Why does digital project management fail despite modern tools? Find out how unclear processes slow down digital transformation in project management—and what really helps.
We need to get rid of Excel. We need to get rid ofemail . We need a new tool.
When companies want to digitize their project work, their attention quickly turns to software. After all, it’s obvious when project statuses are tracked in spreadsheets, information is sent via email, and tasks are tracked in various files.
So a new project management software is introduced.
And then?
The coordination loops remain. Information is still missing. Responsibilities are still unclear. And the new system suddenly feels just as complicated as the old one.
Maybe Excel wasn’t the real problem after all.
Maybe it was the processes behind it.
Digital project management often fails not because of the software used, but because of unclear, inconsistent, or unnecessarily complicated processes. If existing workflows are simply transferred to a digital system, their weaknesses remain. Successful digital transformation therefore requires clear responsibilities, standardized workflows, and a shared database.
Or to put it more simply:
A poor analog process doesn’t automatically become good just because it’s now digital.
Excel can do quite a lot.
And that’s exactly why it’s so stubbornly entrenched in project management.
It’s quick to create a new list. Columns can be customized. Almost anyone can use it. For manageable tasks or individual analyses, a spreadsheet can be perfectly adequate.
Problems only arise when Excel is expected to handle tasks it was never actually designed for.
For example, when multiple companies are jointly managing a complex project. When hundreds of tasks depend on one another. When different project stakeholders constantly need up-to-date information. Or when it must always be clear who changed which status and when.
That’s when you end up with ProjectStatus_Final.xlsx, ProjectStatus_Final_New.xlsx, and eventually maybe even ProjectStatus_Final_New_REALLY_FINAL.xlsx.
But even then, Excel is often just the symptom.
The more interesting question is:
Why does the project need so many parallel lists in the first place?
Imagine a simple approval process.
Information is entered. It’s then emailed to Person A. Person A reviews it and forwards it to Person B. Person B adds something and sends the file back. After that, someone enters the current status into an Excel spreadsheet.
Now this process is being digitized.
Instead of an email, there’s a notification. Instead of an Excel file, there’s a digital form.
But the workflow remains the same.
So while the tool has been replaced, the process itself hasn’t been improved.
This is precisely where a common misconception lies regarding digitization in project management:
Digitization doesn’t mean replicating existing workflows one-to-one in software. It means first asking which workflows actually make sense.
Workarounds are a pretty good indicator.
If employees regularly maintain additional Excel spreadsheets, exchange information outside the intended system, or develop their own methods, it’s worth taking a closer look.
Because there’s often a specific need behind this.
Perhaps information is missing from the official process. Perhaps approval takes too long. Perhaps a responsibility isn’t clearly defined. Or the intended workflow simply doesn’t fit the reality of the project.
A second warning sign is an unusually high number of coordination tasks.
If project managers spend a significant portion of their time figuring out where a task currently stands, it’s rarely just a communication problem. Often, there’s no process that clearly defines the status, responsibility, and next step.
And at the very latest when you hear phrases like “Thomas is actually in charge of that” or “I thought the supplier was handling that,” you should take a closer look.
After all, digital project management can make responsibilities transparent.
Nevertheless, the organization itself must define them.
Before digitizing an existing workflow, it’s worth doing a quick reality check.
That sounds trivial, but it’s surprisingly often overlooked.
A process shouldn’t exist just because “that’s how we’ve always done it.” It needs a purpose.
For example, if the goal is to resolve an issue as quickly as possible, it doesn’t matter how many forms were filled out. What matters is that the issue is clearly documented, assigned to a responsible person, processed, reviewed, and closed.
Everything in between should serve this goal.
Digital processes require clear lines of responsibility.
Not:
“The relevant department will take care of it.”
But rather:
Who is handling the process? Who needs to make the decision? Who is authorized to change the status? Who reviews the result? And when does responsibility transfer to the next person?
The more complex the project, the more important these questions become.
More data doesn’t automatically mean better project management.
If employees have to fill out 25 fields for every task, only five of which are actually used later, it doesn’t create transparency.
It just creates more data maintenance.
That’s why it’s important to clarify for each piece of information: Who needs it—and for what purpose?
Anything that does not contribute to management, traceability, documentation, or a necessary decision should at least be questioned.
Handoffs are among the most critical points in complex projects.
For example, a task moves from the project team to the supplier, back to project management, and then on to quality control. At each handoff, information can be lost, responsibilities can become unclear, or delays can occur.
A good digital process therefore does more than just make tasks visible.
It also makes it clear what needs to happen next.
Duplicate data entry is a particularly good indicator of potential for improvement.
If information is recorded on paper on-site, then transferred to Excel, and later prepared again for a report, the problem isn’t solely with Excel.
The problem lies in the process between these systems.
