All Posts

Most discussions about organisational transformation focus on Critical Success Factors, which implies that success depends on whether a predefined set of factors is present or absent. The reality is different. Transformation rarely begins under ideal conditions. Organisations must work within political priorities, financial constraints, competing operational pressures, and evolving strategic direction. Waiting for perfect readiness is neither realistic nor desirable. What mat

Ask most Programme Managers what they think about assurance reviews and the response may be rather mixed. They know that reviews have a job to do. They understand the governance rationale and even appreciate the need for independent scrutiny. But not all programme managers look forward to them. Instead, as the time approaches, they go into review preparation mode, assembling highlight reports and supporting evidence, and generally doing their best to ensure that their program

One of the more persistent assumptions in programme management is that time is a single dimension. A programme has a start date, an end date, and a schedule against which progress is measured. If delivery remains on plan, success follows. Public sector transformation rarely works like that. Instead, programmes operate against several independent clocks, each exerting its own influence over delivery. Financial years determine when money becomes available. Spending reviews can

Discussions about improving risk governance may conclude, perhaps too quickly, that the answer is a more capable system. At the top of that ladder sits enterprise risk management, presented as the mature destination every serious organisation should aspire to. But first, it is perhaps worth asking a simpler question. What does enough risk governance actually look like? Most risk governance arrangements start life with good intentions. After all, organisations want better visi

Most Organisations Do Not Have a Risk Awareness Problem. They have a Risk Information Management problem Some organisations invest considerable effort in risk management, many less so. Risk frameworks are established. Governance forums are created. Risk owners are assigned. Review cycles are scheduled. Reporting packs are produced. Yet despite that, many organisations experience the same recurring challenges: Multiple versions of the truth Inconsistent risk assessment Fragmen

Article 1 in this series closed on the observation that money behaves differently in local government. Private investment is largely raised and committed on the enterprise's own terms. Public funding arrives from sources that councils don’t control, on rhythms and terms they do not set. That difference is what this article explores, because the rhythm of the money can shape the rhythm of delivery. Consider what has landed, and how. For the past decade settlements have arrived

Local government prioritisation cannot be zero-sum. It is not easy to prioritise one service over another and bank the saving. Duties persist, citizens persist, the competing needs of all remain legitimate even when hard decisions deny. So, private sector prioritisation can often seek to resolve, capital flowing to the higher return, local government prioritisation is more often constrained to reconcile, because the trade-offs it can make visible in public value terms do not

This series has argued a set of connected cases. Integration is a primary design objective. Methods do not build the delivery system that needs to connect them. Governance is a design requirement, and escalation is not delegation. Decisions have architecture: authority, options, evidence, binding, and feedback. Named ownership of value realisation must span the delivery / transition boundary. Each is a design requirement to be carried across every programme, delivery lifecycl

My series of articles exploring Moving the Dial in Transformation Delivery introduced the Transformation Programme Value Chain as a realisation pathway from strategic intent to persistent, realised value. Those articles established the value chain as a design artefact: integrated rather than method-bound, coherent across governance tiers, and held together through deliberate decision flows. This article examines how ownership and accountability for value realisation are maint

My series of articles on Moving the Dial in Transformation Delivery introduced the value chain as a realisation pathway from strategic intent to persistent value realisation. It forms through a sequence of structural conversions: Strategic Intent → Enabling Capability Architecture → Enabling Products → Integration → Enabling Outcomes → Capability Activation → Value Realisation → Operational Outcomes (Value) → Value Optimization → Persistent Value. Each conversion is a delibe

A council is six months into a major service transformation. The programme board sees its risks. The corporate board sees a filtered summary. A neighbouring directorate is planning a structural change that will cut across the transformation's delivery model in three months' time, but no one in the transformation space is aware of it because that conversation has no owner. The risk register shows green. The corporate board has no reason to ask. The collision happens. That is a

Investment in transformation methods is substantial. Most organisations involved in transformation will have adopted recognised approaches across programme management, project management, risk, benefits, change, service, and value management. Many will also have invested significantly in training, accreditation, and supporting tools. The question is not whether these methods are valuable. They are. The more fundamental question is what connects them. Methods have a purpose A

I have added a new Part 2, Appendix 11, which discusses the use of Proximity in RIsk Assessment, and where it adds most risk management value. If you have purchased a copy of P3 Management in Pracice, and want the latest update, message me via Contact on the Home page to receive a courtesy replacement coupon.

This is the first article in my third series on transformation, the theme of which is Designing an Integrated Delivery System. There is a version of transformation delivery that looks right on paper. The projects have plans. The programme has a governance structure. Risks are logged. Milestones are tracked. Boards receive reports. Responsibilities have been allocated. Yet the transformation can still struggle to deliver the outcomes expected of it. Why? Because well-managed c

A friend put it well recently when he said, "Many won’t pay £9.99 a month for a child tracker but would pay anything to know where their child is if they were missing." Risk management has a similar problem. The value is invisible until the moment it is needed. By the time the problem is recognised, the absence of more effective risk management is not a question of overhead. It is a foreseeable damage limitation problem. This is the real overhead, and it delivers nothing. The

I recently improved the strategic planning diagram featured in Chapter 3 of the book, to include political mandate. I hadn't done that previously because the primary focus of the book is delivery. However, what I failed to realise at the time, is that inclusion of the political mandate left a gap that I have since realised needed to be closed. To that end, I have now created and re-published the book with a new Chapter 10: Establishing the Transformation Mandate. But I made f

This is the last of the Theme 2 articles on the Transformation Outcomes Value Chain. All organisation, including the public sector invest heavily in transformation. Local authorities, for instance, redesign services, implement new systems, restructure teams, and commission major change programmes, all in pursuit of better outcomes for residents and more sustainable ways of working. The Local Government Association has identified benefits realisation as one of the sector's mos

The activation of enabling capability outcome(s) exposes them to live conditions. What follows is a period of operational adaptation during which the dial moves along the value realisation trajectory as: Users adjust behaviours Management routines mature Integration friction is reduced Measurement stabilises Early measurements reflect movement of the dial, though not necessarily yet to an optimised or settled state. A credible baseline emerges only once: A predicted settling

Articles 1 and 2 of this theme examined how value potential is constructed across the value chain through iterative design, architectural configuration, and integration. Activation concerns what happens when enabling capability is deployed, and when latent value is exposed to real operational environments. Activation does not create value. It tests whether the value latent in design, architectural configuration and integration translates into measurable performance in practic

Article 1 of the theme, Moving the Dial in Transformation Delivery , explained how value forms across a series of structural conversions. This article examines how those conversions are deliberately shaped before commitment to investment is formalised. The value chain does not emerge automatically from approval. It is constructed. Design strength, coherence, and ability to move the dial depend heavily on choices made before enabling product delivery begins. Designing the val