are rarely purely technical; they are symptoms of deep organisational pathologies. Traditional frameworks for project management and business analysis focus on rational processes, often ignoring the irrational forces that deform them. The purpose of this study was to analyse and systematise the impact of four key organisational pathologies – dysfunctional formalisation, rentseeking behaviour, favouritism, and autocratic management style – on the fundamental processes of project management and business analysis in government IT projects. The primary research method was thematic analysis using the 6-phase model. The empirical base consisted of M=18 publicly available documents from 2019-2025, selected according to the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Sources included audit reports from supreme audit institutions official reports from law enforcement agencies, which underwent triangulation. Data analysis revealed three main mechanisms of deformation in project management and business analysis processes: (1) formalisation and ritualisation, which transforms risk management and metrics into mere formality; (2) inversion and sabotage (through rent-seeking behaviour), which turns project management and business analysis into tools for falsifying procurements and embezzling funds; (3) the dominant autocratic management style, which replaces systematic processes with the leader’s will. A conceptual matrix has been formed that details this impact. The work offers a set of criteria for early identification of pathologies and practical recommendations for countermeasures (in particular, using open data and strengthening rational standardisation). The practical significance of the proposed matrix lies in its function as a diagnostic tool for project managers, business analysts, and auditors

Keywords

project management; business analysis; organisational pathology; procurement corruption; bureaucracy

Download article

Received 18.08.2025, Revised 01.12.2025, Accepted 23.12.2025 Published 29.12.2025

Retrieved from Vol. 12, No. 2, 2025

Suggested citation

Rovinsky, V., Melnyk, H., & Melnyk, V. (2025). Organisational problems as the root cause of systemic failures of IT projects. Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management, 12(2), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.56318/eem2025.02.074

