Digital Projects in Türkiye
In Türkiye, a significant share of executives report high failure in their own projects. According to one study, roughly a third of leaders say failure rates in digital transformation projects exceed 30 percent.
This is not an estimate made from outside. It is the assessment of the people running the projects. That makes the picture heavier still.
What the Number Says
BU BÖLÜMÜN ÖZETİ
- The problem is known
- Self-reporting tends toward optimism
- Investment continues regardless
Three findings.
The problem is known
Executives are aware of the situation and state the figure themselves. So this is not an awareness gap. The figure comes from them, not from outside. Knowing it and acting on it are different things. The knowledge exists but the application is missing. That gap closes with method, not more information.
Self-reporting tends toward optimism
People lean favourably when assessing their own work. This is a well-documented tendency. So the real rate likely runs above what gets reported. Read this figure as a floor. External measurement comes out harsher, and the truth sits between the two.
Investment continues regardless
Spending carries on despite the known failure rate. Türkiye’s information technology market keeps growing. So the problem is not reluctance. It is method and sequencing. Ownership forms the first part of that method.
What the Headline Misses
BU BÖLÜMÜN ÖZETİ
- Corporate data does not describe small business
- Nobody records the failures
- Budget allocation hides the problem
Three details.
Corporate data does not describe small business
These studies involve large companies. A small business shows a different picture. The budget is smaller but the decision is faster. Those two differences offset each other, and feedback arrives quickly at small scale. The rate does not transfer directly. The pattern holds though.
Nobody records the failures
An abandoned project rarely gets written down anywhere. It closes quietly. Nobody asks about the outcome either. A single line of explanation would prevent the repeat. So the same mistake repeats. Without a record, learning never accumulates. The same cause also goes unnoticed a second time.
Budget allocation hides the problem
The money generally goes to software while very little is set aside for training and transition. Yet that is where the real risk sits. Unused software costs more than its licence fee. Licences get bought and nothing gets allocated for use. Most abandoned projects come from exactly this.
What a Business Should Do
BU BÖLÜMÜN ÖZETİ
- Cost: one hour to look backwards
- First step: write down why each one stalled
- Next step: split the budget in two
Three steps.
Cost: one hour to look backwards
List the digital projects you started in the past two years. How many finished and how many stalled? That list gives you your own rate. It is a far more useful number than a sector average. And it belongs entirely to you.
First step: write down why each one stalled
One line per abandoned project: why did it stop? The answer usually falls into three categories. There was no owner. The scope was too large. Or the goal was unclear.
Next step: split the budget in two
Software cost on one side, transition cost on the other. If the second is zero, the project starts at risk. Both lines get allocated at the same time. Money runs out otherwise, and training goes with it. The starting method builds that distinction in.
Looking at a sector average is pointless while your own rate stays unknown.