The Five Elements of a Strong Governance Structure for Critical Projects

Every executive has nightmares about that project—the one that spirals into an unmitigated disaster. 

In general there are four ways a project can end up in a boardroom-shaking failure that can destroy value, reputations, and trust in one fell swoop.

1. The Titanic Failure: The project chugs along, oblivious to the iceberg ahead, burning millions of dollars only to crash when it’s too late to salvage anything. You’re left with empty pockets and a bitter sense of “we should have seen it coming.”

2. The Frankenstein Success: It’s alive! The project technically succeeds—maybe even on time and on budget—but delivers something the business doesn’t need. It’s a shiny solution to a problem no one has, and your ROI? A big fat zero.

3. The Quality Nightmare: The project ships, but it’s riddled with defects. Faulty execution leads to recalls, refunds, or worse—customer outrage. The financial losses are staggering, reputational damage is irreversible, and legal teams scramble to limit the fallout. Suddenly, "done" doesn't feel done at all.

4. The Regulatory Bomb: The project gets delivered, but it drags your company into the murky waters of regulatory, legal, or compliance hell. Suddenly, that “innovative” initiative has the lawyers working overtime, leaving you questioning every decision made along the way.

These aren’t just hypotheticals—they’re common ways critical projects unravel, taking reputations and shareholder value down with them. Just have a look at my 20+ project failure case studies and you will find plenty of examples for each scenario.

Every single one of these scenarios can be prevented with a good governance structure. 

A clear structure ensures accountability, strategic alignment, and problem-solving at every level. 

Based on my two decades of experience with large and critical projects I strongly believe that the best governance framework comprises five key elements, each with distinct roles and responsibilities.

I have visualized these elements and their relationships in the diagram below. The remainder of the text will explain the elements and structure in more detail. For each element I have written an additional article explaining why this element is necessary for your critical project that is linked in the text. 

1. Executive Sponsor

The Executive Sponsor is the project's ultimate champion. As the highest-ranking stakeholder, this individual:

> Sets the strategic direction by ensuring the project aligns with the organization’s goals.

> Secures funding and resources, breaking through political and budgetary barriers.

> Makes key decisions when roadblocks arise.

> Acts as the face of the project to senior executives and external stakeholders.

Without a strong and engaged sponsor, projects can flounder in bureaucracy or lack the clout to resolve disputes.

Read "Why Every Critical Project Needs an Executive Sponsor" for more details.

2. Steering Committee

Think of the Steering Committee as the project’s advisory board. Composed of key stakeholders and subject matter experts, their primary responsibilities include:

> Ensuring alignment with organizational priorities.

> Approving major milestones and deliverables.

> Providing strategic input and resolving cross-functional conflicts.

> Monitoring risk and performance metrics.

The Steering Committee operates as the decision-making body, ensuring the project remains on course without micromanaging.

Read "Why Every Critical Project Needs a Steering Committee" for more details.

3. Project Manager

The Project Manager is the glue holding the day-to-day operations together. This individual:

> Plans and executes the project within scope, budget, and timeline.

> Manages the project team and ensures clear communication among stakeholders.

> Tracks progress against milestones and mitigates risks.

> Reports to both the Executive Sponsor and the Steering Committee.

A skilled Project Manager is the difference between a plan on paper and a tangible, successful outcome.

Read "Why Every Critical Project Needs a Dedicated Project Manager" for more details.

4. Board Supervision

The Board (or an equivalent supervisory body) provides the top-down oversight needed for critical projects. Their responsibilities include:

> Ensuring governance structures are functioning effectively.

> Monitoring compliance with organizational policies and regulations.

> Providing escalation paths for major risks or crises.

> Reviewing project performance and financials.

Their involvement ensures that even the highest levels of the organization remain informed and engaged.

Read "Why Every Critical Project Needs Board Supervision" for more details.

5. Independent Reviews

Unbiased assessments are crucial for complex projects. Independent reviewers are typically external experts or auditors tasked with:

> Assessing the project at key milestones for risks and alignment.

> Identifying issues that internal teams may overlook.

> Providing recommendations to strengthen delivery.

These reviews act as a reality check, ensuring the project remains viable and aligned with objectives.

Read "Why Every Critical Project Needs Independent Reviews" for more details.

In a Nutshell

A critical project’s success hinges on robust governance. By leveraging the complementary strengths of an Executive Sponsor, Steering Committee, Project Manager, Board Supervision, and Independent Reviews, organizations can drive projects with confidence. Remember, governance isn’t about bureaucracy—it’s about empowering the project to succeed while ensuring accountability at every level.

