How choosing the wrong technology stack may lead projects to fail.

A recent experience has provided me with the opportunity to reevaluate this assertion.

The central theme of my work is to demonstrate that technology is rarely the root cause of failure in complex systems such as CRM implementation. In fact, technology is seldom the ultimate reason why projects do not achieve their intended outcomes.

I aim to highlight that effective strategic decision-making and comprehensive planning—focused on addressing genuine business needs—are often neglected. This oversight is frequently the true reason organizations perceive their CRM initiatives as failures (Harvard Business Review, 2018).?

In fact, there is another critical factor that warrants attention: when organizations engage in technology selection, they may encounter unexpected challenges.

Issues related to scalability, security, and usability are frequently highlighted by various authors who caution entrepreneurs against the temptation to prioritize cost savings at this stage. These experts emphasize that while expense control is important, it should not come at the cost of essential functionalities and long-term viability.

Overview

Today, I would like to take the opportunity to discuss a real project, albeit a non-profit initiative in which I participated solely as an author. Through this experience, I observed a dynamic that I believe is worth sharing. I hope my esteemed colleagues will not take offense as I use this example to illustrate the potential risks associated with technology selection.

Rather than focusing on specific choices or situations, my intention is to emphasize the decision-making process influenced by human perceptions and expectations. It is essential to recognize that all decisions are made under conditions of bounded rationality, characterized by limited resources and time constraints.?

No surprise then:

“...while it's challenging to assign a specific rate to wrong decision-making across all aspects of life, the evidence suggests a significant prevalence of errors influenced by factors such as decision fatigue, anticipated regret, and overwhelming data. These factors contribute to a landscape where many individuals struggle with making high-quality decisions consistently.” (Logan Wall, LSA, 2023)

The new project aims to establish a completely new content repository with the goal of democratizing access to publishing for anyone, guided by an editorial line focused on qualitative works. While there have been several attempts at creating similar platforms—such as Medium, Substack, and Forbes—these existing models often lack true democratic principles, as their underlying logic, algorithms, and cultures remain influenced by commercial interests.

I find this initiative particularly compelling, especially as it is framed as a non-profit project. My hope is that the passion and commitment driving this endeavor will endure, unlike many other projects that have faltered, regardless of their profit motives.

Situation

The development of the website has been a lengthy process, driven by the vision of creating a platform that transcends existing approaches and remains unaffected by conventional digital practices. This initiative emphasizes a model devoid of tracking, measuring, or valuation—serving instead as a powerful tool for discovering voices that may otherwise go unheard.

I have been invited to contribute my writings, which often explore topics related to customer relationship management and various business themes, as well as non-business subjects (but that is a story for another time).

As I write this article, the project is still in its nascent stages. The propeller forces behind this initiative are my friends, both of whom possess extensive experience in publishing, marketing, content production, and top management. Their impressive track record instills confidence in the project's potential for success.

I was informed that the platform would be developed using PLONE, due to its "fantastic and often overlooked capabilities." This choice emerged from collaboration with a well-established development team proficient in utilizing this technology to build, manage, and maintain platforms. I must admit that I had not encountered Plone before—certainly my oversight—but I wonder how many readers are already familiar with it.

This approach aligns with the vision of creating an accessible and straightforward repository for diverse voices.

At its launch, dozens of articles were already in place, a strategic move that enables the platform to appear functional and user-friendly; visitors can easily engage with the content that interests them. The platform is entirely free of charge, devoid of advertising, and lacks analytics, audio reading, and even images—offering only pure qualitative content. This approach emphasizes a commitment to providing an unmediated experience, allowing users to focus solely on the written word without distractions.

Complexity

Especially in information technology projects, there are often numerous issues that require attention, adjustment, or enhancement from the very first day of going live. While business projects may benefit from more effective planning—where implementation and follow-up are executed according to design and budget constraints—bounded rationality can lead to overlooked factors even in these scenarios. This oversight is more common than one might assume, highlighting the complexities inherent in project execution.

