I read PwC’s recent analysis on program governance and delivery risk, which offers a clear and urgent message to transformation leaders. The report revealed that 92% of organizations say their technology investments have not fully delivered on expectations. My immediate response was, “WOW!” As I chewed on this article a bit longer, I figured this is not just a warning sign. It is a reflection of a deeper issue that continues to undermine transformation efforts across industries. Especially when you consider that organizations will spend billions on transformation initiatives over the next year. Meaning, such a high failure rate equates to a significant erosion of value. As one who is big on structure and systems–and has consulted across multiple industries from higher education and healthcare to government–I often see that programs do not fail at the finish line. They fail at the starting gate when governance is treated as a procedural compliance formality rather than a strategic capability.

Recent industry analyses have highlighted four recurring breakdowns in transformation execution: misaligned outcomes, unclear accountability, limited transparency, and rigid governance structures. These issues are not new, but they remain unresolved in many organizations. I see this not only as a risk to be managed, but as an opportunity to weave resilience practices into the very infrastructure of transformation.

Listed below are five recommendations on how organizations can close the governance gap and move from reactive oversight to proactive value creation. Let's dive in.

Mike Myers as "Dr. Evil" in Austin Powers film series

1. Align Outcomes with Strategic Intent

Transformation efforts often falter because they are built on generic business cases or legacy priorities. To avoid this, organizations must ensure that every initiative is directly tied to enterprise strategy. Business cases should be evaluated not just for feasibility but for strategic fit. Establishing an office around Value Realization alongside the project management function can help monitor whether promised benefits (e.g., cost savings, efficiency gains, or market growth) are actually being captured. Quarterly alignment reviews should be standard practice to ensure programs remain relevant as conditions evolve. Outcome alignment is not a one-time exercise. It must be embedded into the governance rhythm.

2. Redefine Accountability with Decision Clarity

Traditional governance models often rely on a single executive sponsor and vague chains of command. This approach is too fragile for today’s cross-functional, high-stakes programs. Instead, organizations should adopt decision frameworks like the DARE model, which clarifies who Decides, Advises, Recommends, and Executes. (Side note: Don’t forget to include escalation protocols to prevent bottlenecks before they occur.) Accountability should be distributed across a network of sponsors, rather than being concentrated on one individual. Decision rights must be mapped explicitly, and escalation protocols should be built into governance charters. Sponsors should be held accountable for outcomes, not just visibility. Governance councils can help resolve cross-functional conflicts and maintain strategic alignment.

3. Make Transparency a Cultural Standard

Dashboards provide visibility, but visibility alone does not guarantee candor. Risks are often surfaced too late to act. To build a culture of transparency, organizations must embed psychological safety into their governance structures. This includes introducing “red flag rituals” where raising concerns early is expected and rewarded. Risk escalation should be treated as a leadership behavior, not a liability. Integrated dashboards should surface interdependencies, resource conflicts, and delivery risks in real time. Vendor oversight should be formalized through shared governance forums and performance scorecards.

Transparency must be more than a technical feature. It must become a cultural norm that drives action and builds trust because we cannot transform from places we pretend to be.

4. Design Governance for Adaptability

Rigid governance models collapse under the weight of change. To build resilience, organizations must design governance structures that can flex as priorities shift. This includes conducting quarterly reviews of decision rights, KPIs, and resource allocations. Empower resource councils to reallocate talent. Establish vendor contracts with flexibility clauses to emphasize outcomes rather than fixed milestones. Leverage scenario planning to help anticipate governance needs under different operational conditions. This approach aligns with the principles of transformative resilience, which emphasize an organization's ability to adapt, recover, and evolve in response to disruptions. As outlined in the linked research, transformative resilience is not just about bouncing back. It is about building systems that are capable of learning, adjusting, and thriving under pressure. Speaking of pressure, it's worth noting that governance must be designed to support this kind of resilience by enabling flexibility, responsiveness, and strategic foresight. This leads me to my last point.

5. Expand the Strategic Ecosystem

While governance is essential, it does not operate in isolation. Its effectiveness depends on the strength of adjacent levers such as talent strategy, digital architecture, and organizational culture. Inclusive excellence is a critical driver of organizational excellence. Even the most agile governance framework will struggle if the team lacks the skills to execute, acts siloed, or if legacy systems constrain flexibility.

To build a truly resilient transformation ecosystem, organizations should align governance frameworks with workforce development plans and digital capability roadmaps. Leadership behaviors and cultural norms must reinforce governance rituals. Governance reviews should also be integrated with enterprise risk management and strategic planning cycles. This broader view helps leaders avoid treating governance as a siloed fix and instead positions it as part of a dynamic system that drives sustained impact.

Last Thoughts

I hope that others view PwC’s report as a necessary wake-up call. Governance is not a checklist. It is the connective tissue between strategy and success. When organizations treat governance as a compliance task, they risk building systems that look good on paper but fail to deliver in practice. When governance is treated as a strategic capability, it becomes a source of resilience, trust, measurability, and long-term impact. To close the gap, leaders must build governance frameworks that are outcome-oriented, cross-functional, culturally transparent, and agile by design. These frameworks should be tailored to the organization’s maturity, industry, and risk profile. They must also be informed by the principles of resilience-based governance, which emphasize the need for systems that can resist, recover, adapt, and transform in response to disruption.

If you don't remember anything else from this report, know this... Transformation is not just about launching systems. It is about sustaining impact. That begins with governance that is built to deliver, not just to report. I hope this helps!! ✌🏾 + 🫶🏾

As always, thanks for reading! I’d love to hear your thoughts on this article. Did I miss anything? Do you have personal experiences or observations to add? Let me know!

🚨WAIT!! 🚨

Before I forget… I’d like to invite you to join me and my fellow beautiful minds at UNMUTED. Together, we will explore what it means to lead through uncertainty, setting boundaries, and influencing without apology on September 20th. It’s an authentic conversation you will not want to miss. Register now!

Sign up now and get in on this goodness!

Footnotes is a newsletter dedicated to exploring insights, trends, and strategies to help leaders navigate change and future-proof their organizations. It is also a platform where I share ideas that encourage thoughtful dialogue. Your feedback is always valued. The views expressed here are solely my own and do not represent those of any affiliated organizations. Thank you for reading and engaging with this work.

Why do 92% of Tech Transformations Fail in Organizations? Hint: It's not because of their strategy.