We can discuss a lot, but any project with an ICT component is more than a project. Period.
Based on this paper written by Pierre Colerette and Paul Legris.

But different up to what extend?

If we keep the analogy architecture vs ICT, one of the big difference is: virtuality. In ICT, you cannot see what you build. Not seeing can bring issues, how do you self represent ICT architecture in a way that is understandable. Today so many layers are interconnected that no one can have a complete overview.
Now, we must admit that like ICT, when you modify a complete area, add a bridge, change roads, build a new tower, etc. You have to review how the processes around the building area will be modified. Like in ICT, the processes or flows must be reviewed and a change management has to be put in place.

Pr. Colerette is clear in his review and to be frank, it has not changed since the evaluation was made.

Basically, the integration of the stakeholders and the change management issues are the most critical to any ICT project. It is like forcing open doors to write this.
But as a matter of fact: ICT projects still have a low level of success (scope, delay, budget)… as do the architectural ones (the superb building that costed 10 times more than foreseen…).
So why? Answering a question by many other questions: How well do we translate what is needed into a built solution? Are the requests ground based at some point? What investment is agreed to have a sort of state of the art project management?
And in the end, who is legitimate to validate the success of a project?