Appointing Interim Program Leaders Early Shapes Better Outcomes Organisations rarely struggle to agree which programs matter. Where they often struggle is deciding when to bring a senior delivery leader into the conversation. Recently, an Executive asked me for advice on how to structure and resource a critical program of work. The organisation is still at an early stage. The business case was being drafted, funding discussions were ongoing, and there was understandable desire to ensure success. The question wasn’t about whether leadership was required. It was about timing. My view was clear: the right Program Director should be involved as early as possible to help you shape success. The risk of waiting too long In some programs, senior delivery leadership is introduced once funding has been approved and the initiative is formally underway. By that point, key decisions have already been made. Assumptions have already been made; Timelines, budgets, and benefits are often framed around optimism rather than delivery reality. When a Program Director joins at that stage, they inherit constraints rather than help shape success Their role becomes one of mitigation rather than design. This is rarely intentional. It’s usually driven by a desire to control cost or avoid “over-engineering” too early. But in practice, delaying leadership often creates the very inefficiencies organisations are trying to avoid. What early hiring enables Bringing an experienced Program Director in early changes the nature of the conversation. Instead of planning in isolation, organisations benefit from delivery-informed thinking at the point where it matters most. At an early stage, the right interim leader can help: Shape a credible business case grounded in what is realistically deliverable. Clarify the level of funding required and the benefits that can genuinely be achieved within that investment Define the team, skills, and capability required to deliver, rather than retrofitting roles later and potentially blowing out budgets which were incorrect in the first place. Identify the organisational change impact early and work with the change practitioner/team to ensure success. Why interim leadership is often the right choice For many organisations, this level of program leadership capability doesn’t exist in-house, particularly for niche initiatives. Even where strong leaders are available, they are often already committed to existing priorities. Interim Program Directors offer a practical alternative. They bring a wealth of expertise, sector-specific experience, and the ability to operate independently of internal politics. Importantly, they can focus on setting the program up for success without the land and expand model of the consultancy world. Used well, interim leadership at this stage is not an added cost. It is an investment in clarity, realism, and better decision-making. Shifting the mindset The organisations that consistently deliver complex programs well tend to share one characteristic. They involve delivery expertise early, before plans become fixed and difficult to challenge. They treat program leadership as a strategic design input, not just a delivery function. That shift in mindset often determines whether a program starts with momentum or spends its early phases recovering from avoidable missteps. A question worth considering If you’ve been involved in shaping or sponsoring major programs, you’ll likely have seen both approaches in action. When have you seen prompt hiring of an Interim Program Director materially improve the outcome of a program? And where has waiting too long made recovery harder than it needed to be? Those experiences are often where the most valuable lessons sit. Please contact Alan Herrity to explore this topic further.

Case Study - Multi-Hire Program Managers (x3)

The best steering committees never need to steer. When a major transformation program runs smoothly, this is not by accident. It is by design. Steering committees play a vital role in governance, visibility and key decision making. They exist to align projects & programs with business strategy, oversee delivery, resolve major issues, and make the high-level decisions that shape direction and investment. When they work well, they give leaders confidence that complex initiatives are under control and moving towards their intended outcomes. My view is that the most effective steering committees are often those with the least fuss. They don’t spend their time firefighting or unpicking surprises. This is not the intent of a steering committee. The focus is on validating progress, endorsing key decisions, and providing strategic guidance — because the real work has already been done. The program leader’s real art The difference lies in the quality of program leadership. The hard work is done in the lead up to the steering committee, this means: Alignment. Stakeholders are engaged early, with shared understanding of priorities, scope, and success measures. Anticipation. Issues are surfaced and resolved at working level, rather than escalating unnecessarily. Knowing when to escalate to remove roadblocks is key to success. Clarity. The project/program narrative is consistent, transparent, and grounded in evidence — so there are no surprises. When these fundamentals are in place, the steering committee becomes what it was always intended to be: a forum for strategic direction, not operational repair and firefighting. Governance at its best A well-run steering committee confirms that the ship’s on course, the crew is competent, and the captain has control. The conversation becomes higher value — focused on trade-offs, strategic risks, and emerging opportunities rather than tactical blockers. That’s governance at its best: fit for purpose and effective, challenging but supportive. What it says about leadership Program leaders who reach this level of maturity focus on alignment, clarity, and trust. They create an environment where the steering committee’s confidence is earned, not requested. When a steering committee spends its time on decisions rather than disagreements, you know the program is being led — not just managed. Please contact Alan Herrity to explore this topic further.

