I'll not identify projects mentioned here, but just say that all of the following comments are specific rather than general:
¥ lack of focus by academic staff, lack of effectiveness of release time: People who were included in the project team (perhaps for reasons of internal politics) were allocated paid release time but did nothing for the project. Others consistently failed to attend planning meetings, citing administrative pressures. On the other hand, another project succeeded where the academic used the release time for research and administration and did almost all the project work at home.
¥ lack of Faculty commitment: When the academic left before the completion of the project (two projects) the orphan could not be "sold" to the replacement staff. Perhaps they saw it as being too complicated and too far away from their conventional teaching methods, so that additional effort would be required to implement and administer the new system. (Not only not invented here, but not invented by me?) Does this problem arise from the reward criteria built into academic progress? On the other hand, some materials have been successfully passed through five sets of hands in four years, though they have not been used to the full potential envisaged by the original designer.
¥ lack of funding to prepare resources eventually wasting the project: Materials were included in the project that were available free of copyright. These were far from impressive. On some occasions the teaching was distorted to accommodate available materials. In another project the final resource is effectively unusable due to initial reliance on copyrighted resources that have not been replaced.