In this episode of the International Web Effectiveness podcast, hosts Bill Scully and Bill Hunt discuss four major causes of web project failures, emphasizing the importance of knowledge, training the organization, collaboration, and proper oversight. They also highlight the significance of understanding and building processes, implementing feedback loops, and thorough preparation for project success.
Key Takeaways
- Lack of Knowledge and Training: Inadequate training and understanding of processes can lead to significant project failures. For instance, improper implementation of redirects in web development reflects a lack of training or awareness of best practices.
- Disagreement with Rules and Procedures: Differing opinions on procedures can hinder project success. For example, ignoring required documentation due to managerial reluctance can affect overall project performance.
- Poor Collaboration and Coordination: Effective teamwork and communication are crucial. Failures often occur when departments or teams do not share information or coordinate their efforts properly.
- Insufficient Oversight and Governance: Without proper oversight, processes may fail. Regular reviews and governance are necessary to ensure compliance and effective execution.
- Before presenting audit findings, it’s essential to understand the reasons behind existing processes. Asking questions about workflows and roles helps uncover potential areas for improvement and fosters better collaboration.
- Implementing a feedback loop, as exemplified by the Japanese Kaizen philosophy, is vital for ongoing improvement. Addressing inefficiencies and continuously refining processes can lead to better outcomes and resource management.
Catch the Full Episode
YouTube: https://youtu.be/U32twqRHgdE
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4Tg4qWPBZ3e8ShSCcsi4qs?si=jbxXUujbSOaV7Nmm-kV7bQ
Transcript
Bill Scully: Welcome back to Episode Five of the International Web Effectiveness podcast, where Bill Hunt and I, Bill Scully, focus on the strategies and techniques necessary to improve your web presence and manage global websites. In our last episode, we discussed the reasons for implementing a global web center of excellence. Today, we’re diving into the root causes of web project failures.
But before we get into that, Google recently had an Off the Record discussion with Martin, Lizzy, and Gary about internationalization and Hreflang tags. It’s interesting—after years of silence, Google has suddenly started talking about ccTLDs and Hreflang in the past month.
What are your thoughts on that, Bill? Did you get a chance to listen?
Bill Hunt: I did. Yeah, I listened to it, and I thought it was fascinating. I highly recommend it to anyone working in international search. First off, I love that Google is finally addressing this issue and trying to get ahead of it. For a lot of people, it’s a major pain point.
One of my biggest takeaways was the dialogue among Google’s team—what they know, what they don’t, and how they interpret things. That level of transparency was valuable. I’m currently writing an analysis, paraphrasing key takeaways, because I think this conversation was significant.
One point they covered—which we’ve discussed before—is the effectiveness of different implementation methods. They talked about how Hreflang is processed within their ranking system, where it fits in their hierarchy, and when it gets applied. They didn’t go into deep technical details, but for those who understand how Google works, there were some insightful moments.
Another interesting point was the discussion around ranking factors, particularly an algorithm that deals with language demotion and country promotion. Gary reiterated that ccTLDs offer only marginal benefits. He even suggested that in the future—though he didn’t specify when—the impact of ccTLDs may become negligible. This makes sense, given how many country-specific domains, like .co (Colombia) and .tv (Tuvalu), are now used globally rather than for their original regions.
They also covered real-world scenarios, like a German-based site using a .de domain but publishing all content in English. Google has to decide how to handle that. There were a lot of takeaways for both SEOs and implementers. If you haven’t listened yet, I’d recommend it. It’s about 30 minutes long, and I’ll be sharing some additional insights in our Facebook group soon.
Bill Scully: I’m looking forward to that article. You always break these complex topics down in a way that sparks great discussions.
Now, Bill, you recently wrote an article on the root causes of project failures. You also had an interesting experience related to a failed audit. Can you share some background on that and what you learned?
Bill Hunt: Sure. This goes back many years to my time in the Marine Corps. I was part of a group divided into three sections. One of them underwent a Marine Corps leveling inspection—a major audit—and they failed. Not just failed, but failed so badly that it was called the worst they had ever seen. In a civilian setting, this would be like getting fired on the spot. The senior officer in charge wasn’t fired, but a lot of people under him were reassigned.
