Emergency Program Recovery
Context & Stakes
A €40M mission-critical insurance platform programme was at risk of outright failure. The programme had consumed significant capital, was well behind schedule, and executive confidence was eroding rapidly. The mandate was to stabilize within six months — or face cancellation.
The Real Problem (Not the Stated One)
They Thought
Technology delivery failure — pressure to double offshore developers, invest more in infrastructure, and accept delays as unavoidable.
My Findings
Governance failure — uncontrolled scope creep, architectural decisions driven by vendor preference, no unified reporting, and escalations arriving too late to influence outcomes.
Key Interventions
- Governance reset: Weekly integrated meetings bringing business, delivery, and suppliers around decision-oriented agendas. Clear escalation rules. Synthetic reporting replacing voluminous status documents.
- Scope discipline: Mandatory business validation for every scope item. Explicit trade-offs made visible to decision-makers.
- Architectural correction: Cancelled a zero-value front-end redevelopment and challenged supplier-driven design decisions.
Measured Outcomes
Programme stabilized within 4 months. Cost and schedule brought under executive control. Decision quality measurably improved through synthetic reporting and escalation discipline.
Second-Order Effects
Trust restoration: The board narrative shifted from “the programme failed” to “we identified and corrected a structural problem.” This preserved the organization’s willingness to invest in future initiatives.
Why This Case Is Reusable
The pattern — a technology-framed problem that is actually a governance problem — recurs across industries. Any organization where programme overruns are met with “add more resources” rather than “diagnose the decision architecture” is likely facing the same structural constraint.
If this resembles your situation, I'm available for a confidential conversation.
eric.de.morgoli@proton.me or View engagement criteria