"Our programme has been running for a year. We have weekly status meetings, a complete project plan, and regular board updates. And yet almost nothing is actually landing in the organisation."
– Programme Lead, German Industrial Group
Does this sound familiar? The strategy has been approved, the plan is in place, budgets have been allocated, and the first workstreams are underway. Yet the organisation is not moving. Responsibilities are being passed around, decisions are stacking up at programme level, and the weekly status meetings have become a ritual rather than a steering mechanism.
The reason is rarely a bad plan. In most cases, it is the Execution Gap — the structural distance between what was decided and what is actually delivered. Donald Sull and co-authors surveyed more than 400 companies and documented: two-thirds to three-quarters of large organisations struggle with execution — not because of wrong strategy, but because of wrong execution architecture.
The root causes are structural: missing accountability at initiative level, performance measurement that documents rather than steers, and escalation paths that are only activated when it is too late. All three can be addressed directly.
The three keys to closing the execution gap:
- 1Accountability at initiative level, not just programme level
- 2Performance steering that shows what needs to happen next — not just what has happened
- 3Escalation logic defined before the crisis arrives
Why Transformations Fail in Execution: 3 Barriers
1. The plan is good — but execution accountability is missing
Most transformation programmes distribute tasks across workstreams and define delivery milestones. What is often missing: a named person who is personally accountable for each initiative delivering its result. Not just reporting on it.
The difference between a workstream lead and an initiative owner: the workstream lead coordinates. The initiative owner decides. She has the authority to remove obstacles, reallocate resources within her initiative scope, and escalate when the boundary of her mandate is reached.
Without clear initiative ownership, accountability diffuses across the programme. Milestones get hit on paper, but outcomes are not delivered. Everyone is responsible. No one is.
›Sull, D., Homkes, R. & Sull, C., "Why Strategy Execution Unravels—and What to Do About It", Harvard Business Review, March 2015.
Two-thirds to three-quarters of large organisations struggle with execution. The most common reason: missing clear accountability at initiative level — not a flawed strategy.
2. Progress is measured — but not steered
Almost every programme has a status reporting system: traffic lights, milestone tracking, progress metrics. The problem is not the measurement — it is what the measurement shows.
A status report shows what happened. A steering cockpit shows what needs to happen next. The difference is decisive. A status report that shows Initiative X in red is useful. A steering cockpit that shows: "Initiative X is three weeks behind plan because Decision Y has been pending at programme level for four weeks" — is actionable.
Effective performance steering is built on leading indicators that surface risks before they become delays, financial impact tracking that monitors the business case in real time, and decision-ready steering cadences that end every meeting with a decision — not just an update.
Praxisbeispiel
A mid-sized pharmaceutical company had built a comprehensive status reporting system after six months of transformation — but without any steering logic behind it. On analysis: four of seven critical initiatives were waiting for decisions that had been stuck at programme level for weeks. After building a KPI cockpit with clear decision triggers, all four decisions were made within two weeks.
3. Escalation comes too late
In most programmes, issues escalate when they have already become crises. The decision that was needed four weeks earlier gets made under time pressure, with fewer options and higher cost.
The reason is structural: escalation feels like failure. Programme managers avoid it as long as possible. Initiative owners hold problems internally for too long. By the time something reaches the steering committee, the best solutions are no longer available.
Effective programme governance defines escalation paths before they are needed — not as a bureaucratic process, but as a shared understanding: which decisions sit at initiative level? Which require the programme board? Which need the C-suite? And what are the triggers?
›Royer, I., "Why Bad Projects Are So Hard to Kill", Harvard Business Review, February 2003.
The Path to Effective Programme Governance: 3 Success Factors
1. Initiative owners with real accountability
Not workstream leads. Not project managers. Named executives who own the initiative result and have the authority to make decisions within their mandate scope.
Initiative ownership means: clear responsibility for the outcome (not the process), decision authority within a defined scope, and a defined obligation to escalate when that scope is exceeded.
The practical implication: every initiative has exactly one owner. The name is in the governance document, in the steering cockpit, and in the board update. Accountability is visible. That is the point.
Praxisbeispiel
In a post-acquisition integration (PE portfolio, industrial sector), eleven initiatives with eleven named initiative owners were defined in the first week. Each owner received a one-page mandate: outcome, budget, decision scope, escalation path. Over twelve months of execution, there were three escalations to C-suite level — all proactive, all timely, all with decision papers prepared.
2. KPI cockpit instead of status report
The question a steering cockpit must answer is not: "What happened last week?" It is: "What do we need to decide this week?"
An effective KPI cockpit shows: delivery progress against plan (with trend line, not just current status), leading indicators that surface risks early, financial impact tracking that monitors the business case in real time, and a decision queue that prioritises open items by urgency and escalation level.
The format matters less than the function. Whether it is a slide deck, a dashboard, or a one-pager — the cockpit must be decision-ready, not documentation-heavy.
From my advisory practice: programmes with a structured KPI cockpit and a clear decision cadence deliver against plan considerably more reliably than programmes that rely on status reporting alone.
3. Define escalation logic before the programme starts
The best escalation is one that happens proactively — before the issue becomes a crisis. That requires defining the escalation architecture at programme start, not mid-flight.
Practical elements: which decision types sit at which governance level? What are the quantitative triggers (budget deviation > X%, milestone delay > Y weeks)? Who is the sponsor for each initiative — and is that sponsor actively engaged?
Escalation is not failure. In well-run programmes, it is a normal, planned mechanism. The question is not whether escalation will happen — but whether it happens in time, with the right preparation, to the right level.
Praxisbeispiel
Best practice from programme steering: a proven model works with three escalation tiers — initiative level (up to two weeks' delay, owner acts independently), programme board (three to four weeks, governance decision), and C-suite (over four weeks or significant budget impact, sponsor decision). Programmes that embed this protocol during the setup phase escalate earlier — and resolve issues before they become crises.
My Approach: 3 Phases to Effective Execution Steering
Phase 1: Governance Setup & Initiative Design
Building the programme governance architecture as the foundation for disciplined execution.
- Structuring the PMO and defining the governance architecture
- Appointing initiative owners with clear mandate documents
- Building the KPI cockpit and establishing the steering cadence
Phase 2: Execution Steering & Course Correction
Active programme steering with a focus on decision facilitation and early risk mitigation.
- Steering meetings with decision-ready agendas and clear action items
- Early risk identification through leading indicators in the cockpit
- Proactive escalation management and decision facilitation across all governance levels
Phase 3: Institutionalisation & Transfer
Transferring the steering logic into the internal organisation — so that governance continues after the engagement ends.
- Transferring steering routines and the cockpit into the internal organisation
- Enabling initiative owners to manage governance independently
- Close-out with validated outcome evidence and defined exit criteria
Conclusion: A Good Plan Does Not Close the Execution Gap
Good strategy is necessary. Detailed planning is necessary. Neither is sufficient for delivery. The execution gap does not close through better reporting. It closes through clear structures: accountability, steering logic, and escalation as a planned mechanism.
Two-thirds to three-quarters of large organisations struggle with execution — not because of wrong strategy, but because of missing governance architecture. All three root causes are solvable.
The three keys to closing the execution gap:
- 1Accountability at initiative level, not just programme level
- 2Performance steering that shows what needs to happen next — not just what has happened
- 3Escalation logic defined before the crisis arrives
How is execution steering set up in your transformation? I look forward to the conversation.