At the time, I was very junior, sitting at what I call “the kiddie table,” just observing. I was reading the audit report when I got nudged in the ribs by a senior officer who was ranting. He asked if he was boring me, and I told him I was just trying to understand why the failure was so severe. His response? “Because they’re incompetent.”
That didn’t sit right with me. I’ve always been taught to diagnose issues rather than just accept surface-level explanations. So, I started breaking it down and identified four key reasons for the failure:
- Lack of Knowledge and Training – The audit flagged missing documentation. In the military, much like in HR, every record—training, certifications, payroll—needs to be properly filed. When asked why certain entries were missing, many people simply didn’t know they were required. It was their job, but they were unaware of the correct process.
- Poor Processes and Implementation – Translating this to web development, it’s like a developer needing to implement a redirect. There are multiple ways to do it, but only one method works optimally for SEO. If a search team later discovers 25,000 incorrectly implemented redirects, whose fault is that? The developer might argue, “Well, it still moves users from Point A to Point B.” But the method matters. Often, poor implementation stems from a lack of awareness, not intentional mistakes.
- Inefficient Resource Allocation – When people take a long time to complete tasks, it’s usually because they’re figuring it out on the fly. This leads to delays and wasted resources. In the case of the failed audit, many people had never been properly trained, so they were left to guess at what was required.
- Lack of Accountability – In both military and corporate environments, accountability is key. If there’s no system in place to ensure people follow the right procedures, mistakes compound over time. That’s exactly what happened in this audit.
This experience taught me a lot about diagnosing failures. When a web project fails, it’s often not because the team is incompetent—it’s because they lack the necessary training, structure, or clarity. That’s why process improvement and documentation are so critical.
Bill Scully: That’s a great analogy. Many web projects struggle for the same reasons—teams working without proper training, documentation, or accountability. Addressing those gaps can prevent costly mistakes.
Bill Hunt: Absolutely. And the sooner teams recognize these issues, the better they can mitigate failures before they become major setbacks.
Bill Hunt:
Looking back on my career, I’ve noticed that a lot of people don’t follow best practices—not because they don’t want to, but because they’ve never been trained. This is especially true in search, development, and web effectiveness.
Another issue I’ve seen is disagreement over the rules. In one case, a specific unit was what we called the “tip of the spear.” Because they were constantly moving, they were exempt from rifle and pistol qualification. Now, in the Marine Corps, two things are crucial: physical fitness and rifle qualification. Without updated scores, a Marine’s chances of promotion drop significantly.
But the records didn’t reflect that exemption. Without that entry, the system reverted to an old score—or worse, showed them as unqualified. This was negatively affecting promotions. When we asked why the records weren’t updated, the response was, “The department head didn’t want to sign off on it.” He kept delaying, saying he’d sign it when they left the unit. That meant some Marines could go six to twelve months without the proper record, simply because someone chose not to follow the process.
Bill Scully:
I’ve seen that happen in organizations too. There’s often a gap between what leadership thinks is happening and what actually gets done.
Bill Hunt:
Exactly. In my web effectiveness audits, I break things down by role. I’ll interview the managers and the people doing the work, then compare their answers. The requirements will say, “We do X, Y, and Z.” Managers insist, “Yes, we do X, Y, and Z.” But when I talk to the team, they tell me, “We do A, B, and C.”
Bill Scully:
That sounds familiar. I was once tasked with training an entire manufacturing facility. We ran groups of 20 people through a three-day program. I worked with a guy who had built Ford’s first assembly line. It was eye-opening to see how people misunderstood processes.
One department assumed it was Bill’s job to complete a task. Bill thought it was their job. In the end, no one was doing it. Meanwhile, we had a seven-page carbon copy order form. The last page was barely legible, so the person who needed to sign off wouldn’t do it. That delay alone made up 50% of the total order processing time.
