Why are so many large computing projects destined to be costly failures? History tells us we, not our machines, are the problem – and it’s time we tackled that. The UK’s National Health Service may seem like a parochial subject for this column. But with 1.7 million employees and a budget of over $150 billion, it is the world’s fifth biggest employer – beaten only by McDonalds, Walmart, the Chinese Army, and the US Department of Defense. So its successes and failures tend to provide salutary lessons for institutions of all sizes. Take for instance, the recent revelation that an abandoned attempt to upgrade its computer systems will cost over £9.8 billion ($15 billion) – described by the Public Accounts Committee as one of the “worst and most expensive contracting fiascos” in the history of the public sector. This won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has worked on large computing projects. Planning tends to be inadequate, with projected timings and budgets reflecting wishful thinking rather than a robust analysis of requirements. Communication breaks down, with side issues dominating discussions to the exclusion of core functions. And the world itself moves on, turning yesterday’s technical marvel into tomorrow’s white elephant, complete with endless administrative headaches and little scope for technical development.