Blog

Financial growth of business was evident in investment graph, where an upward arrow on chart indicated increased profit, success. financial, growth, graph, investment, money, profit, business, arrow.

The feasibility test for capital: Can you fund less before learning more, or are governance and appropriation rules forcing you to commit before you're ready?Most organisations commit capital upfront through annual planning cycles. The business case gets approved, the budget gets locked, the project gets funded.It looks disciplined.&nbsp;It feels controlled.But by year-end, the pattern becomes clear: some initiatives underspend because delivery can't absorb the work when reality hits.&nbsp;Dependencies shifted, capacity moved, timelines stretched.&nbsp;Others keep running because they were funded, not because the value case still holds. When those finally stop, capitalised costs hit the income statement as an impairment.That's not a planning failure. It's a funding model that assumes certainty execution can't deliver.Execution doesn't deliver certainty. It delivers information. And the two are in constant tension.The organisations that treat execution as a learning system build investment models that respond to what delivery teaches them.&nbsp;Funding models get set by the planning cycle and then never revisited, because changing them means reopening a conversation nobody wants. Building the trigger points where investment can follow evidence is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/strategic-planning" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/strategic-planning">Strategic Planning</a> covers.The challenge: your funding model move as execution learns, so investment follows evidence, not just the original plan?Here are four patterns I've helped organisations build to close that gap, becoming more adaptable while maintaining governance:Level 1: Annual Allocation + Rolling Forecasts Budget stays fixed, forecasting becomes more frequent. You see variance earlier. Better visibility, not yet flexible funding. But an important foundation.Level 2: Incremental / Tranche Funding with Guardrails Funding released in stages as risk reduces and evidence builds. Investment starts to follow proof, not plans, and sunk cost exposure shrinks.Level 3: Persistent Capacity Funding Long-lived teams funded by outcome area, not project. Demand managed through sequencing, not repeated business cases. I've seen this reduce bureaucracy and accelerate delivery significantly.Level 4: Dynamic Allocation (Beyond Budgeting principles) Funding moves more continuously, guided by performance data and devolved decision rights. It works when three things are true: data you trust, authority below the CFO level, and the discipline to stop funding what isn't working when it matters.Many organisations run a hybrid across these.Three things matter at every level: guardrails and decision rights, measures you actually trust, and a governance rhythm that can act in-cycle.Where does your investment governance currently sit, and is it giving execution what it needs to deliver?&nbsp;This is part of lever 5 (Execution Feasibility) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, with practical detail on each of the four funding patterns. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_the-feasibility-test-for-capital-can-you-activity-7432190092594675712-031e" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_the-feasibility-test-for-capital-can-you-activity-7432190092594675712-031e" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">See the carousel on LinkedIn →﻿</a>

When the strategy costs more than you actually have

Businessman touches a digital progress checklist with check marks and an advancing loading bar, symbolizing task completion and project progress. progress bar, Management and tracking strategies,

In my research on strategy execution, every senior leader I interviewed raised resourcing as one of the most critical factors in whether strategy would actually land.Without exception.But what surprised me wasn’t that they talked about resourcing; it was that they went there first.Before culture, before governance, before alignment.Straight to money, headcount, and capacity.In Anglo-cultures (think NZ, AU, UK, US), where performance orientation runs high, leaders often gravitate toward what feels measurable and controllable: funding, headcount, and delivery dates.And I get it.&nbsp;Those are the levers that feel like leadership.But here's the tension.Leaders resource the work. Budgets get approved, plans get signed off, and roles get assigned.And execution still stalls.Because it doesn't matter what you've allocated if the organisation can't actually consume it.This is feasibility, not resourcing.Do you have capacity after BAU? Leadership bandwidth?&nbsp; Can teams absorb the change?&nbsp; Do you have the specialist capability to land it?That's why the 5th lever in my Strategy Execution - By Design Series, isn't just about resourcing, it's about feasibility.Feasibility gets tested after the commitment rather than before it, because nobody owns the question. Building the point in the cycle where it gets asked, and where the answer can still change the plan, is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution">Execution </a>sets up.Resourcing asks: "Do we have a budget and a team?"Feasibility asks: "Can our organisation actually absorb what we've funded, at the pace we're expecting, without breaking what already works?"This includes funding, yes. But also workforce capacity, change absorption, capability, and enablers.Over the coming posts, I'll explore each one in more detail.To start: a quick feasibility scan below.It forces you to name the constraints that will stall progress to help you make the trade-offs up front, before you burn time and goodwill.Use it on your top initiative this week. Most leaders find their binding constraint isn't budget, it's bandwidth, capability, or change saturation.This is part of lever 5 (Execution Feasibility) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's a feasibility scan in the carousel. It forces you to name the constraints that will stall progress, so you can make the trade-offs up front. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_execution-feasibility-activity-7429268367011667969-VnCX?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_execution-feasibility-activity-7429268367011667969-VnCX?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

Can your organisation actually deliver what it agreed?