Bill Hunt:
That happens in digital marketing too. Teams don’t document fixes, and six months later, someone undoes them.
Bill Scully:
Right. No documentation is a disaster waiting to happen. And processes change, but nobody updates the documentation.
Bill Hunt:
Exactly. That’s why I avoid the term “best practices.” It makes people think something is set in stone. I prefer “procedures” or “methodologies.” But are they ever reviewed? Are they still relevant?
When I conduct readouts, I don’t throw anyone under the bus. I’ll say, “Hey, can I share this? No one is following this step.” Some agree, others say, “Don’t mention my name.” But when there’s only one person responsible for it, it’s pretty obvious.
Bill Scully:
That reminds me of an SEO issue I saw once. A checkbox for SEO optimization was on the back of a printed form. When teams made photocopies, they only copied the front. No one knew they had requested SEO, and the work never got done.
Bill Hunt:
That’s a perfect example. It all comes down to understanding:
- Do people know the process?
- Do they disagree with it?
- Is there a lack of collaboration?
Take the Marines again. Promotions depend on training certifications, physical fitness tests, and job-specific qualifications. An inspector started reviewing records and found missing certifications—simply because training departments kept the paperwork for their inspections instead of forwarding it to admin. The fix? Mailroom staff would open the envelopes, photocopy the certificates, and distribute them properly.
The same issue happens in search. A global SEO lead often only owns KPIs and processes but has no control over content, templates, or creative execution. We rely on collaboration, yet there’s no oversight.
Bill Scully:
So, there was no governance?
Bill Hunt:
Exactly. No one was checking. When I checked into my unit, there was a sign-off sheet. Each department was supposed to review my records before initialing it. Instead, one guy, annoyed that I interrupted him, just threw my records into a box and signed off without checking anything.
If key documents were missing, I could have corrected them right then. But since no one checked, those errors followed people throughout their careers. That lack of oversight is the real issue—whether in the military, manufacturing, or SEO.
Bill Hunt:
I said all four of these things can be corrected. The scariest part was when the colonel looked at me and said, “Great. Sounds like a plan. Make it happen.” Basically, I had thirty days to fix the process, train the people, and audit nearly three thousand records—almost every one of them had something wrong.
When I presented my game plan, the first thing they asked at the end of the first day was, “How many did you audit?” The answer was zero. We couldn’t audit anything until we trained the team, ensured they understood the process, and had a structured audit protocol. But to them, it was just about fixing things immediately.
Even more interesting was when I handed in my written plan, I asked, “What does success look like to you?” His response was, “I really don’t care. Your only metric for success is that I don’t get fired.” If he couldn’t fix this in thirty days and the errors remained at an unacceptable level, he would be relieved of duty—essentially ending his twenty-three-year career.
The pressure on me was intense. I was a nobody, number eight in the food chain, yet I had to tell people two or three ranks above me what to do. That experience shaped how I approach projects. Every failed project I’ve ever examined can be traced back to at least one of these four issues. And for those wondering, “What about lack of resources? Lack of budget?”—we can throw in a fifth: lack of prior planning. That’s probably the biggest reason projects fail.
Once a project starts, you hope the foundational elements are in place. But if they aren’t, it inevitably breaks down into one of these four failures—usually all four if there’s no oversight or governance.
I really liked what you said earlier about interviewing people first. That’s the key to understanding the problem. Instead of just ticking boxes, you make sure people actually know the process. Could you elaborate on that? What are the top five things someone should do, even if they’re not new?
Bill Scully:
The first step is breaking it down by role because every role has a different perspective. There’s a reason I started doing this—it matters. Think about the questions people always ask: Why do we do things this way?
And how you ask that question is important. If you don’t phrase it correctly, people feel like you’re criticizing them. It’s just curiosity, like when we discuss URL structures: Why do we format them this way? It’s not accusatory; it’s about understanding.
But you can only ask that question to the right person. A web developer might know, but a content team member might not. A search specialist may or may not—it’s not necessarily their responsibility. So, I tailor my questions to each role.
