The transformation project has everything a project needs: board engagement, budget, timeline, a dedicated project manager. Yet little progress is made. Sales prioritizes daily business. IT refers to its own release plan. Controlling delivers figures with a three-week delay. The project manager escalates, but the management has not discussed the issue since the kickoff. <\/p>\n\n
\nComplex initiatives rarely fail due to methodology. They fail because the project manager bears responsibility but lacks decision-making power. And because the line organization treats the project as an external entity. <\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n
A project manager I supported during a company-wide digitalization project<\/a> summed it up perfectly in the third steering committee meeting: “I am officially responsible for the outcome. But I can neither allocate resources, nor change priorities of the involved divisions, nor make decisions that go beyond my project scope. I coordinate, but I do not manage.” His superior heard this for the first time, although the situation had existed for months.<\/p>\n\n
This pattern repeats in every organization that undertakes cross-divisional initiatives: software migrations<\/a>, restructuring, product launches, regulatory programs. The project structure is cleanly set up. But the power structure of the line organization remains unchanged, and in this tension, the project gets bogged down. Three levers determine whether a cross-divisional initiative delivers results or gets lost in coordination loops. <\/p>\n\n
Lever 1: Clarify Governance Before the Project Starts<\/h2>\n\n
Most projects start with a project plan. Few start with clarified governance: Who decides what? Who has veto power? How are resource conflicts resolved? Within what timeframe must an escalation be answered? And what happens if there is no answer? <\/p>\n\n
Aaron Shenhar and Dov Dvir, two leading researchers in project management, have shown in their work on the Diamond Model that there is no universal leadership model for projects. Projects differ in complexity, novelty, technology level, and pace, and the leadership style must be adapted accordingly. The more complex the initiative, the more divisions and hierarchies involved, the more the project manager’s role shifts from planner to designer of political frameworks. And for that, they need the right governance<\/a> backing them. <\/p>\n\n
A steering committee<\/a> must be more than a monthly status meeting where traffic lights are shown. It must be a decision-making body that resolves conflicts, allocates resources, and sets priorities. And it needs the right people: not those who have time, but those who have decision-making authority<\/a>. A steering committee without decision-making power is a reporting forum, not a governing body. <\/p>\n\n