The Plan Was Sound. The Change Still Stalled. Why Great Delivery Needs More Than a PMO

By Erin Keen and Zeljko Nikolic

It was meant to be a quick win. The kind of initiative used to show momentum in the first 90 days. The plan had an owner, a timeline and clear deliverables. But four weeks in, nothing had shifted. The “owner” hadn’t seen the updated scope. The person doing the work was buried in BAU. The exec sponsor assumed it was done. When someone finally asked, “Who’s actually leading this?” no one had an answer.

The PMO ticked all the boxes. Scope. Risks. Milestones. All tracked. Dashboards were green. But ownership hadn’t been tested. Roles weren’t clear. And the change wasn’t moving. This isn’t a criticism of the PMO. It’s a reminder that structure alone won’t do it. Change lives in people. And when they don’t believe, can’t connect or don’t feel part of the story, even the best-run program will stall.

In the sections that follow, we explore why that happens. And how leaders can bridge the gap between planning and progress in a way that sticks.

Green lights don’t guarantee momentum

A well-run PMO brings much-needed order to complexity. But too often, we over-rely on the visible markers of success. Dashboards. Timelines. Milestones. And we miss the human signals underneath.

According to a 2023 HBR article by Cian O Morain and Peter Aykens, employees are now facing an average of ten enterprise-wide changes per year, up from just two in 2016. Not surprisingly, their willingness to support change has plummeted from 74% to 43%. The result? A “transformation deficit” that stalls even well-intentioned efforts. The article warns against a familiar trap: trying to fix the problem by adding more structure, more oversight and more communication. But when people are already running on empty, more process isn’t the answer. What they need is prioritisation, clarity, and trust in those leading the change.

As N. Anand and Jean-Louis Barsoux wrote in Harvard Business Review, execution failures are often just the surface issue. In many cases the root cause is a misdiagnosis, failing to identify the right change or misjudging how it fits the organisation’s deeper context. (HBR, 2017) In other words, if you’re not pairing structure with story, you’re only doing half the job.

Where structure alone falls short

Even the best-designed delivery structure can’t:

  • Create belief in the ‘why’ behind the change

  • Surface unspoken resistance

  • Build ownership at the frontline

  • Equip leaders to navigate ambiguity

  • Shift behaviours in real time

  • Clarify who is truly accountable - and whether they’re equipped for what’s ahead

Plans often look solid on paper. But that’s the easy part. They give a comforting illusion of control. The harder part is what happens next: pressure builds, priorities shift, ambiguity creeps in. And that’s when the gaps show. Roles that were assigned but never truly owned begin to unravel. “Shared ownership” becomes code for “no one’s really responsible”. People are named in plans they’ve never seen. Those delivering the work aren’t the ones listed as accountable.

This isn’t a failure of planning discipline. It’s a sign that clarity on paper needs to be matched by commitment in practice. Without that, even the most well-structured effort will struggle to shift behaviour or build real momentum.

What we’ve seen in practice

We’ve seen change efforts succeed and stall - often for reasons that aren’t immediately obvious.

In one organisation, the PMO had exceptional delivery discipline. Reporting was clear. Dependencies were well managed. But teams saw the change as “head office work” rather than something they were part of. Resistance built slowly, then visibly. The program stalled. Leadership had to reset the approach to bring people in.

In another, the change was less complex on paper but more intentional in practice. Delivery leads worked with business leaders from the start. People across functions helped shape the narrative and the solution. Leaders didn’t just communicate the change. They lived it. Authenticity, clarity and trust drove momentum more than any milestone ever could.

In some cases, the warning signs were there from the start. One initiative had five different owners assigned. A red flag masquerading as collaboration. It didn’t signal alignment. It signalled confusion. And in practice, that’s exactly what unfolded. When asked about progress, each of the five pointed to someone else. No one could give a straight answer. Delivery stalled while accountability blurred.

And in several programs, capability has proven to be the hidden fault line. One critical analytics stream was led by a senior expert deeply familiar with legacy systems. But as the program unfolded, it became clear that they lacked the adaptability and systems thinking needed to lead in a new environment. Rather than enabling delivery, they became a bottleneck. The plan had overestimated their ability to lead through change and underestimated the support and complementary skills required around them.

This is where implementation planning often falls short. It assumes that if a name is on the plan, the work will get done. But capability is not just about technical knowledge. It includes adaptability, systems thinking and the ability to work through complexity.

Delivery success depends not just on who is available, but whether they’re equipped for what’s required, and whether the team around them is designed to fill the gaps.

Structure and story. Clarity and conviction. Value delivered.

Real traction comes when robust delivery is matched by meaningful engagement. And when both are focused on value that matters. This lens helps leaders test whether their change effort is set up to succeed. Not just in structure, but in substance.

Phase Structure Story
Plan Clear scope, timelines, accountabilities, value drivers Shared purpose, case for change, what success looks like
Manage Steercos, dashboards, risk controls Leader visibility, consistent and trusted signals
Deliver Milestones, coordination, sequencing Local ownership, feedback, adaptation, matched capability
Embed Transition to BAU, roles and workflows aligned to value Behaviour shifts, habit formation, sustained momentum

We’ve found that the most effective transformations strike this balance deliberately. It’s not about dialling one side up or down. It’s about designing change that is clear, human and purposeful. That’s what drives the kind of change that lasts.

What leaders can do

If you’re delivering change, ask yourself:

  • Are we focused on delivering what’s valuable, not just what’s planned?

  • Are we pairing delivery metrics with behavioural signals?

  • Are leaders role-modelling the change or just sponsoring it?

  • Are we tracking progress in behaviours, not just milestones?

  • Have we matched activity owners to the capability required to deliver?

Don’t dial down the PMO. Dial up the people work. The best transformations are those where structure clears the path and story brings people with you.

Final thought

Change doesn’t fail for lack of planning. It fails for lack of ownership.
When structure and story move together, value follows.

At Lilyfield Partners, this thinking shapes our work across strategy, people and change, and delivery excellence. Because in complexity, it’s not just about getting change done. It’s about making it matter.

 Endnotes

  • Anand, N., & Barsoux, J. L. (2017). What Everyone Gets Wrong About Change Management. Harvard Business Review.

  • O Morain, C., & Aykens, P. (2023). Employees Are Losing Patience with Change Initiatives. Harvard Business Review.

Next
Next

Leading Through Uncertainty: Why Some Leaders Struggle and Others Make It Look Simple