<h2>Strategy Execution by Design Series Wrap up of Lever 4: Governance &amp; Decision Rights</h2>Most organisations don’t “fail” execution in a single decision; they lose it through governance drag, decisions drifting upward, packs that look green while reality shifts, and escalations that arrive either too late or too often.Over the last few weeks, I’ve been sharing Lever 4 of my Strategy Execution by Design framework, Governance and Decision Rights, and I’ve now pulled it into one wrap-up article.In it, I break down the five elements that make governance work as an execution system, architecture that actually connects, decision rights that prevent drift, line of sight that builds confidence (not comfort), interlocks that stop execution breaking in the seams, and escalation that ends in real course correction.If your SteerCo feels jammed, your leaders are surprised late, or your teams are working hard, but momentum still feels heavier than it should, this lever will help you pinpoint what’s driving it and what to change first.You can access the full wrap up article here: <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_most-organisations-dont-fail-execution-activity-7427826350985584640-cTwS?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs" data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_most-organisations-dont-fail-execution-activity-7427826350985584640-cTwS?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs">https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_most-organisations-dont-fail-execution-activity-7427826350985584640-cTwS?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAhmYsQBKppHDyfPTxqHXXgP5MmXRjB7WJs</a>&nbsp;Written by Rebecca Reti, Strategy &amp; Execution Consultant at Rebecca Reti Consulting.<figure id="figure-f1nfkzfekcmlkb5jze"><img id="f1nfkzfekcmlkb5jze" src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/37CW5IH9WdACwqOIZhNrHi5Cn7cKfmPWz7MoJliJU6ukShsgt2O3EZDQI3xzFrEs.png" alt="Four people sitting beside each other inside a conference room" title="Four people sitting beside each other inside a conference room" class="object-cover bg-gray-100 " style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;" data-corners="default" data-aspect="16:9" data-caption="" data-positionx="undefined" data-positiony="undefined" data-fullwidth="false" data-mce-src="https://cdn.durable.co/covers/37CW5IH9WdACwqOIZhNrHi5Cn7cKfmPWz7MoJliJU6ukShsgt2O3EZDQI3xzFrEs.png" data-mce-style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; object-position: undefined undefined;"></figure>

Wrap up of Lever 4: Governance & Decision Rights

Business people having meeting in conference room, sitting with laptops and discussing

Escalation reveals the truth about execution.In strong environments, escalation is normal, early, and useful. It protects value.It only works when decision rights are clear and escalation thresholds are explicit, equiping teams to resolve what they can and escalate what truly needs enterprise judgement.In weaker environments, teams swing to extremes, they sit on issues until it’s urgent, or they escalate everything and call it governance. Both are expensive.This theme came through continually in my research with senior leaders. The pain wasn’t the escalation itself; it was the pattern. Leaders either found out late or were flooded with noise, and by then the options were already limited.Healthy escalation has one job: surface drift early enough to reset course.Escalation patterns aren't a behaviour problem. They're what people do when the thresholds were never set, so nobody knows what they're allowed to decide. Naming who owns what, and at which level, is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/operating-model" data-mce-selected="inline-boundary">Operating Model </a>sets up.Here’s the standard I use with leadership teams. When something escalates, do you get: - facts, not feelings - impact on value / time / risk - options and trade-offs - a clear recommendation - the decision needed, and by whenIf you’re not getting those inputs, escalation turns into theatre, lots of heat, not much movement.And, if escalations don’t end in a reset, they’re just venting. Decide, re-baseline, assign ownership, then update the guardrails so the same issue doesn’t keep climbing.Do issues reach you too late, or do they reach you too often?This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti,</a> strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, with practical ways to build healthy escalation into your governance system. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_escalation-reveals-the-truth-about-execution-activity-7426746790332293121-PJVp" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_escalation-reveals-the-truth-about-execution-activity-7426746790332293121-PJVp">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

