The Invisible Cost of Ambiguity in Complex Programmes, According to Nick Curum

In a recent LinkedIn post, Nick Curum delves into a critical, often overlooked issue plaguing complex programmes: the friction that arises from diffused ownership between workstreams. Curum argues that this ambiguity, rather than flawed strategy, is frequently the root cause of significant project delays and escalating costs.

Curum highlights that these delivery gaps often exist in the spaces between teams, compounding quietly and leading to substantial problems. He illustrates this with several examples:

“Permits stuck between legal and operations
Funding assumptions between finance and strategy
Decision rights sitting between committees
Contractors optimising their scope, not the whole
Design changes ‘no one’ approved but everyone must absorb”

According to Curum, while each individual issue might be manageable, their collective impact can be devastating. The cost extends beyond mere delays, encompassing financial drains and reputational damage.

The Compounding Cost of Ambiguity

Curum emphasizes that the invisible cost of diffused ownership is substantial, with capital working against the programme’s success. He posits that traditional programme reviews often miss this crucial element.

As Curum notes:

“The invisible cost of diffused ownership?
Capital compounding against you.”

This leads him to suggest that the most pertinent question during a programme review is not simply about being on track, but about identifying areas where accountability is unclear.

Reframing Programme Accountability

Curum proposes a fundamental shift in how programmes are assessed. Instead of solely focusing on progress against a timeline, he urges leaders to probe deeper into the structural ambiguities that hinder effective delivery.

The crucial question, as highlighted by Curum, is:

“Where does accountability blur — and who owns it?”

He further illustrates this by mentioning a visual he created, mapping these bottlenecks across four layers: pre-construction, commercial, organisational, and operational. Curum observes that these layers feed into each other, amplifying the drag on the programme. He laments that many boards only recognize the problem when the compounding effects are already deeply entrenched.

Identifying and Owning Bottlenecks

Curum concludes by challenging readers to identify such bottlenecks within their own programmes. He stresses the importance of specificity in pinpointing where ownership is blurred and why it matters.

In his view:

“Each issue is survivable.
Together, they compound.”

By bringing attention to these ‘invisible’ friction points, Nick Curum provides a valuable framework for project managers, team leads, and executives to proactively address the root causes of programme stagnation and ensure clearer accountability for successful delivery.