Theme 1, Article 2: Readiness Beyond Approval - Conditions Shaping Delivery Confidence.

Transformation rarely begins in ideal conditions. Delivery environments are politically charged, resource-constrained, and continually in flux. In practice, the question is seldom whether conditions are perfect, but whether they are sufficient.

Change approval authorises intent.

Change readiness is a key factor in determining the extent to which success will match intent. Conflating approval with readiness is one of the more persistent sources of fragility in transformation delivery.

Approval is necessary to unlock funding, signal legitimacy, and generate momentum. However, it isn’t evidence that the organisation is sufficiently well prepared for successful delivery. Readiness isn’t a function of approval; it is created by strengthening specific conditions that support delivery over time.

Readiness sufficiency

Readiness shouldn’t be treated as binary: either the organisation is ready, or it isn’t. This framing is unhelpful. Transformation doesn’t wait for absolute readiness, full alignment, or sufficient capacity. What matters is whether enough of the right conditions are verifiably in place, and whether there is intent, capability and commitment to strengthen them as delivery proceeds.

These conditions form a core baseline. The more that are embedded, the greater the organisation’s ability to absorb change, sustain momentum, and respond constructively when pressures arise. Progress is measured by clarity of direction, increasing certainty and delivery capabilities that are sufficient to the challenge: converting intent into beneficial outcomes.

Initiating delivery in the absence of optimum readiness isn’t inherently risky; initiating it without managed readiness is.

Scope of approvals

Formal approval typically provides three things: authority to proceed, access to resources, and a mandate to act. What it doesn’t automatically provide is clarity of purpose, delivery capability, or decision responsiveness.

Readiness for delivery depends on conditions that sit beneath formal authority, including the ability to make timely decisions, coherence across leadership, clarity around outcomes and their implications, and the presence of approaches to delivery that can sustain pace without overwhelming the organisation.

When approval is treated as a proxy for readiness, these conditions aren’t explicitly assured. The result can be early mobilisation followed by hesitation, rework, and escalating assurance activity as gaps become visible under pressures of delivery.

Four dimensions of delivery readiness

Readiness for transformation delivery can be understood across four interrelated dimensions. None needs to be perfect. All should be sufficiently present and under governance review.

Leadership and decision authority

Visible sponsorship matters, but sponsorship alone isn’t enough. Readiness depends on whether decision rights are clear, exercised, and respected under pressure. A core coalition of leaders must be willing to act when delivery tensions arise, even when views differ. Governance adds the greatest value when it enables sound judgement.

Strategic and outcome clarity

Delivery confidence depends on a credible and shared understanding of purpose. Initiatives should be able to answer, concisely and honestly: what is being achieved, why it matters now, who benefits, and what it will take to manifest. A level of ambiguity is expected, but persistent ambiguity creates risk. Alignment with corporate strategy and values provides a reference point for prioritisation and trade-offs when conditions shift.

Capability, capacity, and delivery infrastructure

Transformation typically requires delivery capability beyond business as usual. This includes protected capacity, access to specialist skills, reliable data, and a pragmatic P3 management framework with guidance that connects strategy, delivery, and assurance. Many organisations find that their existing delivery capabilities are stretched, particularly when applied to sustained transformational change. This should be recognised and addressed as part of delivery design.

Cultural and behavioural preparedness

Cultural change is often essential to operationalise and optimise structural change, so early signalling of behaviours and expectations matters in making change work. Cultural change can be seen in how accountability is defined and applied in delivery, the way communication supports shared understanding and timely action, and the behaviours that leaders demonstrate in practice.

Empowerment develops where trust is established and reinforced through visible role-modelling. Where delivery depends on internal or external partnerships, governance plays a central role in enabling transparency and joint problem-solving alongside contractual arrangements.

These elements operate in combination, with pressure in one area affecting how others function. As delivery conditions evolve, judgements about readiness need to reflect how effectively behavioural and structural factors will work together in practice.

Why waiting for full optimal increases risk

Waiting for optimum readiness can create a different set of risks arising from delayed learning and decision-making. Momentum can dissipate. Key assumptions may remaining untested, with learning constrained. When implementation starts, learning and adjustments occur under pressure, potentially further reducing momentum.

By contrast, starting with a core level of readiness allows it to be strengthened during delivery. Issues surface earlier, and capability gaps become visible while there is still time and space to adjust sequencing and pace. Governance can then focus on strengthening readiness conditions as delivery gathers pace.

This isn’t to justify unduly risky starts. It places a premium on explicit acknowledgement of readiness strengths and weaknesses, and on conscious action to move them forward.

The role of governance and the CPMO

Readiness should be a consideration of good governance.

Effective governance provides proportionate control, credible challenge, and clear escalation routes. It adds value when it tests assumptions, surfaces drift and ensures that the right decisions are taken by the right people at the right time. The effectiveness of governance depends primarily on the consistent application of good and timely judgement.

The role of the corporate enablement, whether corprate programme management office (CPMO), transformation office (TO), or hybrid models, together with delivery leadership is to make readiness visible: to show which conditions are present, those that are developing, and those that are weak. This visibility enables informed choices about sequencing, resourcing, and risk. It also creates a shared language for expressing improvements in terms of condition readiness and design.

Sustaining sufficiency

No organisation begins with every condition satisfied. The aim is to build sufficiency; enough capability, alignment, and capacity to support measured progress and continuous improvement.

Transformation success isn’t the product of full readiness. It emerges from a progressive convergence of leadership, governance, culture, and capability aligning just enough, for long enough, to deliver measurable beneficial improvements.

Change approval opens the door; change readiness determines whether its threshold can be safely crossed.

The next challenge is different. Even where sufficient readiness exists, outcomes still depend on how good and timely decision-making, good governance, independent assurance, and delivery enablement work together in practice.