One of the key questions I always ask is, What’s your view on SEO? Then I follow up with:
- What’s your workflow?
- What’s the process for getting things published?
By asking these questions, I uncover how things move through the pipeline. That’s often the most revealing part.
Bill Hunt:
Exactly. I’ve only encountered one situation where every team had a similar answer. Most of the time, people only understand their own segment of the process.
That’s why, when you were doing your training, you discovered that either there was no process or no one knew what happened after they handed something off. When people understand the full process, they see how their contribution affects the final product—whether they’re improving or unintentionally hurting the outcome.
One of the biggest mistakes SEO professionals make is storming in with audit findings before understanding why things were done a certain way. That approach immediately feels condescending, lacks empathy, and alienates people.
Instead, imagine asking someone—even if you already know the answer—why they do things a certain way. In SEO, we can often look at a page and reverse-engineer the process, but simply asking creates an opportunity for understanding. You might realize, Oh, maybe I need to adjust my approach here.
Bill Scully:
Right. And when you do these interviews, you start identifying barriers—where things break down. Maybe the last guy in the chain says, “I can’t read the damn copy. It’s illegible.” That leads to simple fixes:
- Type it instead of handwriting it.
- Use a better pen.
- Tell people to press harder.
- Better yet, digitize the process.
Half the time, we found that certain copies were unnecessary. People weren’t doing anything with them except signing and stacking them on their desks.
Bill Hunt:
Exactly. And sometimes those papers just sit on a desk for a week while someone’s on vacation. It’s absurd.
One strategy that worked well for me was conducting interviews with two people—one actively listening and the other leading the conversation. Then, after the interview, those two can debrief and uncover additional insights.
Bill Scully:
That makes sense. Another key principle is don’t send defects, don’t accept defects. If everyone along the workflow spots and corrects issues instead of just passing them along, it improves overall quality.
But today, many people rush to finish tasks and just accept errors, fixing them later instead of addressing the root problem.
Bill Hunt:
Right. And if teams communicate better, they can resolve recurring issues. If someone spends twenty minutes fixing the same mistakes every time, a simple conversation could fix the problem upstream.
A quick example from Disney: I was checking into a hotel before giving a keynote, and the front desk agent looked completely frazzled. A sticky note on her monitor read: “You MUST get the guest’s email.”
She had to tab through eight screens just to reach the email field, then tab back through all eight screens to continue checking someone in. I asked, “Have you ever told your boss about this?” She said, “I didn’t think I could.”
I told her, “At least mention it. Look at you—there are ten people in line. Everyone’s frustrated, and you’re wasting time tabbing through screens.”
Bill Scully:
Exactly. That small inefficiency, repeated thousands of times, creates unnecessary frustration. I know you’re great at pointing that out—like when you tweak our show notes. Feedback loops are invaluable.
Bill Hunt:
Yes, and that concept—continuous improvement—is called Kaizen in Japan. The idea is simple: if you can eliminate small inefficiencies throughout a workflow, the cumulative effect is huge. Imagine cutting five minutes of wasted time in three different areas—that’s fifteen minutes saved per task.
Bill Scully:
And that time can be applied to more valuable work.
Bill Hunt:
Exactly. That’s a great note to wrap up on. Any final thoughts?
Bill Scully:
I want to tease next week’s topic because it ties in perfectly. We’ll be discussing creative methods for securing a bigger budget—essentially, help me help you.
One approach is leveraging someone else’s resources. For example, if the last person in a workflow spends time manually entering data, could that step be moved earlier in the process? That way, the same work gets done, but the time burden shifts to where it’s more efficient.
Understanding your processes and workflows not only helps collaboration but also strengthens your case for additional budget and resources.
Bill Hunt:
Great point. Before we go, I want to remind everyone about our free Facebook group—International Web Mastery Free Group—where we discuss these topics and take suggestions for future episodes. Just search for it and join the conversation.
Bill, this was a great discussion. I always learn something new from you.
Bill Scully:
Same here. Looking forward to the next one.
Bill Hunt:
Take care.