The silent failure between approval and delivery

The silent failure between approval and delivery

I spent years optimizing for the approval. The deck, the business case, the stakeholder pre-reads, the timing of the ask. I got good at it. What I got wrong was thinking it was the hard part. The meeting ends. The executive nods. Someone takes notes. And the initiative, fully blessed and budgeted, begins to disappear. This is not a failure most organizations recognize as failure. There is no incident report. No postmortem. The initiative does not collapse. It attenuates. It sits in a queue that keeps growing. It gets discussed in steering committees but never quite becomes someone’s primary obligation. It lives on roadmaps and slide decks for months, sometimes years, until someone finally asks whether it is actually moving. By then, the people who approved it have moved on to other priorities. The window for the original business case has shifted. And the organization has quietly absorbed the initiative into the ambient noise of everything that is important but not yet urgent. Research consistently finds that IT project failure rates remain stubbornly high , and in my experience, a significant share of those failures never show up in the failure statistics because the initiative never officially dies. It just stops moving. I have watched this happen in my own work and in the work of dozens of CIOs I have spent time with. I stopped treating the approval conversation as the moment that mattered. The thirty days that follow it are. What approval actually creates When an executive committee approves an initiative, it creates permission. It does not create momentum. I did not fully understand this distinction until I was on the wrong side of it. Approval is a point-in-time event. The business case gets presented, the budget line gets allocated and the executive sponsor says they are behind it. What approval does not do is change anyone’s existing obligations, shift how performance is measured or move the initiative to the top of any operating manager’s actual priority list. I ran a significant infrastructure modernization several years ago. The approval process was thorough. We had spent three months building the case, aligned every major stakeholder and walked through the ROI in two separate senior reviews. When the green light came, I felt the particular satisfaction of a hard-won approval that had finally landed. Ninety days later, almost nothing had moved. A vendor milestone slipped because no one on the business side had cleared the dependency. A department lead who had been fully aligned in the approval meeting was now routing around the project entirely, building a workaround that would take two years to untangle. We never recovered the original timeline. The business units that were meant to co-own implementation were still running on their existing plans. The middle managers responsible for change adoption were responsive in meetings and absent in execution. The steering committee met every two weeks to discuss status, and the status was always “progressing.” The gap between what the status reports said and what was actually happening was wide enough that I missed it until a downstream dependency forced the issue. What I learned from that experience, and have seen confirmed repeatedly since, is that the approval conversation is largely about the future. It is about what the organization will do, what it will become, what value it will unlock. Execution requires something the approval conversation never addresses: changing what people do today, with the time and attention they have this week, within a system that is already fully committed to its existing obligations. Where ownership goes The most reliable predictor of post-approval failure I have found is ambiguous ownership below the sponsor level. Executive sponsors approve initiatives and then return to their day jobs. This is expected and appropriate. The problem is that sustained delivery requires ownership at the operating level, and the approval process rarely establishes it. The sponsor is accountable in the governance sense. Nobody is accountable in the daily work sense. What I have seen, consistently, is that the senior team believes the operating layer is executing. The operating layer is waiting for clearer direction, additional resources or some confirmation that this initiative genuinely outranks the twelve other things on their list. Both groups think the other one is moving. Neither is wrong, exactly. The accountability between them has just never been established. I have seen this play out the same way enough times that I now know what to watch for. In the weeks after approval, everyone is cooperative. Meetings happen. Documents get drafted. A project manager is assigned. The initiative looks like it is in motion. It took me too long to learn to ask the question that actually reveals where things stand: who would lose something measurable if this initiative stalled for sixty days? In most cases, the honest answer is nobody. The executive sponsor’s performance review does not depend on it. The business unit leads are measured on their core operations. The project manager can report on process without being accountable for outcomes. The initiative exists in a kind of organizational float, technically active and practically stalled. When I started asking that question earlier, before the first status report was ever written, the answer changed how I structured accountability from the beginning. It also changed who I had the conversation with. The sponsor could tell me the initiative mattered. The operating manager could tell me whether it had landed anywhere in their actual week. The invisibility problem I have found the failure that follows a successful approval is quiet in a way that makes it easy to miss. It does not look like failure. It looks like normal organizational complexity. Initiatives in this state generate activity. There are meetings, documents, status updates. The dashboard stays green because the people filling it in are reporting on process milestones that are real, while the underlying delivery is drifting. I have sat in steering committees where every workstream was “on track” and the project was, in practical terms, already over. That drift is only visible to someone watching the relationship between reported progress and actual organizational behavior. By the time the gap becomes undeniable, the costs are significant and harder to recover from than if the stall had been caught at week eight rather than month ten. The team has moved on. The business case assumptions have aged out. The executive sponsor’s attention has shifted to newer priorities. Restarting the initiative requires relitigating a decision that everyone thought was settled. In my experience, the more common failure is subtler than the ones that get analyzed: an initiative that had genuine executive support never developed the operating-level traction to survive contact with the organization’s existing priorities. The approval was real. The commitment was real. The failure was in assuming that approval and commitment would translate automatically into changed behavior at the working level. What I have come to watch for instead is whether, in the first thirty days after approval, anything in the day-to-day operation of the business actually changes. Not the project plan. Not the governance structure. The actual work people do on Tuesday afternoon. When the answer is no, the initiative is already in trouble. The meeting that mattered happened three weeks ago, and most of the people in the room have already moved on. This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network. Want to join?