More haste, less speed: why shortcuts in transformation become increasingly expensive
In business transformation, there is always pressure to move faster.
Leaders want results. Sponsors want visible progress. Teams are working to demanding deadlines, and nobody wants to be responsible for slowing down a strategically important programme.
Speed matters. But there is a significant difference between moving at pace and rushing.
When a programme is under pressure, activities such as testing, assurance, stakeholder engagement, technical design, process design and governance can begin to look like obstacles. Problems are acknowledged but deferred, often with the reassurance that they can be resolved at the next stage.
Unfortunately, that next stage rarely provides more time, money or capacity. Instead, the programme has moved further forward, more decisions have been built upon the original issue, and the cost of putting it right has increased.
It is the familiar principle of “more haste, less speed”. The harder a programme tries to accelerate by leaving unresolved problems behind, the more likely those problems are to slow it down later.
The escalating cost of unresolved problems
The earlier an issue is identified and resolved, the more contained it tends to be.
If a requirement is unclear during the initial design stage, it may take a conversation and a relatively simple change to correct it. If that same issue is discovered after development, it could require redesign, rework and additional testing. If it is found during implementation, it may affect training, communications, operating procedures and multiple connected systems.
Once a programme has gone live, the potential impact becomes much greater. What began as a manageable design issue can become an operational failure affecting employees, customers, suppliers, revenue, regulatory obligations and the organisation’s reputation.
The cost does not simply rise at each stage; it escalates.
By the time a problem reaches a live environment, the organisation may have to maintain business continuity while simultaneously diagnosing the issue, designing a solution and managing the consequences. This is considerably more expensive than addressing the problem when it first became visible.
There is also the less obvious cost of accumulated complexity. Teams introduce temporary workarounds, exceptions and manual interventions to keep the programme moving. Each may appear reasonable in isolation, but together they create an increasingly fragile operating model.
Sooner or later, the organisation must repay that debt.
Doing things properly does not mean striving for perfection
The answer is not to introduce endless layers of assurance or insist that every detail must be perfect before a programme can proceed.
Over-engineering governance can be just as damaging as having too little of it. Excessive controls slow decision-making, frustrate teams and can divert attention away from the risks that genuinely matter.
The principle should be to do things properly, proportionately and with pragmatism.
That requires grown-up conversations about trade-offs. What is the consequence of proceeding with a known issue? Who could be affected? How likely is it to occur? Can the risk be reduced or contained? Is there a clear owner? What would trigger further action? And is the organisation genuinely prepared to accept the consequences?
There will always be occasions when proceeding with an imperfect solution is the right commercial decision. The important point is that it should be a conscious, evidence-based decision—not the result of optimism, deadline pressure or a reluctance to have a difficult conversation. And the assessment should be done not on each compromise individually but based on the cumulative impact and risk.
Good governance enables these conversations. It creates enough structure for leaders to understand the position, challenge assumptions and make informed decisions without unnecessarily obstructing delivery.
Speed comes from early discipline
Some of the fastest and most successful programmes appear slower at the beginning.
They invest time in understanding the objective, agreeing outcomes, clarifying responsibilities and involving the right people. They test assumptions before those assumptions become embedded in technology, contracts, processes or organisational structures.
This early discipline can feel uncomfortable when stakeholders are demanding visible action and tangible progress. Yet it creates the conditions for genuine speed later.
Teams make decisions more quickly because responsibilities are clear. Problems are resolved before they spread. Testing is focused on real business needs. Stakeholders understand what is changing and why. Implementation becomes more predictable because fewer surprises have been carried into the final stages.
Taking time at the beginning is not a delay. It is an investment in reducing uncertainty, rework and disruption throughout the remainder of the programme.
Technology cannot compensate for poor programme management
This principle is becoming even more important as organisations adopt AI and other automation technologies.
AI can analyse information, accelerate routine activities and support decision-making. Used well, it can help programme teams work more efficiently and identify patterns that might otherwise be missed.
However, technology cannot take responsibility for a programme.
AI does not remove the need to understand context, exercise judgement or challenge an apparently convincing answer. It cannot resolve unclear accountability, weak leadership or a culture in which people are reluctant to raise concerns.
Nor should an organisation assume that an AI-generated output is correct simply because it was produced quickly and presented confidently.
As organisations learn how to operate with AI, human oversight remains essential. People must understand how a tool is being used, what information it relies upon, where its limitations lie and who is accountable for the resulting decision.
This means establishing proportionate governance around AI-assisted work. Outputs should be reviewed according to their level of risk. Important decisions should remain explainable. Teams need sufficient knowledge to question results rather than accepting them automatically.
Most importantly, organisations must continue developing human capability. If people become dependent on technology without understanding the work beneath it, the business may gain short-term efficiency while weakening its long-term resilience and capability to change.
Creating a culture in which problems can be raised
Ultimately, successful transformation depends on how people manage the work.
Processes, platforms and methodologies are useful, but they cannot replace open communication, professional judgement and personal accountability. Programme leaders must create an environment in which people can raise concerns early without being seen as obstructive.
A team that hides problems to protect a deadline is not moving quickly. It is transferring cost and risk to somebody further down the line.
Leaders should therefore ask not only whether a programme is on schedule, but whether the reported progress is real and sustainable. Are difficult issues being confronted? Are decisions based on evidence? Are risks being actively managed, or merely recorded? Do people feel able to challenge unrealistic expectations?
Honest reporting may make progress appear slower in the short term, but it gives leaders the opportunity to act while the problem is still manageable.
Moving at the right pace
The objective of transformation is not to complete activity as quickly as possible. It is to deliver a sustainable outcome that works for the organisation and the people who depend on it when implemented and into the long term.
That requires balance: enough pace to maintain momentum, enough governance to retain control, and enough flexibility to respond when circumstances change.
There is no universal formula for achieving that balance. It requires experienced judgement and open conversations about the risks the organisation is prepared to accept, not just the opinion of individuals.
The central principle, however, is straightforward: fix problems while they are still small.
Doing so may occasionally feel like slowing down. In reality, it is one of the most effective ways to protect the programme’s pace, budget and ultimate success.
Because when unresolved problems are allowed to continue through a programme, the organisation does not avoid the cost of fixing them. It simply chooses to pay much more later.
