When Projects Stall: New Research Pins Failed Launches on Bad Handoffs

Bad handoffs are the hidden break point behind many failed launches, Info-Tech says

Info-Tech Research Group reviewed dozens of post-launch incidents and concluded that weak handover practices are a common root cause of failed project launches. The group says many projects that appear technically sound still stumble when the people and teams taking over the work don’t get clear, practical knowledge about how things should run.

The practical result is simple: features or services that should be live instead sit half-built in production, support teams scramble without the right tools, and business leaders face missed targets. Info-Tech frames this as an operational handoff problem rather than a pure engineering failure.

Where the handover cracks start: messy structure, mixed tools and blurry roles

Info-Tech breaks the handover problem into a few repeating patterns. First, groups often work in silos. A development team builds and signs off on code, then hands it to operations and support that were not involved early. That leaves gaps in knowledge about how the system behaves in real use.

Second, tooling doesn’t match across teams. Developers use one set of systems to track issues, operations use another, and support has a third. When those tools don’t talk to each other, important context — like temporary fixes, known limitations, or escalation paths — gets lost.

Third, responsibility is fuzzy. No single person or team is accountable for the product once it moves past launch. That lack of ownership slows down fixes and dulls incentives to prevent problems. Teams say a task is someone else’s job, and issues linger.

Finally, written documentation is often too high-level or too late. Info-Tech found that handover notes either skim the surface or arrive after the service is live, which undermines their usefulness. The group also noted that implicit knowledge — how a system behaves under stress, or a quick manual workaround — rarely makes it into formal records.

Real costs: delayed features, heavier support loads and customer fallout

The operational consequences are immediate and visible. Launch schedules slip because teams spend their early days firefighting rather than moving forward. Support desks see a spike in tickets tied to things that were expected to be handled by the incoming team.

Info-Tech reports common failure modes: configuration errors that could have been avoided with shared checklists, missing runbooks that leave on-call staff guessing, and slow escalations because the right experts weren’t looped in. Those issues raise the workload and the morale cost for front-line staff.

For businesses, the impact can be bigger than a technical glitch. User frustration grows when new features are buggy or inconsistent. Internal teams waste hours tracing who should fix what. In some cases, poor handovers have forced companies to roll back launches or delay revenue-driving features.

Info-Tech’s playbook: how teams should formalize handovers before go-live

Info-Tech presents a set of practical steps for teams to follow. The group recommends formal checklists that cover configuration, monitoring, and known issues — and insists those checklists be completed before a launch is declared successful. The idea is to make informal work explicit.

The research also urges aligning tools or at least integrating them so that tickets, incident notes and runbooks are visible to everyone who needs them. Where full integration isn’t possible, Info-Tech suggests defined handoff points with synchronized updates to reduce the chance of lost context.

On ownership, the group favors clear, single-point accountability for the post-launch phase. That doesn’t mean one person does all the work; it means there is a named owner responsible for coordinating fixes and tracking follow-through.

Finally, Info-Tech highlights the value of early operational involvement. Inviting operations and support into design and testing phases helps surface questions and build shared experience. The report frames this as a move from a throw-it-over-the-wall approach to a joined-up operating model.

Why leaders should care and what to watch next

For business leaders, the study reframes a familiar problem. Failures that look technical often reflect process and people gaps. Fixing those gaps can reduce rework and shorten the time it takes for new work to deliver value.

Info-Tech suggests leaders monitor simple signals: how long post-launch support stays elevated, the number of repeat incidents tied to knowledge gaps, and whether runbooks and checklists are actually used in the first weeks after launch. If those indicators stay poor, launches will keep costing more than expected.

In short, the research points to a clear idea: attention to handovers is not low-level housekeeping. It shapes whether launches become smooth upgrades or expensive setbacks.