Successful IT Projects: The Customer’s Role

When a large IT implementation goes wrong, the supplier usually gets the blame. Timelines slip, systems underperform, and costs escalate. But in many cases, the outcome is influenced by how the customer approaches the project – particularly in how the deal is structured, how internal responsibilities are managed, and how effectively the project is governed.

In this article, we draw on our experience advising customers on large IT projects to highlight some recurring issues which, if well-managed, can materially improve project outcomes.

Understand the Deal

The commercial structure of IT contracts is often complex and can create material risk if not properly understood.

Projects are typically priced on a fixed price, time and materials, or hybrid basis. While fixed pricing is generally preferred for certainty, it introduces its own risks:

• Scope definition is critical in fixed price arrangements. Too often, the specification or scope of work is treated as a technical annex and not reviewed with the same rigour as the contract itself. In practice, it is often the most important document. Vague scope, unclear responsibilities, and imprecise timelines are common sources of disputes. The scope should be drafted in clear, durable terms that remain intelligible long after the original project team has moved on.
• Variations to the agreed scope are inevitable. Contracts should include clear mechanisms governing how changes are approved and priced. If variations are to be charged on a time basis, rates should be agreed upfront – before the customer’s leverage disappears.
• Carve-outs also require scrutiny. Unlike variations (which arise from changes during the project), carve-outs are exclusions embedded in the original pricing structure. Suppliers routinely structure fixed price arrangements so certain categories of work fall outside the fixed price scope, knowing that in practice those services are often essential to delivery. Customers frequently underestimate the probability, and cost impact, of these exclusions, particularly where additional services are priced on rate cards.
• Supplier viability is another consideration. A heavily negotiated fixed price may appear attractive, but if it is not commercially viable for the supplier, it creates a real risk of under-resourcing or supplier insolvency mid-project.

Despite these risks, fixed pricing is often preferable to time and materials, where cost overruns sit almost entirely with the customer.

What to do:

• Push for fixed pricing where possible.
• Treat the scope of work as a core commercial document and have it reviewed by legal.
• Don’t mistake ambiguity for flexibility – in IT projects ambiguity always claims a victim, and it’s usually the customer.
• Agree rates up-front for variations.
• Analyse carve-outs carefully and factor them into overall cost.
• Include a clear and pre-agreed change control mechanism.
• Ensure pricing is commercially viable for both parties.

Get Your House in Order

Customers often focus heavily on supplier obligations, while giving far less attention to their own. Yet IT contracts routinely include customer dependencies – data provision, system access, availability of personnel, and timely decision-making. These are often treated as administrative, but they are not. Missed dependencies can trigger valid claims for extensions of time and additional cost.

The supplier’s commercial team will be tracking these closely. By contrast, the customer’s internal stakeholders are managing the project alongside their day jobs and may have limited awareness of the contractual consequences of delay. That asymmetry is where disputes begin.

What to do:

• Identify customer dependencies early in procurement.
• Document them clearly and assign internal ownership.
• Elevate dependencies into governance forums, not just contract schedules.
• Ensure internal teams understand the commercial impact of delay.
• Document supplier contributions to any missed dependencies and challenge claims where appropriate.

Don’t Leave Legal Until the Last Minute

A common pattern is for procurement and IT teams to work through key commercial and technical issues, only to involve legal late in the process with limited time and incomplete context.

The result is a contract that does not reflect the project. Key technical detail is missed, customer-specific risks are not properly addressed, and fundamental issues – such as liability, termination, data and IP – are raised too late to resolve efficiently. This creates pressure to accept suboptimal positions to keep the deal moving.

Protracted late-stage negotiations are their own problem. When the legal teams spend weeks fighting over positions that should have been flagged at heads of agreement stage, timelines slip before implementation has even started.

What to do:

• Involve legal at the term sheet stage, not just at execution.
• Ensure structured knowledge transfer from procurement and IT to legal.
• Align early on key risk positions (often liability, termination, data and IP).
• Agree a clear negotiation timeline.
• Avoid negotiating through redlines or page-turn group sessions – these are time-consuming and can become bogged down on clauses with little practical impact. Instead, require legal to take a strategic approach: key issues lists, proactive engagement and prompt escalation on critical issues help to focus attention on the material gaps.

Is Your Governance Fit for Purpose?

Strong contracts cannot compensate for weak governance.

Common warning signs include ineffective steering committees, delayed decision-making, and risk registers that are maintained but not actively used. At the same time, the supplier is typically documenting issues in real time, widening the gap between the client’s perceived and actual project health.

Key personnel are another area of governance risk. Senior supplier personnel involved in the sales process are often replaced post-signature with less experienced teams. Unless actively managed, this can materially affect delivery quality.

What to do:

• Appoint a sponsor with both authority and availability.
• Go beyond status reporting – test actual progress against milestones.
• Maintain frequent, structured engagement with the supplier.
• Keep a live decision log.
• Keep legal in the loop, especially if anything starts to slip. They can provide crucial advice, document important details and protect the company’s position, without disturbing the project dynamic.
• Require contractual approval rights over replacement of key supplier personnel.

Plan the Exit, Not Just the Build

Customers rarely focus on exit arrangements at the outset of a project.  Yet termination rights, data portability, licence survival and transition assistance are critical to avoiding supplier lock-in. Proprietary systems and supplier-controlled environments can severely limit practical exit options, even where contractual rights exist.

What to do:

• Include robust termination assistance obligations, specifying the nature of support, duration and what fees (if any) will apply.
• Require data to be provided in open, portable formats.
• Confirm which licence rights survive termination.

Conclusion

Technology projects rarely fail for a single reason. While supplier performance is often the focus, many risks sit within the customer’s control – how the deal is structured, how internal obligations are managed, and how governance operates in practice.

The organisations that experience the most difficulty are typically those that arrive underprepared, involve legal too late, and treat governance as a reporting exercise rather than an active risk control.

For in-house teams, the objective is not to eliminate risk entirely, but to act as a disciplined and well-prepared counterparty. That means aligning legal, commercial and technical teams early, treating the contract as a live tool, and maintaining active oversight throughout delivery.

Projects that succeed are not necessarily simpler – they are better structured, better governed and better understood from the outset. The difference is rarely in the technology – it is in the preparation.

This article was prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, including Harvey and ChatGPT, which were used to support research, drafting, and editing. All content has been reviewed and refined by the author to ensure accuracy and alignment with professional standards.