Why everything escalates and nothing gets decided

Most people in an organisation don’t experience governance as a system.They experience their slice of it: a project SteerCo, a program board, a portfolio checkpoint, a functional leadership forum.While each forum can be well run in isolation, execution often breaks in the seams between them, where dependencies, trade-offs, and decision pathways cross boundaries.This came through strongly in my research with senior leaders. Many described how limited their visibility was beyond their own forums, and how the pain shows up later as rework, slow decisions, and escalations that feel unavoidable.That’s the challenge of multi-layered governance: not the quality of any one forum, but whether the layers connect.That’s what interlocks solve.Interlocks aren’t extra meetings. They’re the minimum touchpoints and rules that connect the governance system, surfacing cross-functional dependencies and trade-offs early and keeping them visible as work moves, so leaders can steer with clarity, not surprise.In practice, interlocks operate across two levels: - Governance level: where leaders surface and route enterprise dependencies, priorities, and trade-offs, set decision boundaries, and track what must be resolved outside the forum. - Delivery level: teams solving sequencing, capacity and dependency tensions, then elevating only what needs enterprise judgement.And when interlocks are working, you’ll see three shifts: 1. Dependencies surface early: while you still have options to resequence, reassign, or make a call. 2. Trade-offs are explicit: because if they’re not named, they still happen late and expensively. 3. Escalation is deliberate: teams resolve what they can at the lowest responsible level, and SteerCo is only involved in true enterprise calls, not day-to-day dependency friction.In one organisation I worked in, we tackled interlocks at two levels: a cross-functional leadership forum to prioritise the roadmap and quarterly outcomes, and manage interlocks across functions; and a delivery-level big room planning where teams mapped dependencies, flagged decision points, set delivery priorities, and exposed constraints early.This approach saw those dependencies and risks owned, translated into clear actions and commitments, and elevated into project governance reporting, giving steering committees visibility of execution risk across the roadmap, not just inside individual projects.The impact wasn’t “more alignment.” It was faster execution: fewer surprises, fewer late escalations, and cleaner decisions because leaders could see what was being managed between the forums.Every forum can be well run and the system still fails, because nobody owns the seams between them. Designing the connective tissue, and keeping it light enough that people actually use it, is part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution">Execution </a>sets up.This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, including how to check whether your governance system is managing its interlocks, and design moves that build rhythm without meeting bloat. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-4-interlocks-activity-7424595722458677248-0Q-i" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-4-interlocks-activity-7424595722458677248-0Q-i">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

Why programmes drift apart, and what interlocks fix

Young successful businessman working on laptop inside office, man in light shirt smiling contentedly, typing on laptop keyboard at workplace

If your governance pack is green, are you actually seeing reality?Once the machine is running, leaders need line of sight to govern effectively. Not more updates, but enough clarity and trust in the integrity of that information to inform their decisions, so they can make good calls early, before the program or project drifts.Line of sight means leaders can see:&nbsp; PACE: What decisions are needed next, and what's slowing momentum;&nbsp; RISK: What's at risk, and if its being managed;&nbsp; VALUE: What trade-offs are being made and if its compromising outcomes; and, TRUTH: Whether what they're hearing reflects reality.That line of sight doesn’t magically appear in a pack.Leaders create it through three mechanisms: 1. Decision-grade reporting that surfaces evidence, trade-offs, and unknowns, not just milestones 2. Forums designed to decide, where the agenda is built around the few calls that protect line of sight 3. Direct connection to reality, leaders stepping outside the pack to validate assumptions with delivery leads and business owners, to hear weak signals earlyWhen those mechanisms are weak, governance can look green while in reality the project is fragile.Early in my career, I saw the impact of this on an Enterprise CRM project. The sponsor was engaged and well-intentioned, but the governance system created a single point of truth, updates flowed mainly through the project manager, and the SteerCo wasn’t routinely hearing from the business owner or the leads closest to the impacted processes. On paper, progress looked fine. The project stayed green right up until UAT.What wasn’t surfaced was lack of business engagement up front, meaning requirements weren’t locked down, and therefore core end-to-end processes hadn’t been properly understood or validated. Because that reality didn't effectively travel up through the governance mechanisms, it didn’t show up as a clear risk, rather, it showed up later as defects.By the time UAT started, it wasn’t a few bugs. It was fundamental workflow issues. The program went red fast, not because people weren’t working hard, but because leaders didn’t have enough line of sight early enough to challenge assumptions and course-correct.Governance that reports is easy to build. Governance that decides, and that surfaces bad news early enough to act on, has to be designed that way from the start. That's part of what <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution" href="https://rebeccareti.com/services/execution">Execution </a>sets up.The practical shift is this: use governance to create line of sight, so decisions are informed and land with confidence.A simple place to start is to insist that any decision brought to a forum is decision-ready: clear recommendation, options, trade-offs, unknowns, and what would change the call.This is part of lever 4 (Governance &amp; Decision Rights) of the Strategy Execution by Design Model. <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model" href="https://rebeccareti.com/execution-model">See the full framework →</a>Not sure which of the seven levers is holding your execution back? <a data-mce-href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/" href="https://sebdsnapshot.rebeccareti.com/">Take the Strategy Execution Maturity Model Assessment →</a>Written by <a data-mce-href="https://rebeccareti.com/about" href="https://rebeccareti.com/about">Rebecca Reti</a>, strategy and execution consultant working with boards and executive teams across Australia and New Zealand.There's more on this in the carousel, with practical ways to build line of sight into your governance system. <a data-mce-href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-3-governance-line-of-sight-activity-7422375420966375424-0Rl_" href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/rebecca-reti-4582433b_element-3-governance-line-of-sight-activity-7422375420966375424-0Rl_">See the carousel on LinkedIn →</a>

How do leaders see whether strategy is really moving?

Rebecca Reti Consulting