Next Steps

> If you need help with your critical project just schedule a 30 minute discovery call to explore how I can assist you by clicking here. 

> My services include Technology Due Diligence, Business Case Reviews, Project Reviews, and Board Advisory.

Read more…

Why Every Critical Project Needs Board Supervision

Projects are like icebergs—what you see above the surface is just the tip. Below lies the complexity, risk, and opportunity that can sink your ship if ignored.

Too often, boards treat projects like black boxes, leaving management to deliver results without sufficient oversight. This hands-off approach might work for routine initiatives, but when it comes to critical projects—those with significant financial, strategic, or reputational implications—board supervision is not optional; it’s essential.

Here’s why your board must lean in and stay engaged with your most important projects.

1. The Stakes Are Sky-High

Critical projects often involve transformative change, whether it’s a large-scale technology overhaul, an M&A integration, or entering a new market. These aren’t just operational gambles—they are strategic bets that can define the company’s future.

Boards are responsible for the organization’s long-term success, which means they cannot afford to stay on the sidelines when big decisions are being made. Their oversight ensures that projects align with the company’s strategy, risk appetite, and ethical standards.

2. Risk: The Silent Killer

Every project comes with risks—delays, budget overruns, scope creep, or even outright failure. The larger and more critical the project, the more significant the fallout.

A board’s role is to ask tough questions:

> Are the risks properly identified and mitigated?

> What’s the worst-case scenario, and how prepared are we?

> Is there transparency in how risks are reported?

Without board-level scrutiny, blind spots can fester, turning manageable risks into full-blown crises.

3. Governance: A Core Responsibility

Good governance doesn’t stop at approving budgets or signing off on proposals. It extends to ensuring that the right structures, processes, and people are in place for successful project delivery.

Board members bring a wealth of experience from diverse industries. Their oversight helps to avoid groupthink and keeps management honest, especially when projects hit roadblocks. By stepping in as needed—without micromanaging—the board strengthens accountability across the organization.

4. Avoiding the “Sunk Cost Fallacy”

How often do companies double down on failing projects simply because they’ve invested too much to quit? It’s a psychological trap that even the most experienced executives can fall into.

Boards provide an external perspective that’s less emotionally tied to the project. They can objectively assess whether to pivot, persevere, or pull the plug. This prevents wasteful spending and reputational damage from dragging out doomed efforts.

5. Spotlight on Performance Metrics

What gets measured gets managed. Boards can ensure that meaningful KPIs are in place, not just for financial performance but also for project health. Are milestones being met? Is value being delivered as promised?

Regular updates to the board—ideally, as part of a structured governance framework—create a culture of accountability and help spot issues before they spiral out of control.

6. Culture and Change: The Human Factor

Critical projects often require significant shifts in company culture or operations. These transformations are not purely technical—they involve people.

Boards must ensure that change management strategies are robust and adequately resourced. Are employees engaged? Are communication efforts effective? Is leadership aligned?

Neglecting the human element is a surefire way to derail even the best-laid plans.

In a Nutshell

Critical projects are too important to leave solely in the hands of management. Board supervision ensures that strategic alignment, risk mitigation, governance, and accountability are upheld throughout the project lifecycle.

The board’s role is not to meddle but to elevate. By providing oversight, asking tough questions, and demanding transparency, boards help turn ambitious initiatives into sustainable successes.

Next Steps

> For a guide on what questions a board should ask read "10 Essential Questions Every Board Should Ask About Technology".

> If you need help with your critical project just schedule a 30 minute discovery call to explore how I can assist you by clicking here. 

> My services include Technology Due Diligence, Business Case Reviews, Project Reviews, and Board Advisory.

Read more…

Why Every Critical Project Needs Independent Reviews

"Trust, but verify." That timeless adage applies as much to critical projects as it does to diplomacy. Without an independent review, even the best-run projects can veer off course, leaving organizations blindsided by delays, cost overruns, or outright failures.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: internal stakeholders are often too close to the project to see the cracks—or too invested to admit they exist. An independent review provides the unbiased perspective every critical project needs to succeed.

But timing matters. Independent reviews are most effective when conducted at key stages throughout the project lifecycle. Here’s when they should happen—and why.

1. At the Start: Feasibility and Planning

The foundation of every successful project is built during the planning phase. An independent review at this stage ensures that the project is set up for success before resources are committed.

