Digital transformations: the negative impact of heavyweight governance
When digital transformation programmes hit bumps in the road, or look like they might be getting into trouble, the dinosaur brains invariably throw more governance at the problem. This is never the right way forward.
Wrestling back control
More governance does not mean better governance, and binding delivery teams up with large amounts of red tape can cause failure
The digital transformation journey is never straightforward. If it was, we would not be seeing the well reported 70% failure rate with these initiatives.
It is inevitable that there will be obstacles and challenges to overcome, and some of these will be significant.
However, when bumps in the road are encountered and sensing potential trouble ahead, the dinosaurs get involved, and in an attempt to wrestle back some control they throw more governance at the programme.
Hierarchies of steering committees and delivery boards lurch into existence, and these beasts need feeding.
Individuals that should be delivering the transformation are diverted from their day job to serve up a banquet of slides and delivery updates for the committees and boards to consume (or in some instances, ignore).
Daily stand-ups that previously lasted 15 minutes now drag on for over an hour and have a huge number of individuals in attendance (many of whom contribute nothing to and take nothing from these meetings).
Bureaucracy and red tape are liberally applied to the entire programme resulting in the slowing down of many processes (for example, hiring timelines that once lasted a small number of weeks now stretch to a large number of months).
Control has been firmly wrestled back (whoopie!), the situation is well understood (as if it wasn’t already understood before), and tweaks have been applied to the delivery process (well, they must show something for all the time and effort that has been expended).
Now everything has improved, right?
Well… I hate to tell you this… but no.
Most of the same issues exist within the programme, but the misguided approach taken to fix the problem has exacerbated the situation.
The positive impact of any changes that have been applied pale into insignificance against a backdrop of rising costs and the decreasing pace of delivery resulting from the multiple layers of inefficiency that have been added.
Once the steering committees and boards are in place, they take a long time to remove.
It is understandable, expected, and right that senior leaders will take an active interest in programmes that are hitting turbulent times. After all, they are accountable for the programme spend.
Nevertheless, the overzealous approach that can be adopted by some often makes the situation worse, and in some instances almost impossible to recover from.
More governance ≠ good governance
Good governance is a phrase that is often used by programme directors/managers and there is no disagreement that, for any programme to succeed, a level of governance is required and the tracking of financials, delivery progress, resource utilisation, risks/issues, and so on are all important for any programme management function.
After all…
Everybody wants good governance.
However, what some people mean by good governance is actually more governance (more meetings, more planning, more artefact and document production, more inefficiency).
But throwing more governance/more processes at a problem is never the right solution.
How do we fix it?
Present the cold hard facts. Gathering metrics on the time and cost impacts of the current heavyweight governance processes is key.
The cost of satisfying the insatiable appetite of these committees/boards – not just in terms of the time spent on producing artifacts, but also in terms of the time diverted away from delivery tasks – needs to be quantified.
Similarly, a sober assessment of the efficiency of stand-ups and other meetings containing a cast of thousands needs to be conducted and associated costs attached.
In the interests of balance, metrics will also need to be gathered on the positive impact of any changes that have been applied with the current heavyweight processes.
Leaders will respond if they see the financial impact of adopting an overly onerous approach to governance.
What’s the alternative?
A balanced/lighter-touch governance model is the obvious alternative.
Note that light-touch governance does not mean no-touch governance, and striking the right balance is critical.
Adopt a risk-based approach
Clearly the same level of scrutiny should not apply to the hire of a single additional resource that will assist in improving delivery velocity (and where budget is clearly available) as will be required for onboarding a new vendor.
Having said this, all too often leaders trying to maintain a tight grip on the programme adopt a disproportionate response, requiring minutiae to be reviewed and approved as well as the big-ticket items.
Principles should guide decisions rather than rules
In the fast-paced world of digital transformations, applying strict governance rules is neither appropriate nor effective.
The flexibility provided by a principles-based approach, where the programme is guided by broad principles that provide direction but also allow for adaptation to specific circumstances, is much more suited to the complex and rapidly changing digital environment.
Lead, don’t dictate
Those closest to the problem are invariably those best placed to solve the issue.
Despite this, teams and individuals can become so focused on delivery that they lose sight of the big picture. More often than not, providing a gentle nudge in the right direction will be enough to correct course.
When leaders dictate on how to solve a particular problem, this shows a lack of trust in their teams to deliver, and when leaders don’t trust in their teams to deliver, their teams don’t deliver.
Closing thoughts
Digital transformations are complex, multi-dimensional programmes that will invariably encounter many hurdles as they move through their journey. Some of these will require leadership guidance to allow the delivery teams to circumvent or overcome these obstacles.
In certain situations, teams need to be nudged in the right direction or learn how to collectively solve a problem, especially in situations where the team has been formed specifically to deliver a transformation programme.
Occasionally, guidance may still be required even in situations where the team contains highly experienced individuals who are well accustomed to complex problem solving. After all, the team is a living entity and may react and respond to issues in unexpected ways.
Leaders intervening to take control or throwing more governance at problems is never the right approach. More governance does not mean better governance, and binding delivery teams up with large amounts of red tape can cause failure.
Have you encountered heavyweight governance being thrown at a problem? If so, I’d love to hear about these situations. Please comment below.
About the author
Brian Harkin is the CTO of Kynec and a visiting lecturer at Bayes Business School (City, University of London).
He is passionate about the intersection of people, technology, and innovation and has developed the Galapagos Framework to help leaders and organisations transform the way they direct digital change.
All opinions are his own and he welcomes debate and comment!
Follow Brian on Twitter @DigitalXformBH and LinkedIn.
