ISSUE 01 · DECISION FLOW
The dashboard is green. The decision is late.
Reporting moves. Ownership does not.
The meeting produces updates, but the same cross-functional decision returns next Monday.
Who can decide without another alignment meeting?
If the answer is a group, a steering committee or “it depends,” the system has not assigned the decision.
Trace one decision, not the whole transformation.
Map the trigger, evidence, accountable owner, consulted roles and decision deadline on one page.
A green dashboard can be a red execution signal.
The workstream can report every milestone on time and still fail to move the decision that matters. This happens when reporting logic is stronger than decision logic: the system knows how to collect status, but not how to convert it into accountable movement.
The visible symptom is usually described as slow alignment. Leaders respond with another governance layer, another meeting or more pressure on the team. That can increase activity while leaving the execution break untouched.
The break sits between evidence and authority.
A serious decision path answers five questions: What triggered the decision? What evidence is sufficient? Who owns the decision? Who must be consulted—and who does not? By when does the decision become more expensive?
If one answer remains vague, the decision begins to travel sideways. People compensate through informal calls, duplicated decks and escalation. The system then mistakes that effort for progress.
Do not ask the team to align harder. Give the decision a visible owner, a bounded evidence threshold and a clock.
The practical move for this week
Choose one decision that has appeared in two consecutive status meetings. Reconstruct its path from trigger to accountable owner. Do not redesign the entire operating model. Fix the smallest decision architecture that can restore movement, then observe what the system reveals next.