The Certainty Imperative Deanne Earle

The single most persistent mistake is believing that the tech, the system, is the silver bullet that resolves all their issues. It is not, and it will not.

Once the business case is approved, the budget is released, and the project team is in place, it seems that — unconsciously or not — a separation takes place. A disconnect. A them-and-us dynamic between the business and the IT group. It's a bit like throwing something over a fence. The business effectively says, "not my monkey", and over a relatively short time the implementation becomes something that is being done to the business rather than for the business. Which, when you think about it, is odd because it's not called a business case for nothing.

I want to make the point here that this is not unique to any particular system, industry sector, location, company age or size. Some of the challenges may vary, and the consequences differ, but the issue itself is consistent. My conclusion is that this is rooted in something much deeper than the technology or the team — in the way organisations are fundamentally structured and how they operate. Even those operating flatter models aren't immune.

In the end, the technology is just one aspect through which an organisation can effect change to achieve growth targets, business goals and vision. This is why I believe leaders need to be conscious — not just awake but self-aware, intentional, responsible, and clear about roles, responsibilities, and who is accountable for outcomes. Conscious leaders are connected into the bigger picture. They are motivated to evolve not only themselves and how they work, but also what they expect of the organisation and what they ask of those around them. Once a leader is fully conscious, any gaps between the project organisation, the wider organisation, and the way business is conducted become obvious — and can then be addressed.

The leader who recognises and understands that the system being implemented is just one piece of the business and organisational change they are leading has the advantage.

A good friend of mine at home in New Zealand challenged me with one question: what do people have when they work with you that they otherwise don't?

The answer — certainty.

When we don't know what's really going on, and the dynamics influencing it, how can we possibly make informed decisions, give appropriate direction, or achieve the outcomes we're targeting? My superpower — my genius — is in being able to see what others don't, connect the dots that aren't always obvious, and ask the challenging questions others may shy away from. It's this way of working that establishes the foundation of certainty.

Certainty around what's being done when, by whom and how, and that what's coming out the other end delivers not only what is expected but what is needed. Initially, this can be quite confronting. But it's not something to be afraid of, because it sets the baseline from which we determine what to do next. Then it's a matter of doing the work. The work that needs to be done isn't easy, but if leaders are willing, the rewards are there for the taking.

This is where, in my experience, conventional project management fails. I'm not suggesting the fundamentals are substandard — they're not. Industry-standard project management provides us with checklists, reports, governance, and escalation paths. It just doesn't go beyond that, unless someone is prepared to do so themselves by seeing and connecting everything differently.

When talking with leaders about certainty, I take them through the model and ask them to tick the areas that are working for them now. If they can't tick the middle three as working and meeting their expectations, any ticks outside those are redundant. The areas around the outside cannot work if the middle three are not. That's why leaders end up operating from uncertainty — expending additional effort and time, which I call the hidden cost of uncertainty. Typically, uncertainty is handled through more meetings (coordination tax), additional unplanned management time (governance overhead), and delaying decisions until all the stars align (decision paralysis).

Certainty comes when leaders have reached their fed-up point. They're willing to interrupt what's not working, find out why, and not only decide what to do about it but also commit to shifting, fixing, and changing it. There's no room for lip service here. There must be commitment not only to act, but to action.

You'd think the differences would outweigh the similarities. Sector, size, location, culture, system — all different. And yet the same gaps. The same dynamics. The same conversations. Every time.

What stays the same is how organisations are built. The hierarchies, the ways of working, the accountability structures, and the separation between functions. These haven't fundamentally changed in decades, arguably centuries. We've layered technology on top of them, introduced agile frameworks and transformation programmes, hired consultants and certified project managers, discarded and started again. And still the same gaps and problems appear.

But the structure alone doesn't explain everything. Because inside every structure, there are people — and with people come motivations, egos, agendas, behaviours, and fears that no governance framework was ever designed to surface.

This is where it gets interesting, and where most conventional approaches fall short. What's written in the project report and what's actually happening in the room are often two completely different things. There are conversations happening in corridors that aren't making it into status updates. There are people nodding in meetings who fundamentally disagree with the direction. There are leaders whose teams have learned, consciously or not, that bad news doesn't always go down well.