> Is the business case sound?

> Are objectives clear, realistic, and measurable?

> Are risks properly identified, and is mitigation built into the plan?

Catching flaws at this early stage saves time, money, and headaches down the line.

2. Before Major Milestones: Progress and Risk Checkpoints

As the project moves forward, independent reviews should be conducted before major milestones or decision points. These reviews evaluate whether the project is on track and whether adjustments are needed.

> Are timelines and budgets being met?

> Are deliverables aligning with stakeholder expectations?

> Are emerging risks being addressed effectively?

For example, in a large technology project, a review might occur before moving from design to development or from testing to deployment. These checkpoints provide an opportunity to pause, reflect, and course-correct.

3. During Critical Phases: High-Risk Periods

Certain phases of a project—such as implementation or change management—are inherently more complex and risk-prone. Conducting independent reviews during these high-stakes periods provides an extra layer of oversight.

> Are resources sufficient to meet demands?

> Are teams prepared to handle unexpected issues?

> Is communication effective across all stakeholders?

These reviews help ensure that pressure-filled moments don’t lead to costly mistakes.

4. At the End: Closure and Benefits Realization

When the project wraps up, an independent review assesses whether it achieved its intended goals and delivered the expected value.

> Did the project meet its objectives?

> Were benefits realized, and how are they being measured?

> What lessons can be applied to future initiatives?

This final review not only validates the project’s success but also captures insights to improve future efforts.

5. For Troubled Projects: Midstream Interventions

Not all projects go smoothly. If a project starts showing signs of distress—missed deadlines, escalating costs, or stakeholder dissatisfaction—an independent review can provide a much-needed reset.

> What’s causing the issues, and can they be resolved?

> Should the project pivot, or is it time to pull the plug?

> How can the remaining phases be salvaged or restructured?

These midstream interventions often save projects from complete failure, turning setbacks into opportunities for recovery.

In a Nutshell

Critical projects don’t just need managers, teams, and sponsors—they need a truth-teller at critical junctures. An independent review provides the objectivity, accountability, and expertise that internal reviews often lack, ensuring the project stays on track and delivers real value.

It’s not about distrust—it’s about diligence. Conduct reviews at the start, at major milestones, during critical phases, at closure, and whenever red flags appear. Without an independent review, projects risk becoming echo chambers, where minor issues snowball into catastrophic failures.

“An independent review isn’t about questioning your competence—it’s about safeguarding your success.”

Don’t gamble with your most important initiatives. Plan independent reviews at the right times, and turn risks into opportunities for excellence.

Next Steps

> For a detailed guide on independent project reviews read "The Project Review Model ™".

> If you need help with your critical project just schedule a 30 minute discovery call to explore how I can assist you by clicking here. 

> My services include Technology Due Diligence, Business Case Reviews, Project Reviews, and Board Advisory.

Read more…

Why Every Critical Project Needs an Executive Sponsor

Launching a critical project without an executive sponsor is like sending a ship to sea without a captain—good luck steering through the storm.

Projects don’t fail because of bad intentions. They fail because of a lack of alignment, authority, and support. 

That’s where the executive sponsor steps in—not just as a figurehead but as the driving force that ensures the project delivers value.

According to the Project Management Institute (PMI)'s 2018 Pulse of the Profession In-Depth Report, "1 in 4 organisations (26%) report that the primary cause of failed projects is inadequate sponsor support". 

By contrast, "organisations with a higher percentage of projects that include actively engaged executive sponsors, report 40% more successful projects than those with a lower percentage of projects with actively engaged sponsors".

And according to the 2015 Annual Review of Projects of the UKs National Audit Office “the effectiveness of the project sponsor is the best single predictor of project success or failure”. 

If your organization treats executive sponsorship as optional, it’s time to rethink that approach. 

Here’s why every critical project needs one.

1. Setting the Tone from the Top

Projects live and die on the strength of organizational commitment. An executive sponsor ensures the project gets the visibility and priority it needs across all levels.

> They communicate the strategic importance of the project to stakeholders.

> They create a sense of urgency and purpose.

> They set the cultural tone, emphasizing accountability and excellence.

Without this top-down push, projects often languish as “just another initiative.”

2. Clearing the Path

Projects hit roadblocks—it’s inevitable. Executive sponsors have the clout to remove them.

> Is another department dragging its feet? The sponsor can escalate and resolve conflicts.