By systematically identifying potential risks and assumptions during the planning phase, organizations can better prepare for unexpected issues that may arise during execution.

If you are interested in diving into PLONE limits as they can be found in online discussions here there is a quick list:

Complexity and Learning Curve

• Steep Learning Curve: Plone is often criticized for its complexity, which can be daunting for new users. The system is built on various technologies, including Zope and Python, and requires familiarity with these to effectively manage and customize the platform. This complexity can make it challenging for developers who are new to the ecosystem. And roughly impossible for non developers to take control of their product.
• Configuration Overhead: Users have noted that Plone involves a significant amount of configuration. This can lead to longer development times compared to simpler CMS options.

Performance Issues

• Slower Performance: Some users report that Plone can be slower than other CMS platforms, particularly in its out-of-the-box configuration. Performance optimizations are possible, but they require additional setup and expertise.
• File Upload Limits: Since the upgrade to Plone 6.0.7, there is a default file upload limit of 1MB imposed by Zope, which can hinder the ability to upload larger files such as PDFs or images without configuration changes. While this limit can be adjusted in the settings, it adds another layer of complexity for users.

Version Support and Upgrades

• Limited Support for Older Versions: As Plone evolves, older versions may become unsupported or receive limited updates. This can pose challenges for organizations that rely on older versions due to stability or compatibility concerns.
• Transitioning Architecture: Plone is in a state of transition between older and newer architectural approaches, which can introduce temporary complexities as features are updated or deprecated. This ongoing change may lead to confusion among users regarding best practices and available functionalities.

Community and Documentation

• Documentation Gaps: While there is a wealth of documentation available, some users find it lacking in clarity or detail for specific use cases. This can make troubleshooting more difficult for those unfamiliar with the system.
• Community Size: Although Plone has an active community, it is smaller compared to more mainstream CMS platforms like WordPress or Drupal. This can affect the availability of third-party plugins and community support resources.

Outcome

With CRM technology, we see this phenomenon on a daily basis: organizations are often tempted to acquire the best-in-class solution when revamping their CRM systems. Frequently dissatisfied with their current solution and driven by a positive intention to resolve existing issues, organizations may abandon their digital CRM in favor of a more promising alternative. Alternatively, during initial adoption projects, management can be captivated by the potential of these best-in-class solutions.

It is important to recognize that the purchasing process is often influenced more by human emotions than people generally tend to believe.

In my experience assisting organizations with CRM, I have encountered more instances where companies sought to change their technology solutions due to an inability to cope with complexity and the associated management effort, rather than because of the technology's inherent limitations.

When implementation analyses are conducted properly and the consulting firm delivers a solution that aligns with the organization's business needs, there tends to be little desire for change. Conversely, when implementation projects fail to address real and effective needs, organizations may misidentify the root of their problems and consider changing the technology—often in collaboration with the consulting firm that initially implemented the solution.

We all experience moments of shoddy decision-making in our portfolios, and we all encounter failed projects at some point in our careers. While failure is an integral part of the learning process, it is crucial to remember that someone ultimately bears the cost of these failures. When we personally incur that cost, they are called Master as they serve as a valuable lesson; however, when clients bear the brunt of our mistakes, it constitutes a professional failure.

Project's outcome risks

1. The ultimate outcome of this project may be a lack of timely adjustments, which can lead to elements that negatively impact user experience not being addressed properly or promptly.? User Experience is paramount to keep people engaged, and return as they enjoy using the product. You can measure it just by noticing the word of mouth spread.?
2. Features that could become relevant or new opportunities that were previously overlooked—capable of supporting the platform's growth—will be more challenging to plan and implement effectively.
3. Additionally, there is a risk of vendor lock-in due to the choice of technology, which is not widely adopted. This situation arises because the tech partners are the sole proprietors of the technology stack, limiting flexibility and potentially hindering future development.