What I've developed over twenty years — and it's not something you can certify your way into — is the ability to pick up on what's not being said. The silence, or body language that doesn't match the response. The questions that don't get asked. The dynamics between people in a room tell you more about why a programme is struggling than any RAG status ever could. Individual motivations, personal agendas, protect-your-patch behaviour, the politics of who owns what — these are the undercurrents that determine whether a programme succeeds or fails, and they're almost never on any register.

The fact that this is so universal is what I find most instructive. However different the culture or the sector, when pressure rises, people behave in remarkably consistent ways. They accept the comfortable report rather than ask the uncomfortable question. They keep the peace rather than raise the flag. They wait for more information rather than make the call.

Changing that requires more than better processes or clearer governance. It requires someone willing to ask the questions others won't, to name the elephant in the room, and to create the conditions where repercussions aren't front of mind. That's what makes the difference. That's what my work is actually about.

The conditions are set in how an organisation makes decisions, how it handles conflict, how honest people are prepared to be with each other, and whether leaders really know what's going on or are just being managed upwards with comfortable numbers.

Boards and senior teams are often the last to know when something's going wrong. Not because people are hiding it, but because the whole system has been set up to report progress rather than reveal reality. By the time it surfaces at board level, the options have often narrowed considerably. PwC's 2025 Corporate Directors Survey found that 78% of directors don't believe their own board assessment process gives them a complete picture of their board's performance. If boards aren't getting an honest picture of their own effectiveness and capability gaps, it follows that gaps in oversight — including over technology investments — go unrecognised until they become problems.

What I'd want a board to understand is that technology project risk isn't primarily a technology question. It's a governance and leadership question. Who is accountable? What are they being told? And how true is it? The same survey shows that while 67% of directors say boards should be spending more time on AI oversight, and 46% on digital transformation, only 35% have actually incorporated any of it into their oversight role. The awareness exists. The action doesn't always follow.

Part of what I bring to a board conversation is a clear-eyed look at how the governance framework is translated and applied to the programme organisation — not in theory, but in practice. Is the board a key custodian of its implementation? Does the programme operate within the risk appetite the business has set? Those aren't abstract questions. They determine whether a board is governing, or just receiving updates.

Earlier, I talked about the point at which conventional project management begins to fail and leaders are left with a level of uncertainty that they attempt to plug. The default response is to hire a certified project manager, but certification itself doesn't guarantee a better outcome.

Over time, I've become more frustrated by what is not covered in these industry certifications. It's led me to look more closely at what the market currently offers, where it fails organisations and practitioners, and how a parallel ecosystem could both complement and disrupt the market in terms of programme leadership capability and excellence.

What I've found is that the intensive work I do with leaders addresses challenges that aren't exclusive to those organisations with the budget for a senior independent consultant. These challenges are everywhere.

What I'm building — and believe will be a market disruptor — takes the experience, the judgement, and the tools I've deployed and developed over the years and makes them available at a much wider scale. To individuals, leaders, and companies. Beyond consulting. Beyond the room. Most importantly, beyond conventional project management.

Any leader, consultant, or team member trying to deliver something significant — who's fed up with not knowing what's going on, not able to get honest answers, doesn't have the structures that would let them lead with certainty — that's who this product will be for.

First, take a breath.

Second, put aside a few minutes to run the Hidden Cost of Uncertainty™ Calculator. It's a browser-based tool that quantifies the financial overhead uncertainty creates in any programme of work. My focus just happens to be on system implementations, though the calculator is agnostic. I built it not because I love calculators, but because I keep having the same conversation.

Leaders feeling early warning signals, or already waking at 3am, need to quantify what their default responses are costing them — and the Hidden Cost of Uncertainty Calculator does that. What they see is eye-opening. A bit of an "oh shit" moment. When they see their number, based on their programme's reality, it triggers a shift in thinking. They start asking different questions, dealing with the root cause rather than addressing the symptom.

For those leaders reading this who are worried about their programme, I invite them to run the calculator and see what it tells them. It's very simple, and it produces a personalised cost figure that quantifies three hidden cost drivers based on the leader's own data — not industry averages or generic estimates.

It takes two minutes. It uses their inputs. It's free. They get their results immediately, on-screen. From there they have a choice — remain with the status quo, or take different action. I'd be happy to talk to them should they choose the latter.