> Are resources tight? They can unlock funding or allocate top talent.

> Are priorities misaligned? The sponsor aligns leadership to keep everyone rowing in the same direction.

When bureaucracy threatens progress, the executive sponsor cuts through the noise.

3. The Shield Against Scope Creep

Scope creep is the silent killer of critical projects. It turns well-defined goals into moving targets, leading to missed deadlines and bloated budgets.

An effective executive sponsor protects the project from:

> Endless “nice-to-haves” that dilute focus.

> Stakeholders with competing agendas.

> Management pressure to overcommit.

They ensure the project stays laser-focused on its objectives and delivers maximum value.

4. Connecting Strategy to Execution

A critical project isn’t just about hitting milestones; it’s about achieving strategic goals. Executive sponsors bridge the gap between the boardroom and the project team.

> They articulate how the project aligns with organizational objectives.

> They ensure KPIs reflect not just operational success but strategic impact.

> They maintain a long-term view, balancing short-term wins with sustained value creation.

Without this alignment, projects risk delivering outputs that don’t translate into outcomes.

5. Championing Change

Every critical project involves change—new systems, processes, or ways of working. Executive sponsors are the face of that change.

> They build trust and credibility among stakeholders.

> They manage resistance by engaging key influencers early.

> They ensure that the change is communicated effectively and consistently.

In short, they turn skeptics into supporters and ensure the organization is ready to embrace the project’s outcomes.

6. Accountability: The Buck Stops Here

A project without an executive sponsor often lacks a true sense of ownership. The sponsor serves as the ultimate accountability figure—answering to the board, the C-suite, and stakeholders.

Their presence signals that the project matters and that someone with authority is watching closely. This drives focus, discipline, and urgency across the team.

In a Nutshell

A critical project without an executive sponsor is a ship without a captain, rudderless and vulnerable to the waves of organizational politics, resource constraints, and shifting priorities.

An executive sponsor doesn’t just oversee a project—they champion it, protect it, and ensure it delivers value.

If your project truly matters, don’t let it drift. Secure an executive sponsor who will navigate it to success.

Next Steps

> For a detailed guide on how to play the role of an executive sponsor effectively read "The Vital Role of an Executive Project Sponsor and How to Play It".

> If you need help with your critical project just schedule a 30 minute discovery call to explore how I can assist you by clicking here. 

> My services include Technology Due Diligence, Business Case Reviews, Project Reviews, and Board Advisory.

Read more…

Why Every Critical Project Needs a Dedicated Project Manager

Far too often, organizations assign critical projects to people who already have full-time roles or, worse, delegate management to a loosely organized team with no single point of accountability. The results? Missed deadlines, blown budgets, and a whole lot of finger-pointing.

Here’s the hard truth: if the project is important, it deserves a dedicated project manager. Period.

1. One Throat to Choke

In any critical initiative, clear accountability is non-negotiable. A dedicated project manager becomes the single point of responsibility.

> Who ensures deadlines are met?

> Who monitors budget burn and course-corrects as needed?

> Who communicates risks and progress to stakeholders?

Without someone owning the project, these tasks fall through the cracks, leaving chaos in their wake. A dedicated PM ensures that doesn’t happen—they are the glue holding everything together.

2. Master of Orchestration

Critical projects are complex beasts involving multiple teams, technologies, and timelines. Expecting subject matter experts or executives to handle this is a recipe for disaster.

A project manager is the conductor of this orchestra, ensuring that every player is in sync and hitting the right notes. They:

> Coordinate cross-functional teams.

> Identify dependencies and resolve bottlenecks.

> Keep everyone aligned on goals, deliverables, and deadlines.

Without a conductor, the music stops.

3. Risk Radar

Every project has risks, but critical projects often face landmines—unforeseen delays, resource shortages, or stakeholder disagreements. A skilled project manager is like a radar operator, constantly scanning for risks and taking preemptive action.

They:

> Create and maintain a risk register.

> Implement mitigation strategies.

> Keep leadership informed so there are no surprises.

Ignoring risks doesn’t make them go away. A dedicated PM ensures risks are managed, not swept under the rug.

4. Keeping the Big Picture in Focus

It’s easy for teams to get lost in the weeds—focusing on minor details while losing sight of strategic goals. A project manager ensures that doesn’t happen.

They keep the project aligned with its intended purpose by:

> Regularly reviewing objectives and deliverables.

> Communicating progress to stakeholders.

