Sometimes a project is not behind schedule because the team is struggling to deliver. It is behind because someone has yet to make a decision.
I think this is an aspect of project delivery that deserves more attention, particularly when project managers are held accountable for delays caused by decisions outside their authority.
Consider a system implementation approaching its go-live date. Operations want additional testing, the commercial team wants to maintain the agreed launch date, and compliance has concerns that must be addressed. The project manager can assess the implications, present options and recommend a course of action, but cannot independently decide how much business risk the organization should accept.
Now imagine that decision remains unresolved for two weeks. Activities that depend on it are delayed, resources remain committed, costs continue to accumulate, and the project begins to slip. Eventually, the delay appears in the project performance report, even though the underlying problem is not necessarily poor execution but an unresolved governance decision.
PMI's 2026 guidance on responsible project sponsorship reinforces the importance of clear decision rights, agreed tolerances and active sponsor involvement throughout delivery. Sponsorship should extend beyond approving the business case, attending steering committee meetings or receiving status reports.
However, effective sponsorship also requires effective escalation. Project managers should not simply report that an issue remains unresolved. They should clearly communicate the decision required, available options, associated risks, their recommendation and the consequences of not deciding within a particular timeframe.
For instance, instead of reporting that the go-live decision is pending, the escalation could explain whether the organisation must approve a phased launch or postpone implementation, what each option means for cost and risk, and when the decision must be made to avoid further disruption.
This is where governance must become practical. Organisations need clear decision-making authority, defined escalation thresholds and mechanisms for resolving time-sensitive issues without waiting for the next scheduled steering committee meeting.
Perhaps one measure we should pay closer attention to is not just how quickly project teams resolve issues, but how long critical decisions remain outstanding after escalation.
Project managers should be accountable for managing delivery within their authority, while sponsors and governance bodies must remain accountable for the decisions that enable that delivery.
When critical decisions are delayed in your organisation, are they resolved as soon as they are needed, or do they often wait for the next governance meeting?
Good ideas get better in conversation.
