Why B2B eCommerce projects go off track (and how to spot the warning signs)

If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance your last B2B eCommerce project didn’t go to plan.

Maybe it ran over schedule and came in over budget. Or maybe what was promised vs what was delivered didn’t match. Now you’re back at square one, comparing agencies, sitting through demos and trying to work out who you can trust.

When a B2B eCommerce project goes off track, the impact is rarely technical alone. It affects credibility. It drains time and morale. It puts pressure on the people who signed off the decision and have to explain why things aren’t working as expected.

Most failed projects don’t fail because of bad people; they fail because of a gap between what was confidently sold and what could realistically be delivered. And that gap stayed hidden until it was too late to fix.

This article is about helping you spot the warning signs earlier, before you commit to a partner, a platform, or a plan. In particular, it looks at the difference between confidence that wins the sale and honesty that supports delivery, and how to tell which one you’re being offered.

Why agencies oversell

Most agencies don’t set out to mislead, overselling usually comes from how agencies are structured and rewarded, rather than from bad intent.

Sales teams are often measured on revenue targets; their job is to win work. Delivery teams are measured on whether projects are completed on time and within scope. When those responsibilities are separated, risk builds in the space between them.

In many agencies, the people selling the work are not actively involved in delivery. They may not see the full complexity of the build, the technical constraints, or the trade-offs that will need to be made later. Promises are made with good intentions, but without full visibility of what delivery will involve.

The pressure to say yes

Agencies compete hard for projects, especially in B2B commerce, where deals are large and sales cycles are long. A confident answer keeps the conversation moving. A cautious one can feel like it slows things down.

Confidence is rewarded early in the process. Delivery reality only shows up once the project is underway. By then, timelines and budgets are already agreed, making it difficult to change course.

During early conversations, it is easy to mistake confidence for certainty. A smooth answer does not always mean the work has been fully thought through.

When an agency moves quickly to reassurance, it is worth slowing the conversation down. Ask how they reached their conclusion. Ask what assumptions they are making. Ask what would need to be true for their plan to work as described.

Where delivery breaks down

Understanding where projects usually start to drift helps you spot problems earlier, while there is still time to address them.

One common issue is a mismatch between what was described in sales conversations and what is technically practical. A feature or integration may sound straightforward when discussed at a high level. Once delivery begins, the team discovers hidden complexity, third-party dependencies, or edge cases that were not accounted for. At that point, the original timeline and budget no longer reflect reality.

Another issue is misalignment between teams. Sales, project management, and development may each have a slightly different understanding of what success looks like. If there is no shared reference point, decisions are made based on incomplete context. Small differences in interpretation build up over time.

Projects also lose direction when the underlying purpose is unclear. Features and requirements get documented, but the reason the project exists is not carried through into day-to-day decisions. When trade-offs are needed, teams focus on delivering what was specified rather than what would create the most value.

Poor documentation makes this worse. Important conversations happen early. Agreements are reached verbally. If those decisions are not clearly documented and shared with the whole team, they are easily forgotten or reinterpreted. What was agreed at the start becomes a point of confusion months later.

These issues rarely appear all at once. They accumulate slowly. By the time the impact is obvious, changing direction feels expensive and risky.

You can often see these problems forming during scoping and discovery.

Pay attention to how clearly technical constraints are explained. Notice whether assumptions are written down and revisited. Look for a shared definition of success that goes beyond a feature list.

If delivery teams are not involved until after contracts are signed, or if key decisions only exist in meeting notes or emails, problems usually surface later.

How to spot honesty versus confidence theatre

Confidence is easy to perform during a sales process. Honesty takes more effort, especially when the answers are not fully formed. The difference usually shows up in how an agency handles uncertainty.

The signals are subtle, but they are consistent.

They push back when it matters

Honest partners do not agree with everything straight away. If something feels unclear, a timeline feels tight, or a feature is unlikely to deliver value, they will say so.

• Ask what they would push back on in your brief.
• Listen for specific concerns and clear reasoning.
• Be cautious if everything is agreed without discussion.

They talk about risk early

Agencies focused on delivery raise risks before work begins. They explain dependencies, constraints, and areas that need further investigation.

• Ask what they see as the main risks in the project.
• Listen for practical risks linked to scope, data, or integration.
• Be cautious if the project is described as simple with no caveats.

They question assumptions

Good partners take time to understand why a request exists. They look beyond the brief to the problem it is trying to solve.

• Ask which assumptions could change the direction of the project.
• Listen for thoughtful questions and alternative viewpoints.
• Be cautious if your brief is accepted without challenge.

They explain how decisions are made

Case studies show outcomes, but they rarely show trade offs. What matters more is whether an agency can explain how decisions are made when priorities compete.

• Ask how they decide what to prioritise when everything cannot be done at once.
• Listen for a clear process and shared criteria.
• Be cautious if the answer relies on reassurance rather than explanation.

Confidence helps win work. Honesty supports delivery. Being able to tell the difference helps you choose a partner who stays aligned when pressure builds.

The decision this enables

Once you understand how confidence theatre shows up, your role in the buying process changes.

You stop looking for the agency with the smoothest answers. You start looking for the one that helps you think more clearly about the work ahead.

Good buying conversations often feel slower. They involve more questions and fewer immediate assurances. There is space to talk about constraints, trade offs, and what might need to change as more is learned.

This gives you a stronger basis for comparison. Instead of judging agencies on how certain they sound, you can assess how well they handle complexity and how openly they discuss risk.

Before committing, it is worth asking a few simple questions.

• Do they explain how they reached their recommendations?
• Do they talk about what could go wrong as well as what could work?
• Do the people selling the work understand delivery well enough to discuss implications?
• Are decisions and assumptions written down and shared?

These signals help you judge whether a project is likely to stay aligned as it moves from planning into delivery.

This is not about removing uncertainty. B2B eCommerce projects are complex, and some unknowns only surface once work begins. The aim is to work with a partner who makes those unknowns visible early and treats them as part of the process rather than as surprises.

For a deeper look at how to make technical decisions safely when certainty is limited, we’ve written separately about our approach to safe technical decision making in B2B eCommerce.

In practice, this way of thinking matters most during platform selection. The choices made at that stage shape cost, complexity, and delivery risk long before build work begins. That’s why B2B platform selection benefits from a different playbook, one that treats it as a structured decision process rather than a feature comparison.

Rixxo’s point of view

This is what opting out of confidence theatre looks like in practice.

We do not commit to solutions before we understand the problem. Early conversations focus on how your business operates, where complexity lies, and which constraints are already in play. That context shapes everything that follows.

If something is likely to be difficult, expensive, or slow to deliver, we say so early. That includes features that sound appealing but are unlikely to deliver the outcome you are looking for. Clear conversations at the start make better decisions possible later.

We challenge briefs as part of our role. That means checking assumptions, pressure-testing timelines, and ensuring the work is framed around real priorities rather than a fixed list of requirements.

The people involved in early conversations stay involved through delivery. This keeps context intact and avoids the handover problems that often cause misalignment. When questions come up, they are handled by people who already understand the reasoning behind earlier decisions.

Transparency is central to how we work. Trade-offs are discussed openly. Risks are recorded and revisited. Decisions are documented so everyone is working from the same understanding.

This approach does not suit every buyer. Some prefer early certainty and fast agreement. We are comfortable with slower conversations if they lead to better outcomes.

If you are looking for a partner who will help you make clearer decisions before work begins and stay accountable once delivery starts, this is how we work.