> Pushing back on scope creep that threatens to derail timelines and budgets.

Without this guiding hand, projects can meander off course and fail to deliver value.

5. The Art of Stakeholder Management

Critical projects come with high stakes and even higher expectations. A project manager is the diplomat who manages stakeholders—balancing priorities, resolving conflicts, and ensuring that everyone stays informed.

Their ability to manage up (executives) and down (project teams) keeps the project running smoothly. Without this role, miscommunications multiply, frustrations grow, and confidence erodes.

6. Driving Results, Not Excuses

When someone’s primary responsibility is project delivery, there’s no room for excuses. A dedicated project manager has skin in the game—they live and breathe the project.

They:

> Track progress relentlessly.

> Celebrate wins and address failures constructively.

> Push teams to deliver on time and within scope.

This relentless focus on results sets a dedicated PM apart from someone juggling project management alongside other responsibilities.

In a Nutshell

Critical projects are too important to leave to chance. A dedicated project manager provides the focus, accountability, and expertise needed to turn ambitious goals into tangible outcomes.

They’re not just a “nice-to-have” but a strategic imperative. Without one, your project risks becoming another statistic in the annals of failure.

Or as the saying goes: “If everyone is responsible, no one is accountable.”

Don’t gamble with your most important projects. Put a professional at the helm—a dedicated project manager will ensure you cross the finish line with confidence.

Next Steps

> For a detailed guide on how to select the right project manager for your critical project read "How To Select a Good Project Manager for Your Large and Complex Transformation Project".

> If you need help with your critical project just schedule a 30 minute discovery call to explore how I can assist you by clicking here. 

> My services include Technology Due Diligence, Business Case Reviews, Project Reviews, and Board Advisory.

Read more…

Case Study 21: The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) $250 Million CHESS Blunder

The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) embarked on an ambitious journey to replace its 25-year-old Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS) with a state-of-the-art, blockchain-based platform. 

Initially envisioned as a groundbreaking project to enhance efficiency, security, and scalability, the CHESS replacement project quickly turned into a cautionary tale. 

The initiative faced repeated delays and escalating costs before its ultimate suspension in November 2022. Stakeholders, including market participants and regulators, expressed frustration with the project's mismanagement, questioning the feasibility of such ambitious undertakings.

Despite being heralded as a world-first use of distributed ledger technology (DLT) in a financial market, the ASX's CHESS replacement project encountered numerous challenges. The ripple effects of the failure impacted Australia's financial ecosystem, as trust in ASX's ability to manage critical infrastructure took a significant hit. This case study examines the series of missteps, governance issues, and technological challenges that led to the demise of one of the most ambitious financial infrastructure projects of its time.

In total, the project's failure has been projected to cost the ASX and its stakeholders upwards of AUD 250 million in direct expenses, with additional indirect costs stemming from lost time, diminished trust, and delayed market enhancements. ASIC Chair Joe Longo described the situation as "a watershed moment for governance in financial infrastructure." The failure also dealt a blow to the broader narrative around blockchain's transformative potential in finance. This detailed case study highlights the lessons other organizations can learn from the ASX’s missteps.

Background

The Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS) has served as the backbone of Australia's financial market infrastructure since 1994. Operating as the primary platform for clearing, settlement, and record-keeping of share transactions, CHESS has been critical to ensuring the efficiency and integrity of the market. However, as financial markets grew more complex, the aging CHESS system began to show limitations, including scalability issues and difficulty integrating with modern technologies.

In 2015, ASX initiated a strategic review of its market infrastructure. The review highlighted the need for a modern system that could support increased trading volumes, enhanced data capabilities, and real-time reporting. Blockchain technology emerged as an appealing solution, promising transparency, immutability, and efficiency. ASX partnered with Digital Asset, a New York-based fintech firm specializing in distributed ledger technology, to design and implement the new system. ASX CEO Dominic Stevens stated at the time: "Blockchain technology offers unprecedented opportunities to transform the way markets operate."

Stakeholders initially greeted the project with optimism. ASX promised significant benefits, including reduced reconciliation processes, enhanced market efficiency, and lower operational costs. The project was envisioned to be completed by 2020, with a transparent and collaborative approach involving market participants and regulators. However, these early promises soon gave way to skepticism as challenges mounted.

