Escalation Thresholds Should Follow Consequence, Not Just Variance
Why cost and schedule tolerances are not enough, and how to design escalation rules around consequence, reversibility, strategic value and risk.
Professional knowledge and strategic perspectives across strategy, projects, operations, engineering, transformation and business performance.
9 articles found
Why cost and schedule tolerances are not enough, and how to design escalation rules around consequence, reversibility, strategic value and risk.
Why risk systems fail when bad news cannot travel upward, and how leaders can build constructive challenge, escalation safety and evidence-led governance.
An enterprise that aggregates risk across delivery units is adding numbers produced by incompatible scales, and the portfolio figure that results is not a quantity.
How clear tolerances and decision rights can reduce executive micromanagement while escalating material project and program issues early enough to act.
Stakeholder maps record who is interested. They rarely record who holds the power to redefine the outcome — which is the only distinction that governs.
Most organisations delegate delivery authority once and never take it back. A governance method from twenty years ago bounded it, dated it, and made it lapse on breach.
Conflict handling looks like a set of personalities. It is a designed property of incentives, escalation paths and forums that have no adjudicator.
Managers rarely lie to executives. They wait. The upward channel carries a price to the sender, leadership sets that price, and almost nobody audits it.
A risk can leave the escalation report because it was treated or because the tolerance moved beneath it, and no instrument in common use tells a board which happened.