The project is marked successful despite missing its purpose. Who should challenge that?
Output-only governanceReview success against the agreed outcomes and benefits, not only delivery mechanics. Distinguish completed outputs from unresolved value and assign ownership for any remaining benefit work.
What to do now
- Compare results with original success criteria
- Separate output completion from outcome evidence
- Identify remaining benefit responsibilities
- Record an honest closure and follow-up decision
When to escalate
Escalate when
Success reporting materially misrepresents the investment outcome.
Who decides
The sponsor or formally delegated governance body
Example
A system is technically delivered, but the sponsor records adoption gaps and a funded benefits follow-up.
Mistake to avoid
Equating on-time delivery with realized business value.
Prevent a repeat
Review overdue decisions and confirm that decision makers have the authority and evidence they need.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Approvals
- Documents
- Projects
Attach the decision brief and evidence to a configured approval route only after confirming the actual authority and delegation rules. See the platform
Related cases
- The project board and product owner disagree. Who decides?Conflicting governance accountabilities
- How do we manage decisions between governance meetings?Missing out-of-cycle decision route
- How do we distinguish an output, an outcome, and a benefit?Value-chain confusion
- The project team owns the process, but will leave soon. Who takes over?Missing enduring process ownership