The Invisible Problem

According to the Standish Group CHAOS Report, about two-thirds of all IT projects fail or don't fully achieve their goals. But not because of one dramatic mistake. Not because of one catastrophic decision. They fail due to a chain reaction of small, structural weaknesses.

Unclear requirements. Missing change control. Communication lost in email threads. Resource planning by gut feeling. Weak management that doesn't see bottlenecks before it's too late.

Each individual point? Manageable. All together? Fatal.

A software agency in Hamburg – 16 developers, specialized in B2B platforms – conducted an analysis of their failed projects in 2023. The result was sobering: In none of the five failed projects was there a single reason for failure. It was always the same sequence:

1. Start: Vague requirements → Developers make assumptions

2. Week 3: First "quick adds" without formal approval

3. Month 2: Communication breaks down → Teams work in silos

4. Month 4: Resource planning collapses → Bottlenecks emerge

5. Month 8: Project is dead, but nobody wants to admit it

This isn't the exception. This is the rule.

The Chain Reaction

IT projects don't fail because of one mistake. They fail because of the chain reaction.

It starts with unclear requirements. "User-friendly," "modern interface," "fast" – all subjective, nothing concrete. The developer envisions a complex streaming architecture. The client means an auto-refresh table. Three weeks of work later: both sides disappointed.

According to PMI, 37% of all projects fail due to lack of clearly defined goals and milestones. Not because nobody had goals. But because the goals weren't concrete enough.

Without concrete, documented requirements, a vacuum forms. And this vacuum fills with assumptions. Everyone interprets the scope differently. Everyone works on their version of the truth.

Then comes scope creep. "Can we just quickly add this one feature?" Sounds harmless. It's not. According to PMI's 2018 Pulse of the Profession, 52% of all projects experience scope creep, and in most cases it doesn't arise from major changes, but from the sum of small "quick adds."

A Frankfurt consulting firm – 22 consultants, specialized in CRM implementations – systematically tracked how many "small additions" came up during a major client project in 2024. The result: 47 unplanned features in 11 months. None officially approved. All "just quickly added." In the end, the project had +82% more effort than originally calculated.

The problem: Without formal change control, there's no boundary between "in scope" and "out of scope." Everything flows together. The client claims features were "implied." The team implements unpaid extras to avoid conflict.

While scope explodes, communication breaks down. Information gets lost in email threads. Decisions are made in Slack and forgotten. Frontend works on assumptions, backend changes APIs without notice. The result: Days lost on rework that could have been avoided with clear communication.

According to PMI, ineffective communication is a primary reason for failure in one-third of failed projects. Not because nobody talks. But because information goes through the wrong medium, at the wrong time, to the wrong people.

And while all this happens, there's unrealistic resource planning. Tasks are distributed without checking if people actually have time. Dependencies between tasks are ignored. Bottlenecks emerge unnoticed. And suddenly one person blocks the entire project because they're working on three critical tasks simultaneously.

According to PMI, 50% of projects aren't delivered on time, with poor resource allocation being one of the main reasons. This isn't coincidence. This is missing planning.

Escaping the Scope Creep Trap

Scope creep isn't inevitable. It's the result of missing structures.

The numbers are brutal: 52% of all projects experience scope creep, and projects with formal change management experience 44% less scope creep than projects with informal processes.

The problem isn't that clients want new features. The problem is that these new features aren't treated as what they are: changes to scope. And changes to scope cost time, money, and resources.

This is where Change Request Management comes in.

With Leadtime, every project is backed from the start by a detailed, automatically generated specification. If it's not in the spec, it's not in scope. It's that simple.

When new features emerge during the project, they're treated as formal change requests. Leadtime has a mechanism for this:

• Tickets not assigned to any work package can be marked as "Change Request."

• During billing, all change requests appear as separate line items – in addition to the original master version of the project.

• Larger change requests can be set up as separate projects, with their own project tree, own calculation, own proposal.

The result: No more "wasn't that implied?" discussions. New feature? Change request. Billable.

Leadtime as Operating System, Not as Tool

IT projects don't fail due to missing tools. They fail due to missing structure.

Most companies try to fix structural problems with individual solutions: One tool for time tracking, one for project planning, one for communication, one for documentation. The result: Tool sprawl. 86% of IT leaders say that tool sprawl is a financial burden.

Leadtime works differently. It's not a tool. It's a Project Operating System.

Clear Scope Definition from the Start

With the Component Library you structure projects into reusable building blocks. Every project consists of work packages, tasks, questionnaires, and documents. Everything is clearly defined from the start, documented, and transparent for everyone.

No more vague "user-friendly interface" descriptions. Instead: concrete work packages with concrete deliverables.

Living Documentation

Leadtime automatically generates a detailed specification from your tickets, tasks, and change requests. This spec isn't static – it lives with the project. Every change is documented. Every change request is tracked.

The result: A single source of truth. No more email threads. No more "I thought we discussed this" discussions.

Realistic Timelines

With the Pipeline you see your team's actual capacity. Not theoretical, but real – with meetings, vacation, other commitments. You immediately see who's overloaded and who still has capacity.

The result: Planning based on facts. Not on hope.

Integrated Communication

All communication happens in the context of work. Every ticket, every task, every change request has its own comments, updates, decisions. Everything is transparent, structured, and never buried in someone's inbox.

Formal Change Control

With Change Request Management there's a clear boundary between "in scope" and "out of scope." New features? Change request. Separate billing. Transparent for everyone.

The result: No more unplanned "quick adds." Only formal, paid changes.

Structural Problems Need Structural Solutions

IT project failures aren't random. They're structural.

Vague requirements lead to assumptions. Assumptions lead to scope creep. Scope creep leads to communication chaos. Communication chaos leads to bottlenecks. Bottlenecks lead to delays. Delays lead to budget overruns.

This isn't a chain of individual mistakes. This is a chain reaction of structural weaknesses.

Leadtime breaks this chain. Not with magic features. But with structure. With clarity. With transparency.

Projects don't fail because teams don't work hard enough. They fail because the structures are missing that turn hard work into successful delivery.

Leadtime gives you these structures.