The scope of the project extended far beyond simply replicating the functionalities of CHESS. It sought to reimagine the entire post-trade process, embedding blockchain technology into critical financial infrastructure. This level of ambition introduced complexity, requiring extensive customizations, thorough testing, and close coordination among stakeholders. The ambitious scope, combined with technological and governance challenges, sowed the seeds of its eventual failure.

Don’t let your project fail like this one!

Discover here how I can help you turn it into a success.

For a list of all my project failure case studies just click here.

Timeline of Events

2015: Strategic Review and Vision

ASX began a review of its aging CHESS infrastructure to identify a replacement. Blockchain technology was identified as a promising solution, leading to the selection of Digital Asset as the primary technology partner.

2017: Project Announcement

ASX formally announced the CHESS replacement project, promising implementation by 2020 and widespread benefits for market participants. Initial enthusiasm was tempered by questions about blockchain's suitability for such a critical system. Market analyst Sarah Klein noted, "The industry was excited but cautious about the risks of untested technology."

2018: Early Development and Testing

Development efforts commenced, with ASX emphasizing collaboration with industry participants. Early testing revealed scalability issues, prompting adjustments to project timelines.

2020: First Delays Announced

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted timelines, with ASX announcing a revised implementation date of 2022. Stakeholders raised concerns about insufficient transparency in the project's progress.

2021: Mounting Challenges

Reports surfaced that Digital Asset’s blockchain platform struggled to meet performance benchmarks. Additional delays were announced, pushing the go-live date to 2023. ASX cited the complexity of integrating blockchain technology into existing workflows. "The timelines were ambitious from the outset," said finance professor Alan Morrison.

2022: Project Suspension

An independent review commissioned by ASX highlighted significant gaps in project management and governance. ASX officially suspended the project after further testing revealed that the platform was not fit for purpose. The total sunk cost reached AUD 250 million. Former ASX Chair Helen Lofthouse acknowledged, "This outcome is deeply disappointing and a stark reminder of the need for governance at every level."

What Went Wrong?

Underestimation of Complexity

ASX underestimated the technical and operational complexities of integrating blockchain technology into critical market infrastructure. Blockchain, while promising, required significant adaptations to meet the high-performance standards of financial markets. 

Early limited feasibility studies failed to fully capture these challenges, leading to overconfidence in project timelines and deliverables. As technology consultant Mark Connors noted, "Blockchain was treated as a silver bullet without fully understanding the nuances of its integration."

This lack of understanding was evident in scalability tests that revealed major bottlenecks. Developers struggled to balance the decentralized nature of blockchain with the speed and efficiency demands of financial transactions. These challenges were compounded by the need to integrate the new system with legacy infrastructure.

Stakeholder Misalignment

The project suffered from inadequate communication and alignment with key stakeholders. Market participants expressed frustration over a lack of transparency and insufficient opportunities to provide input. "The ASX’s approach alienated many of us," said James Porter, a broker with over 20 years of experience. "We felt sidelined during critical phases of the project."

As a result, critical operational needs were overlooked, further complicating the implementation process. This misalignment created friction between ASX and its stakeholders, eroding trust and delaying progress.

Over-Reliance on Emerging Technology

Blockchain technology, though innovative, was still in its infancy when ASX committed to the project. Relying on an unproven technology for such a critical system introduced significant risks, including performance bottlenecks and integration challenges. "The decision to go all-in on blockchain was premature," said independent analyst Fiona Wong. "The technology wasn’t ready for the scale required."

Insufficient Risk Management

ASX failed to implement robust risk management practices, particularly in identifying and mitigating risks associated with scalability and performance. Testing protocols revealed issues late in the development cycle, compounding delays and costs. "By the time problems were identified, it was often too late to course-correct," observed consultant Ethan Harris.

Governance and Oversight Failures

Weak governance structures allowed issues to persist unaddressed. The independent review commissioned in 2022 highlighted a lack of clear accountability and ineffective oversight mechanisms. Decision-making processes were often slow and reactive, exacerbating project delays. ASIC Chair Joe Longo remarked, "Governance failures were at the heart of this project’s downfall."

Limited Independent Assurance 

EY, contracted to provide assurance over the CHESS replacement project, failed to identify and escalate critical risks early in the development cycle. Their reviews often focused on procedural compliance rather than probing the feasibility and scalability of the proposed solution. 

"Assurance without substantive scrutiny is a missed safeguard," said corporate governance expert Dr. Olivia Marks. The absence of deeper interrogation into the project's technical risks meant that systemic issues, such as blockchain's scalability challenges, were not flagged until significant resources had already been spent.

