Delivery success and outcome success

In plain terms

Organizations can successfully deliver change on time, within budget, and within scope while still failing to achieve the outcomes that justified the change. Disappointing outcomes therefore cannot always be explained by execution alone.

How it works

A project may follow its plan, stay within budget, and implement all agreed requirements, yet still have pursued the wrong change or failed to produce the intended effect. Potential may be lost when establishing intent or choosing direction, or left unrealized through execution, and potential lost upstream cannot be recovered through execution alone. A change can therefore remain on schedule, within budget, and within approved scope while the reasoning behind it is weak or has become disconnected from the course of the work.

Outcomes also do not establish the level of intent integrity. Strong reasoning can still lead to a disappointing outcome, and weak reasoning can sometimes lead to a good one.

Where it sits

This divergence is the phenomenon intent integrity explains. Disappointing outcomes cannot always be understood through execution alone. Potential may be lost when establishing intent or choosing direction, or left unrealized through execution.

Related concepts

Each relationship is stated as a claim, so it can be checked against the definitions it connects.

• Intent integrity is the quality and continuity of the reasoning that connects what a change delivers to what it was meant to achieve.
• The Change Gap Model shows how potential may be lost when establishing intent or choosing direction, or left unrealized through execution, so a change can be delivered as planned while potential was lost upstream.
• Outcome validation guards against assuming success from delivery, implementation, or target attainment alone.