IT Delivery Assurance
Request a Review

or Call (613) 600-2803

• Delivery Assurance

When Status Reporting Stops Telling the Truth

After nine consecutive months of Green reporting, independent validation revealed a structural divergence between reported progress and validated technical maturity — triggering a controlled re-baseline and protecting $18M in programme capital.

SQ

Shahid Qaisrani, PgMP, PMP

April 22, 2026 · IT Delivery Assurance

  • 8 min read
  • Share

There is a particular kind of risk that does not appear in RAID logs. It accumulates quietly, beneath the formal reporting layer, while steering committees continue to receive green dashboards and project managers continue to present “on track” positions that feel increasingly disconnected from what is actually happening in delivery.

This is not dishonesty. In most cases, the people producing status reports believe what they are writing — or at least believe it is close enough to the truth that the gap does not require escalation. The problem is that delivery confidence and delivery reality diverge gradually, and the reporting mechanisms that should surface that divergence are the same mechanisms being used to manage it.

67%

of major IT programmes experience significant schedule or cost overruns
¹ McKinsey Global Institute, 2023

67%

of IT project value is destroyed due to late course corrections
² Standish Group CHAOS Report, 2023

3–6 wks

is typically how far in advance warning signs are detectable before a visible failure
³ PMI Pulse of the Profession, 2024

The anatomy of narrative drift

Narrative drift begins when the effort required to keep a project moving starts to exceed what was planned. Teams compensate — they work longer hours, informally negotiate dependencies, absorb slippage in one workstream by accelerating another. The project stays “on track” in the formal sense while quietly accumulating a debt of deferred decisions, unresolved risks, and coordination strain that does not appear anywhere in the reporting pack.

Diagram: delivery reality vs reported position over time

Figure 1. The divergence between reported delivery position and actual delivery health typically begins 6–10 weeks before a visible milestone failure. Source: IT Delivery Assurance internal analysis, 2025.

"By the time a delivery failure becomes visible to leadership, the conditions that caused it have usually been present for weeks or months."

Left unaddressed, this pattern produces a specific failure mode: a project that appears governable right up until the point it is not. The milestone gets missed, the contingency gets consumed, and leadership is left trying to understand how a programme that was reporting green three weeks ago is now in recovery.

1
McKinsey Global Institute (2023). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. Retrieved from mckinsey.com . The study found that large IT projects run on average 45% over budget and 7% over time, while delivering 56% less value than predicted.

What independent assessment surfaces

The value of an independent delivery review is not that it finds things the team does not know. In most cases, the team knows exactly where the pressure points are. The value is that it provides a mechanism for that knowledge to reach decision makers in a form that is actionable — stripped of the institutional optimism and stakeholder management that inevitably shapes internally produced reporting

Diagram: five dimensions of independent assessment

Figure 2. The five dimensions assessed in an IT Delivery Health Check — schedule realism, governance effectiveness, risk control, dependencies, and delivery readiness — provide a consistent basis for judging delivery confidence.
A structured health check examines the artefacts that actually determine delivery health: the plans, the RAID logs, the governance records, the dependency chains, the milestone movement. It tests whether the reported position holds up against the evidence. And it produces a finding that leadership can defend — not a traffic light, but a clear, evidence-based view of whether the initiative remains credible as currently constituted.

The three outputs that matter

Every IT Delivery Health Check produces three concrete outputs for the commissioning executive. First, a delivery health signal — a clear indicator of whether the initiative is currently Healthy, Fragile, or Materially At Risk. Second, a delivery integrity view — a concise assessment of where the initiative remains credible and where structural risk is already accumulating. Third, an intervention roadmap — a prioritised set of actions, owners, and timelines that restore delivery confidence or enable the next leadership decision.
2

Standish Group CHAOS Report (2023).
Project success rates and failure factors in IT delivery. The report analysed over 50,000 projects and found that early independent validation reduces the likelihood of material overruns by 38%.

.

3
Project Management Institute, Pulse of the Profession (2024). The power of early engagement: reducing delivery risk through proactive assurance. Retrieved from pmi.org .
Delivery health
Governance
Risk management
Executive leadership
IT programmes
Status reporting

References

  1. McKinsey Global Institute (2023). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. mckinsey.com
  2. Standish Group (2023). CHAOS Report 2023. West Yarmouth: Standish Group International.
  3. Project Management Institute (2024). Pulse of the Profession 2024. Newtown Square: PMI. pmi.org

Related insights

Continue reading

Project Recovery

Five signs a project needs a recovery diagnostic before the next gate

April 15, 2026 5 min read
Read
GOVERNANCE

Why governance structures fail to catch delivery risk early

April 8, 2026- 7 min read
Read
PORTFOLIO ASSURANCE

The hidden cost of too many concurrent priorities

March 28, 2026-4 min read
Read