Identify and address blind spots.

Do the different stakeholders share the same understanding of objectives, value, the target state and their accountabilities?

Diverging vocabulary, reinterpreted decisions and dependence on a few key individuals.

Build a common language, make roles explicit and build shared understanding with each audience.

Have target processes genuinely been redesigned, or is the organisation attempting to reproduce the current state in the new tool?

Numerous customisations, late local exceptions and unchanged accountabilities.

Map impacts, distinguish standardisation from adaptation, then decide deviations based on value.

Are quality criteria, expected evidence and validation accountabilities explicit?

Quality reduced to testing, implicit validation and criteria that vary between teams.

Define a quality framework tailored to the programme, its risks and its ways of collaborating.

Does each governance level receive the information it actually needs to decide?

Overloaded dashboards, activity indicators with no decision value and unrecorded decisions.

Tailor reporting to each audience and connect progress, risks, quality, value and adoption.

Is adoption prepared from the scoping stage and measured beyond the number of people trained?

Late change management, top-down communication and training confused with adoption.

Involve stakeholders in choices, prepare changes in practice and define indicators of actual use.

Do decisions, lessons and proven practices become reusable beyond the programme?

Recurring difficulties, dispersed knowledge and dependence on individuals.

Organise the memory of decisions and turn lessons into enterprise capabilities.