They aren't - the authors are just using the wrong performance metrics.
The point of a large IT project is career advancement for all involved.
The customer managers get promoted or new jobs on the basis that they have experience of managing a $$$ project. The greater the $$$, the more valuable their experience.
The supplier gets $$$ in fees, the more $$$ the better obviously.
The project is paid for either by taxpayers (generally) or very large number of shareholders/policy holders. Their individual contribution to the $$$ project is a few 0.01$s and so they are irrelevent.
It's not just IT - it's the reason that a metro line costing Bn$$$ or an 8 lane freeway bypass is always built in place of putting on a few extra buses.
The point of a large IT project is career advancement for all involved.
The customer managers get promoted or new jobs on the basis that they have experience of managing a $$$ project. The greater the $$$, the more valuable their experience.
The supplier gets $$$ in fees, the more $$$ the better obviously.
The project is paid for either by taxpayers (generally) or very large number of shareholders/policy holders. Their individual contribution to the $$$ project is a few 0.01$s and so they are irrelevent.
It's not just IT - it's the reason that a metro line costing Bn$$$ or an 8 lane freeway bypass is always built in place of putting on a few extra buses.