That’s exactly where digitization should come in.
That sounds harsh.
But it’s an important point.
Software can speed up processes, connect information, trigger automatic notifications, and create transparency.
But it can’t decide how a company wants to work together.
If five approval steps don’t add value, digitizing them won’t make them any more useful. If responsibilities were unclear to begin with, a dashboard won’t automatically solve the organizational problem. And if no one has defined which information is relevant to a decision, collecting more data won’t automatically lead to better decisions.
That’s why the sequence should be:
Understand → simplify → standardize → digitize → automate.
Not the other way around.
Especially in complex industrial and infrastructure projects, the objection quickly arises:
“Our projects are too unique for that.”
That may be true.
But individuality and standardization are not mutually exclusive.
The specific details of a project can vary greatly. Nevertheless, recurring processes can be defined: How is a problem identified? How is responsibility assigned? How is progress reported? How are changes documented? When is a task considered complete?
It is precisely these recurring structures that lend themselves to digital workflows.
So the goal isn’t to force every project into the same mold.
The goal is to avoid having to invent a new process every time a recurring situation arises.
Only when processes are clear can software demonstrate its strengths.
Then information doesn’t have to be transferred multiple times. Progress documented on-site can be made available directly within the project. Those responsible can see their open tasks. Project managers receive an up-to-date status without first having to call several people. And decisions can be made based on a shared database.
This is precisely where digital project management differs from a collection of digital tools.
It’s not about replacing Excel with Tool A, email with Tool B, and paper with App C.
It’s about creatinga seamless flow of information throughout the project.
Anyone introducing a new solution should therefore not start by asking:
“What features do we need?”
A better starting question is:
“How do we want to manage our projects in the future?”
This leads to much more specific questions:
Where does information come from? Who needs it? What decisions depend on it? Which steps can be standardized? What information needs to be available across departmental or company boundaries?
Only then should a decision be made on how software can support this process.
Incidentally, this also increases acceptance.
After all, employees aren’t just getting “yet another tool.”
They get a better process.
That’s why COMAN isn’t just about digitally replicating as many existing lists as possible.
The focus is on a shared, up-to-date database for project management.
Project information is linked together where it is generated and where it is needed. Progress, open issues, responsibilities, and other relevant project data can thus be consolidated in a transparent manner.
This creates a digital project twin.
Not as a digital copy of the plant.
But rather as a digital representation of the project and its current status.
The technology thus lays the foundation for transparency and end-to-end project management.
For it to work, however, the most important thing is still needed:
good processes.
Excel works well for individual lists, calculations, and analyses. However, in complex projects with many stakeholders, dependencies, and ongoing changes, conflicting data sets can quickly arise, leading to a high manual maintenance burden. Therefore, the key issue is not so much the spreadsheet program itself as whether information is consistently available to all relevant stakeholders.
Yes. Existing processes should first be reviewed for their purpose, responsibilities, handoffs, required information, and unnecessary steps. Otherwise, there is a risk of simply replicating inefficient analog workflows in a digital format.
Frequent workarounds, additional Excel spreadsheets, duplicate data entry, numerous status meetings, unclear responsibilities, and manual data transfers between systems are typical warning signs.
A good digital project process has a clear purpose, well-defined responsibilities, and as few unnecessary handoffs as possible. Information is captured where it is generated and is then available to the relevant stakeholders without the need for additional manual transfers.
Digitization can simply mean digitally mapping a single analog work step. Digital project management goes further: it connects processes, responsibilities, and project data in such a way that the current project status becomes transparent and decisions can be made based on a shared data foundation.
Excel has easily become a scapegoat.
Too easily.
Because if a project is plagued by unclear responsibilities, unnecessary approvals, and poor handoffs, new software won’t simply make these problems disappear.
In the worst case, it will simply digitize them.
That’s why successful digitization in project management doesn’t start with the question of which tool to use next.
It starts with a more uncomfortable question:
How well do our processes actually work?
Whoever answers this question first creates the conditions necessary for digital project management to then do what it’s meant to do:
Not to digitally manage poor processes.
But rather, to make projects more manageable.
New software alone doesn’t make for better processes. What matters is how information, responsibilities, and workflows are linked together.
Want to know how digital end-to-end integration works in practice? Explore our resources for practical insights, valuable expertise, and concrete ideas to enhance your project management.
Excel, emails and isolated solutions are destroying digital consistency in project management. Find out why media disruptions sabotage the digital...
Project management in special machine construction: Find out why projects often fail due to a lack of transparency, poor handovers and problems...
Project Management Tools for Mechanical and Plant Engineering: Learn what requirements modern software must meet and how real-time transparency,...
You are curious and want to know more about our software, customers and releases? Be the first to know about new updates, interesting success stories or awesome project management hacks. Sign in now!