Reliance on a Single Supplier

ASX’s decision to rely exclusively on Digital Asset as the sole technology provider created significant dependencies and risks. With no alternative suppliers in place, ASX was unable to pivot when Digital Asset’s blockchain solution encountered performance and scalability issues. 

"Diversity in supplier relationships is critical for mitigating risks," said IT procurement specialist Andrew Carter. The lack of competitive bidding also limited opportunities for ASX to benchmark costs or explore other technical solutions that might have been more suited to the scale and complexity of the CHESS replacement.

How ASX Could Have Done Things Differently

Conducting Comprehensive Feasibility Studies with Pilot Testing

ASX could have invested more time in understanding the practical implications of implementing blockchain technology at scale. Comprehensive feasibility studies combined with phased pilot testing would have provided crucial insights into technical and operational hurdles. 

Diversifying Supplier Relationships

Relying on a single supplier limited ASX’s ability to pivot when issues with Digital Asset arose. Engaging multiple suppliers would have introduced healthy competition, fostered innovation, and mitigated the risks of over-dependence. 

IT procurement specialist Andrew Carter noted, "Supplier diversity is key to building resilient systems. It ensures flexibility and access to alternative solutions when challenges emerge." A multi-vendor approach could have provided ASX with backup options during critical phases.

Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement

Throughout the CHESS replacement project, communication gaps between ASX and its stakeholders contributed to misaligned expectations and operational oversights. Greater stakeholder involvement, particularly from brokers and institutional investors, would have ensured that the system's design aligned with real-world needs. Regular workshops, feedback loops, and transparency around project milestones would have also helped build trust and resolve conflicts early.

James Porter, a veteran broker, emphasized, "Early and consistent engagement would have made a world of difference. We felt sidelined, which only added to frustrations as issues emerged." Greater collaboration would have ensured that critical user requirements were accounted for, reducing resistance and easing eventual adoption.

Establishing Independent Project Assessments

ASX could have benefited from appointing an independent body with the expertise and authority to oversee the project. This body should have had the remit to assess technical decisions, validate risk mitigation strategies, and ensure accountability across all project phases. Independent oversight helps flag early warning signs, provide actionable recommendations, and maintain transparency with regulators and stakeholders.

Dr. Olivia Marks, a corporate governance expert, noted, "Independent assessments bring objectivity and rigor to complex projects. They can challenge assumptions and prevent tunnel vision among project leaders." A well-structured independent review process would have provided additional scrutiny, particularly during critical milestones like vendor selection and scalability testing.

Strengthening Governance and Oversight

Effective governance structures are critical for large-scale projects like the CHESS replacement. ASX's governance approach, described as reactive and fragmented, left key risks unaddressed for too long. Strengthening governance frameworks with clear accountability, decision-making protocols, and escalation mechanisms could have prevented many of the delays and inefficiencies observed.

ASIC Chair Joe Longo remarked, "Proactive oversight and clear accountability are essential in projects of this magnitude. Weak governance structures create an environment where small issues can snowball into systemic failures." Implementing a robust governance framework would have fostered better coordination among teams, enabling timely responses to challenges.

Closing Thoughts

The failure of ASX’s CHESS replacement project serves as a sobering reminder of the complexities and risks involved in large-scale technological transformations. While blockchain technology holds significant potential, its integration into critical infrastructure demands rigorous planning, stakeholder alignment, and adaptive management.

This case illustrates the importance of balancing ambition with practical execution. Organizations must ensure that emerging technologies are validated through thorough testing and phased implementation before full-scale deployment. Equally crucial is the need for robust governance structures, transparent communication, and independent oversight to mitigate risks and ensure accountability.

The lessons from ASX’s experience resonate across industries undergoing digital transformation. By embracing a disciplined and collaborative approach, organizations can unlock the transformative potential of technology while safeguarding against avoidable failures.

Don’t let your project fail like this one!

Discover here how I can help you turn it into a success.

For a list of all my project failure case studies just click here.

Sources

> "ASX Abandons CHESS Replacement Project," Financial Times, 2022.

> "Independent Review of the ASX CHESS Replacement Project," Accenture, 2022. 

> "EY CHESS Assurance Program Review," 2022-2024.

> "Special Report on CHESS Replacement," 2023.

> "Statutory Inquiry into ASIC and CHESS," 2024.

> "Challenges in Blockchain Adoption for Financial Systems," CIO Magazine, 2022. [https://www.cio.com]

> "Lessons from ERP and Blockchain Failures," TechRepublic, 2023.