A conversation with an executive recently reframed something many boards are still grappling with. The real blind spot in boardrooms isn’t just a lack of technical understanding. It’s the confidence to interpret technology investments through a strategic lens — how they enable the business, improve risk, and ultimately strengthen customer experience. If a board sees a $50 million cloud program purely as IT infrastructure, the conversation is already heading in the wrong direction. The strategic case for technology is, in effect, the case for digital transformation. That means understanding how the change reshapes process performance, customer visibility, and operational resilience. As that executive put it, a true digital transformation “exposes your process performance to your customers.” It’s a useful test: if your customers could see exactly how your processes work, would they still choose you? That’s the difference between technology as cost and technology as capability. Technology Fluency Isn’t About Technical Depth Boards don’t need more technologists. They need directors who can recognise what technology enables — growth, speed, resilience, and transparency. That has always been the requirement. The gap today is that these decisions now sit at the centre of strategy rather than the periphery. Digitally fluent boards Link investment to strategy, not infrastructure Differentiate between modernisation and transformation Understand customer impact as clearly as cost impact Assess risk in operational, cultural, and technology terms Where boards struggle is usually not with the technology itself, but with context. They miss how decisions play out culturally — the hidden signals in execution that determine whether a transformation will land. As one executive in my network put it, “the distance between the board and where the work happens means cultural signals get lost.” His view is right; culture remains one of the quietest destroyers of transformation success. The Strategic Value of Technology Leaders on Boards This is where experienced Technology Executives add real value. However, not as technical custodians. The strongest candidates position themselves as enablers of strategy, stewards of risk, and commercial contributors who can translate complexity into clarity. They can articulate why a transformation matters, how it links to the operating model, and what the organisation needs to do to ensure customers feel the benefit. They don’t talk about platforms first; they talk about outcomes. The best ones move comfortably between strategy, execution and culture. They can explain the positive impact on the P&L in ways that resonate with non-technical colleagues. That’s what differentiates a board-ready technology leader from one who’s simply senior in their function. Boards Need to Close Their Own Blind Spots Technology Executives bring essential perspective, but the responsibility doesn’t sit with them alone. Boards need to identify where their blind spots are — whether that’s digital capability, data literacy, transformation oversight, or cultural interpretation — and close them. A digitally fluent board isn’t one with a single expert. It’s one in which the full group can challenge assumptions, interrogate investment cases, and understand how transformation affects customers, risk, and strategy. When they do lead a major transformation, the job isn’t finished when the program ends. The most effective boards review, assess, and learn. Continuous change means there’s no moment for relief. If a board feels the work is “done”, that’s usually the signal that it’s time to evolve again. What This Means for Technology Executives Preparing for Board Roles For leaders aiming to step into governance roles, the expectation has shifted. Position yourself as someone who: Enables strategy, rather than represents a function Understands risk in operational and technology terms Can show a clear link between transformation and commercial outcomes Brings the cultural awareness to read execution signals early Boards don’t need technologists. They need technology-literate strategists with the experience to make change investable and the judgement to ensure it succeeds. Closing the Gap Business models, customer expectations, and technology capability will continue to move at pace. The organisations that thrive will be those whose boards understand how technology shapes value — not as a technical discipline, but as a strategic one. For many boards, that shift is still underway. For Technology Executives, it’s a clear opening to contribute where the business needs clarity most. If both sides step towards each other, the blind spot closes.  Please contact Alan Herrity to explore this topic further.

The Quiet Crossroads Every Transformation Leader Reaches You’ve been offered a lateral move. You might feel that it’s a step back. Your mentor says take it. You’re torn. That tension — perceived progress versus pragmatism — is one I see often. Recently, a CIO I know asked me about the pros and cons of a sideways step. On paper, it can look like a setback. In reality, it can set the stage for the next big leap. “Careers aren’t ladders anymore. They’re landscapes - and the best leaders learn to navigate them". Four Real Ways Careers Move Forward Careers rarely move in straight lines. In truth, there are four ways to grow — each valid in its own season.

Case Study - General Manager - IT Project Services

Case Study - General Manager, Transformation & Enterprise Project Management Office (EPMO)

Case Study - Head of Transformation

Case Study - Program Director – Confidential Initiative