Two causes account for half of the 41 stalled implementations in our sample: requirements that never settled (31%) and no internal owner with the authority to decide (19%). The sample and its bias are described on the failure-modes page — it is small and skewed toward severe cases. What follows is not a finding from it, it is what we changed in how we run engagements because of it.
Both causes get described, afterwards, as a people problem. The sponsor was too busy. The department heads could not agree. Someone kept reopening settled questions. That description is comfortable because it implies the next project will be fine with better people, and it is almost always wrong.
The actual mechanism
A stalled decision is rarely a decision someone refused to make. It is a decision nobody knew they owned, arriving without a deadline, in a form that made "let us discuss it next week" the only safe answer.
Watch what a reopened requirement actually looks like. Someone in week fourteen says the returns process cannot work the way it was designed. They are usually right. The design was agreed in week five by people who had not yet seen a returned item flow through a screen, and the agreement was recorded as a tick in a document rather than as a choice between named alternatives with a stated cost.
A requirement that was never framed as a choice cannot be reopened, because it was never closed. It was only written down.
Three things that changed for us
None of these are novel. They are the ones that survived contact with projects that were already going badly.
- Every open question carries a name, a date and a default. The default is what happens if the date passes with no answer, it is written down in advance, and it is usually the standard behaviour of the software. This converts an indefinite stall into a decision someone has to actively prevent.
- Decisions are recorded as the option chosen and the options rejected. One paragraph each. When the returns process comes back in week fourteen, the conversation starts from what was already known and rejected rather than from nothing, and the reopening is either quick or justified.
- One person can say yes without convening anybody. Not a steering committee — a person. Where the organisation genuinely cannot appoint one, the project should not start, and saying so out loud early is cheaper than discovering it in month five.
Where this argument is weak
It is downstream of the thing that actually matters, which is whether the sponsor has real authority. A decision log with dates and defaults will not manufacture authority that does not exist; it will only make its absence visible faster. In the projects in our sample where ownership was the primary cause, the escalation path existed on a slide and had never been used.
It also assumes the defaults are safe. A default of "standard behaviour" is only reasonable if someone has checked what the standard behaviour does to the month-end close, which is a real piece of work and not a formality.
The uncomfortable version
Most of the schedule risk in an implementation is not in the software and not in the data. It is in a queue of unmade decisions that no one is measuring, and it is invisible until it is expressed as a date slipping.
If you want a single instrument, count the open questions weekly and plot the count. A project where that number is flat or rising after the design phase is a project that is going to be late, and it is going to be late for reasons that have nothing to do with the product anyone selected.
Our own view of what a small delivery team changes about this — including the parts that are worse — is on the team page.