When delivery metrics are green but business impact is invisible, you aren't transforming—you're just spending.
I was recently brought into a global energy major to review a $40M digital transformation that had been running for 18 months. On paper, the program was a resounding success. The PMO dashboards were pristine: 95% of milestones hit, budget on track, and high "velocity" across twelve agile teams.
And yet, the CEO was ready to pull the plug.
The disconnect wasn't a technical failure. It was a measurement failure. The program had been optimized for *output* (features shipped) rather than *outcomes* (operational efficiency). This is the "Metric Trap" that swallows even the most well-funded initiatives.
The Anatomy of a "Green" Failure
The Feature Factory
The teams were exceptionally good at building what they were told to build. However, nobody had asked if those features solved a core business problem. We found that 60% of the developed features were either never used or provided marginal value to field operations.
Velocity as a Vanity Metric
In high strategy, velocity is meaningless if the direction is wrong. The program measured how fast they were moving, but not how much closer they were getting to the business objectives set by the board.
The Proxy Gap
Leadership received "proxy metrics"—abstract scores on digital maturity and platform adoption—rather than hard data on reduced downtime or optimized maintenance schedules.
The Recovery: Redesigning for Impact
We spent the first 60 days of the intervention halting new development to perform a "Metric Reset." We moved the organization toward a Value-Based Delivery model through three primary shifts:
- Outcome Mapping: We forced the program leadership to map every epic in the backlog to one of three business outcomes: Cost Reduction, Safety, or Reliability.
- P&L Accountability: We assigned "Business Value Owners" from the actual operations department who had the final say on what was built.
- The "So What?" Test: Every monthly board report was restructured to start with business impact, followed by technical progress.
By refocusing the $40M investment on the 20% of the roadmap that actually moved the needle for field engineers, the program realized $12M in operational savings within the first six months of the reset. The "green" on the dashboard finally matched the reality on the ground.
A Note for Leadership
Don't be comforted by a green dashboard. If your transformation leads don't talk in terms of P&L impact, you aren't managing a transformation; you're managing a cost center.
Are you willing to ask the "So What?" question of your current program leads today?