- Sam Bayaa
- Reading Time: 3 minutes
For years, there has been a quiet but persistent belief in the enterprise technology market:
“No one ever got fired for hiring a large, well-known consulting firm.”
It is an understandable assumption. Global brand recognition, deep benches, proven methodologies, and decades of delivery experience all feel like insurance policies against failure.
But after years advising large-scale implementations and increasingly being brought in after things have gone wrong, I can say with certainty that belief no longer holds true. In fact, I have personally witnessed the opposite.
The Uncomfortable Reality
Over the last several years, I have worked with organizations that engaged top-tier implementation providers, followed a formal procurement process, selected reputable systems integrators, and still experienced:
- Significant budget overruns
- Missed milestones that cascaded into multi-year delays
- Scope erosion disguised as “agile reprioritization”
- Executive credibility damage
- Most painfully, the quiet departure of capable leaders who were held accountable for outcomes they did not fully control
I have also heard too many stories of peers, experienced CIOs, transformation leaders, and program sponsors, losing their roles after implementations failed, despite having hired the most recognizable names in the market. The myth of brand immunity is just that, a myth.
Why This Keeps Happening
This is not about incompetence or bad intent. Large consulting firms deliver value every day. But the operating model of modern implementations has changed in ways many organizations have not fully adapted to.
A few hard truths:
- Complexity has exploded: ERP, CRM, HCM, and industry platforms are no longer systems. They are ecosystems.
- Delivery models have shifted risk: Agile, hybrid, and phased deployments often blur accountability rather than clarify it.
- Incentives are misaligned: Even well-intentioned providers are measured on utilization, scope stability, and change orders, not on whether the business realizes value.
- Clients often lack leverage once delivery begins: Governance structures that look strong on paper struggle under real-world pressure.
When issues surface early, they are frequently normalized. When they surface late, the consequences are often existential. By the time an organization seeks independent help, the program is already in distress, and the personal risk to leadership is very real.
The Cost of Waiting Too Long
One of the most disheartening patterns I see is when organizations reach out for support.
It is rarely during planning.
It is rarely during vendor selection.
It is often during executive escalations, steering committee breakdowns, or board-level scrutiny.
By the time an organization reaches this point, incremental adjustments are often no longer sufficient. What is usually required is a thoughtful recalibration of the program.
That recalibration is not just about addressing missed milestones or negotiating change orders, although both may be part of the process. It is also about re-establishing internal confidence in the plan itself. Leaders, delivery teams, and business stakeholders need a shared, credible view of how the program moves forward and why that path is different from what came before.
Importantly, reaching this stage does not mean failure is inevitable or that recovery is unlikely. Many programs regain momentum when assumptions are revisited, governance is clarified, and the plan is reset with greater transparency and realism.
When done well, recalibration creates space for better decision-making. It allows organizations to engage implementation partners and change order negotiations more constructively, align expectations across stakeholders, and move forward with renewed clarity rather than continued uncertainty.
A Different Way to Think About “Safety”
Hiring a top-tier implementation provider is not a mistake. Assuming that brand alone removes delivery risk is.
True safety is not about eliminating the need to course-correct. It is about ensuring that when adjustment is required, it is informed, deliberate, and grounded in the organization’s interests.
In practice, that means creating balance throughout the life of a program. Balance between trust and challenge. Between delivery momentum and objective assessment. Between optimism and realism.
Organizations that establish this balance early often avoid major disruption. Those that introduce it later are still able to benefit from clearer accountability, better decision-making, and a more credible path forward. True safety comes from:
- Independent oversight that has no delivery revenue at stake
- Clear, enforceable accountability between client and provider
- Early identification of risk signals before they become headlines
- A relentless focus on outcomes, not just milestones and artifacts
The most successful programs I have seen do not rely on trust or control alone. They rely on informed, experienced challenge applied at the right moments.
A Final Thought for Leaders
If you are sponsoring, funding, or accountable for a major implementation, ask yourself one question:
If this program struggles, who is solely focused on protecting the enterprise, not the contract, not the methodology, not the provider relationship, but the outcome and the people attached to it?
Because in today’s environment, the cost of finding that answer too late can be far greater than the cost of asking it early.
If you own the outcome, don’t own the risk alone. Independent oversight isn’t about mistrust: it’s about ensuring decisions are grounded in reality before issues become irreversible. Explore UpperEdge’s Project Execution Advisory Services to see how we can help.
