Complex Tech Program Leadership Series #3: The middle is messy – How to take the volatility out of program execution and governance

“The middle is messy, but it is also where all the magic happens.” – Brené Brown. 

In one of our previous articles, we shared why complex technology programs often struggle. Struggling programs can not only harm investments, but also negatively impact careers, which is why it is vital to set them up for success at the start. 

However, even the best set-up programs can run into serious problems during execution. Running programs can be a messy business, and this is the time when most programs succumb to challenges. The answer, of course, lies in “strong execution and governance” – one of the most prosaic phrases in the English language – but what does that really mean, and how can you achieve it? In this article, we identify the most common weaknesses in program execution and governance, and share how to address them.

The top six challenges in complex tech program execution and governance:

1. A confused or poorly-defined operating model: We frequently see programs using Agile or WAgile terminology (a portmanteau of “Waterfall and Agile”) with no clear true definition of their approach, or “Agile” being used as a byword for “we have no governance”. Or, programs that use agile terminology as a virtue signal of intention for fast, value-add development, only to encounter hold-ups because the detailed specification documents are not ready. Similarly, we have observed technology-led digital modernization programs where the technology teams actively plan on avoiding the business and operational teams, and large-budget ($500m+) ERP and re-platforming programs being executed in which the technology teams are expected to deliver revolutionary business transformation capabilities, but without involving business-as-usual (BAU) teams. A well-designed operating model acknowledges business characteristics, preferences and maturities, addresses the needs of the program to organize resources in an effective, performing way, and enables clear and effective execution of governance.
2. Lack of empowerment: Companies will typically undergo few major technology transformations, increasing the likelihood that most of the BAU resources required to support a complex tech program – i.e. those who know the function or business best – will be doing it for the first time, requiring a steep learning curve. Similarly, while external integrators, consultants, contractors and suppliers might have some familiarity with the business’s products and services, this wider team will typically not know the business inside-out, and will be on their own learning curve. In each case, resources will have a complex set of interdependencies on technology, infrastructure, and information – real blockers that can disempower your teams. Confusion about priorities, requirements, and accountabilities can only compound these challenges. We believe that strong program execution is a relentless effort to ensure everyone is aligned and empowered. 
3. Selective hearing: In large programs, it can take team members significant time and effort to convey even a simple message. Multiple layers of management, each with their own agendas, templates and concerns – and who only want to hear that “it’s on track” – can serve to obfuscate. Large programs also generate vast amounts of information in various forms, making it truly hard to see the wood for the trees. Often, the solutions to complex blockers, or to disappointing speed and performance, have already been stated, documented, or whispered in the corridors – but team members are not equally empowered to get the message across, or leadership and management are not truly listening.
4. Slow decision-making: How many risks and issues exist in your major program, and how long have they been logged for? How many effective mitigation and resolution actions have been defined against these risks and issues? Program leaders all recognize the importance of tracking and managing risks and issues, but it is surprisingly rare to see this done rigorously – and even rarer to see fast decision-making linked to risk and issue mitigation and resolution. A lack of clear program accountabilities and responsibilities – if the operating model is poorly-defined – will compound the problem. We have encountered several program teams who have stopped logging and escalating their concerns, asking “what’s the point?”
5. Stop-light status reporting: The red-yellow-green reporting system can oversimplify complex issues. To avoid negative consequences and increased oversight, teams may manipulate project statuses, leading to inaccurate reporting. Admitting problems is often seen as a sign of weakness or failure – discouraging transparency – while the pressure to demonstrate continuous progress can lead teams to downplay problems to maintain momentum. Consequently, quick fixes are often adopted to change the program status, rather than addressing the underlying issues.
6. Lack of buy-in: Teams and individuals at all levels can be remarkably creative in finding ways to appear bought-into a program, while not supporting it at all. If your stakeholders are clearly unsupportive, then perhaps you should consider yourself lucky – we may yet write a distinct article that summarizes these approaches. The salient point here is that a lack of buy-in may not be apparent to the leadership team, and can act as a material drain on program momentum. 

Seven steps to a strong and well-governed complex tech program:

There are no simple solutions to strong program execution and governance. The answers lie in ruthlessly identifying and removing blockers, ensuring your program teams are empowered and optimally organized, and listening to your teams to ensure their concerns are responded to decisively and quickly. Independent perspectives can be particularly valuable throughout this phase.

Look out for our next article on how to prevent leaders from being overwhelmed by complex tech programs. And if you would like to talk to someone about a program you would like to get going, or if you have a program that you are concerned about – get in touch. Our global team of specialists can support you with the setup and delivery, provide assurance of your program and, if your program is in real trouble, help you to rescue it.