Sharper accountability fails when the person named to own the result only enters the work after the decisions that shaped the outcome have already been made.
A large company had missed the same cross-functional launch commitment more than once. A business unit was preparing to release a new service, but a technology dependency had slipped after operations had already built its launch sequence around the original date.
One senior business leader would own the commitment from end to end and answer for it in the monthly milestone review. The ownership question was settled. Everyone knew who carried the result.
During planning, operations and technology had agreed on the sequencing around a shared dependency. At that point, the launch date was still movable, the scope could still be adjusted, and the order of work could still change.
The senior owner wasn’t part of that planning exchange, and the role entered the flow once the milestone review arrived, after both teams had already organized their work around the commitment.
By then, the owner could push recovery, reset expectations and bring leaders together. The owner couldn’t recreate the room to change the original sequence before other teams had built around it.
Accountability helps when people don’t know who owns the result. That wasn’t the issue here. Leadership had already named the owner, and the owner understood the responsibility.
The repeat miss began when the commitment crossed from one team to the next. Operations planned around a technology dependency, technology planned around its own delivery sequence, and the senior owner entered only when the combined milestone came up for review.
Source link