https://doi.org/10.56318/eem2025.02.074

Pages 74-85

References

  1. Albarzanji, A.K., & Alsabawy, A.Y. (2021). Causes of IT project failure: A systematic review. Tanmiyat Al-Rafidain, 40(132), 135-168. doi: 10.33899/tanra.2021.170354.
  2. Anthopoulos, L., Reddick, C.G., Giannakidou, I., & Mavridis, N. (2016). Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 161-173. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.003.
  3. Audit Scotland. (2017). Principles for a digital future: Lessons learned from public sector ICT projects. Retrieved from https://audit.scot.
  4. Bader, M., Antony, J., Jayaraman, R., Swarnakar, V., Goonetilleke, R.S., Maalouf, M., Garza-Reyes, J.A., & Linderman, K. (2024). Why do process improvement projects fail in organizations? A review and future research agenda. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 15(3), 664-690. doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-07-2023-0126.
  5. Balka, K., Heslin, B., & Risse-Tenk, S. (2022). Unlocking the potential of public-sector IT projects. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com.
  6. Borges do Nascimento, I.J., Abdulazeem, H., Vasanthan, L.T., Martinez, E.Z., Zucoloto, M.L., Østengaard, L., Azzopardi-Muscat, N., Zapata, T., & Novillo-Ortiz, D. (2023). Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare professionals. Npj Digital Medicine, 6, article number 161. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00899-4.
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. New York: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  8. Butenko, H.Ya. (2024). Risk management technology in the public sector: Challenges and opportunities. Economics. Finance. Law, 9, 9-13. doi: 10.37634/efp.2024.9.2.
  9. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A.J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-547. doi: 10.1188/14.onf.545-547.
  10. Casady, C.B., Petersen, O.H., & Brogaard, L. (2023). Public procurement failure: The role of transaction costs and government capacity in procurement cancellations. Public Management Review, 1-28. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2023.2231945.
  11. Charette, R.N. (2019). Three enduring government IT failures: Costly consequences continue for years – [Spectral Lines]. IEEE Spectrum, 56(8), 4-4. doi: 10.1109/MSPEC.2019.8784108.
  12. Chen, M., Martins, T.S., Zhang, L., & Dong, H. (2025). Digital transformation in project management: A systematic review and research agenda. Systems, 13(8), article number 625. doi: 10.3390/systems13080625.
  13. Crusoe, J., Magnusson, J., & Eklund, J. (2024). Digital transformation decoupling: The impact of willful ignorance on public sector digital transformation. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), article number 101958. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2024.101958.
  14. Dastidar, K.G., & Jain, S. (2023). Favouritism and corruption in procurement auctions. Mathematical Social Sciences, 123, 10-24. doi: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2022.12.005.
  15. Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., Lee, J.S., Keil, M., Lunn, D., & Bester, D.W. (2022). The empirical reality of IT project cost overruns: Discovering a power-law distribution. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 607-639. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2022.2096544.
  16. Goulielmos, A.M. (2005). Applying the organizational failure diagnosis model to the study of information systems failure. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 14(3), 362-377. doi: 10.1108/09653560510605027.
  17. Halushchak, M., Halushchak, O., & Mashliy, H. (2023). Electronic Ukraine in the digital world. Galician Economic Journal, 85(6), 174-182. doi: 10.33108/galicianvisnyk_tntu2023.06.174.
  18. Hua, S.Y. (2022). Procurement maturity and IT failures in the public sector. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 16(4), 554-566. doi: 10.1108/TG-07-2022-0097.
  19. Khudoliy, L. (2025). Methodology for researching the banking services market in Ukraine. Economics and Business Management, 16(1), 92-107. doi: 10.31548/economics/1.2025.92.
  20. Koval, V.V., Mikhno, I.S., & Metil, T.K. (2023). The complex project risk management technologies in IT companies. Business Inform, 10, 389-396. doi: 10.32983/2222-4459-2023-10-389-396.
  21. Krueger, A. (1974). The political economy of the renk-seeking society. American Economic Review, 64, 291-303.
  22. Lerner, M. (2020). Government tech projects fail by default. It doesn’t have to be this way. Retrieved from https://www.belfercenter.org.
  23. Mulder, H. (1994). The chaos report. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net.
  24. Nyansiro, J.B., Mtebe, J.S., & Kissaka, M.M. (2021). E-government information systems (IS) project failure in developing countries: Lessons from the literature. The African Journal of Information and Communication, 28, 1-29. doi: 10.23962/10539/32210.
  25. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. doi: 10.1177/160940691989922.
  26. PMBOK Guide. (n.d.). Underneath the surface. Retrieved from https://pmbok.guide.
  27. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (2017). Are public projects doomed to failure from the start? Transformation assurance. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.ch.
  28. Project Management Institute. (2021). The standard for project management and a guide to the project management body of knowledge (7th ed.). Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
  29. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 740 “On Approval of the Procedure for Conducting Investment Projects by the State Audit Service, its Interregional Territorial Bodies of State Financial Audit”. (2018, September). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua.
  30. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 893 “On Amendments to the Mandatory Requirements for the Creation (Modernisation, Modification, Development), Administration and Ensuring the Functioning of an Information System”. (2025, July). Retrieved from https://www.kmu.gov.ua.
  31. Romanelli, M. (2022). Understanding enterprise environmental factors. Retrieved from https://projecttimes.com.
  32. Sauer, C. (1993). Why information systems fail: A case study approach. Oberkirch: Alfred Waller Ltd., Publishers.
  33. Schmidt, J. (2023). Mitigating risk of failure in information technology projects: Causes and mechanisms. Project Leadership and Society, 4, article number 100097. doi: 10.1016/j.plas.2023.100097.
  34. Sitnikova, I. (2025). Case of embezzlement on drones: Preventive measures chosen for two officials of the State Service of Special Communications. Retrieved from https://hromadske.ua.
  35. Sustainability Directory. (2025). Organizational pathology. Retrieved from https://pollution.sustainability-directory.com.
  36. Syed, R., Bandara, W., & Eden, R. (2023). Public sector digital transformation barriers: A developing country experience. Information Polity, 28(1), 5-27. doi: 10.3233/IP-220017.
  37. Szedmák, B., Varga, L., & Szabó, R.Z. (2025). Digital transformation of public services: The case of the document management application. International Journal of Public Administration, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2024.2520522.
  38. The Accounting Chamber. (2024). Accounting Chamber’s annual report for 2023. Retrieved from https://rp.gov.ua.
  39. Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224-232.
  40. UK National Audit Office. (2024). Lessons learned: Delivering value from government investment in major projects. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk.
  41. UK National Audit Office. (2025). Government’s approach to technology suppliers: Addressing the challenges. Retrieved from https://www.nao.org.uk.
  42. UNODC. (n.d.). Module 4: Public sector corruption. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org.
  43. US Government Accountability Office. (2025). High-risk series: Critical actions needed to urgently address IT acquisition and management challenges. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov.
  44. Vasilev, A. (2013). On the cost of rent-seeking by government bureaucrats in a Real-Business-Cycle framework. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu.
  45. Yaraghi, N. (2015). Doomed: Challenges and solutions to government IT projects. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu.
  46. Zhang, M., Antwi-Afari, M.F., Wang, C., Sun, W., Mohandes, S.R., & Abdulai, S.F. (2025). Uncertainty in software development projects: A review of causes, types, challenges, and future research directions. Systems, 13(8), article number 650. doi: 10.3390/systems13080650.