Read more…

When $100 Million Technology Projects Fail, It’s the Board’s Fault—Every Single Time

In Switzerland, rumors suggest that both Bank Julius Bär and Raiffeisen Schweiz are grappling with failed technology projects, each costing over $100 million so far. Bank Julius Bär is reportedly trying to replace its existing core banking system for the Swiss booking center with Temenos, while Raiffeisen Schweiz is attempting to build a modern e-banking app.  

Both organizations have allegedly hired third parties to review what went wrong and determine who’s to blame. While learning from failure and engaging external reviewers is sensible, the question of blame should already be crystal clear.  

When a multi-million-dollar technology project collapses under its own weight—costing shareholders, employees, and stakeholders dearly—there’s no escaping the brutal truth: the fault lies squarely with the board.  

You can explore my 20+ technology project failure case studies. Without exception, the boards involved failed to fulfill their responsibilities.  

The Board’s Job Is Oversight, Not Rubber-Stamping

Boards exist to govern. They approve strategy, allocate resources, and oversee risks. They are not passive observers—they are active stewards of an organization’s success. Yet in failed projects, it’s evident that many boards sleepwalk through their responsibilities. They fail to ask tough questions early, challenge overly optimistic assumptions, or ensure mechanisms are in place to detect and address problems before it’s too late.  

A board’s oversight role is not ceremonial. If a project spirals into disaster, the board either ignored the warning signs, delegated oversight to those ill-equipped for the job, or worse, never bothered to establish adequate checks in the first place.  

If a board lacks the expertise to fulfill its duties, it must seek external help. This could mean forming an advisory board with independent specialists or adding a temporary board member with the requisite expertise and experience. 

Failing Is Acceptable; Failing Late Is Not 

Failure is a natural part of innovation and growth. No board can eliminate risk entirely—nor should they try. But there’s a monumental difference between failing fast and failing late.  

Early failure allows a company to pivot, salvage resources, and preserve credibility. Late failure, on the other hand, is catastrophic. It burns cash, destroys morale, and erodes stakeholder trust.  

Boards must demand stage-gated project governance that clearly delineates when to proceed, pivot, or pull the plug. If a multi-million-dollar project reaches the point of no return before its inevitable demise, the board has failed in its primary responsibility—to safeguard the organization from reckless escalation.  

Why Boards Get It Wrong

So why do boards allow projects to go off the rails? Common reasons include:  

> Blind Faith in Leadership: Boards often rely too heavily on the CEO or project sponsor’s assurances. Trust is important, but blind faith is a recipe for disaster. A board’s role is to verify, not just trust.  

> Lack of Expertise: Some boards lack the technical or industry-specific knowledge to challenge assumptions. Instead of addressing this gap, they defer to management, undermining their oversight role.  

> Cognitive Biases: Boards are just as susceptible to biases as anyone else. The sunk cost fallacy, groupthink, and overconfidence often lead boards to double down on failing projects instead of cutting losses.  

> Weak Governance Processes: Many boards fail to establish robust governance frameworks for major projects. Without clear accountability, transparency, and regular checkpoints, projects are allowed to drift toward failure.  

The Path to Accountability  

To prevent future multi-million-dollar disasters, boards must:  

> Ask Hard Questions Early: Why are we doing this? What are the critical assumptions? What would make us stop? These questions must be asked before a single dollar is spent.  

> Insist on Independent Assurance: Boards should mandate independent audits and reviews for major projects. An objective view can often identify risks that insiders miss.  

> Monitor Progress Ruthlessly: Quarterly updates are not enough. Boards must demand real-time reporting on key metrics and intervene when milestones are missed.  

> Be Willing to Pull the Plug: The hardest decision for any board is to stop a failing project. But it’s also the most responsible one. Better to write off millions now than to lose billions later.  

In a Nutshell

When a multi-million-dollar project fails, the board cannot claim ignorance or absolve itself of responsibility. Failure at this scale is a governance failure, plain and simple. Boards that tolerate late-stage disasters are not just failing the organization—they’re failing every stakeholder who placed their trust in them.  

The lesson is simple: you can fail, but not that late. Boards must act as the last line of defense, ensuring that failure—when it happens—is swift, contained, and instructive. Anything less is negligence.  

If you or your company needs help with Board Advisory around technology and project governance or an Independent Project Review, just contact me.

Read more…