What I’ve observed in Aotearoa: six reasons programmes stumble
I’ve spent much of my career inside big programmes — some that delivered well, and others that struggled. Over time, I’ve noticed the same patterns repeating when projects in Aotearoa run late, over budget, or miss the mark. In this reflection piece, I share six common mistakes I’ve seen first-hand — from weak governance to optimism bias — along with lessons from NZ case studies. Most importantly, I outline how we can avoid repeating them. Curious to hear your thoughts: Which of these mistakes do you see most often, and how do you tackle them in your work?
Big programmes go wrong for predictable reasons. In Aotearoa we’ve seen high-profile examples — from the Novopay payroll crisis to large transport programmes — that all share the same root causes. Here are six mistakes I repeatedly see, why they matter, and practical fixes you can use today.
1) Weak or incomplete requirements (and poor testing)
What goes wrong: Projects that start before requirements are properly understood quickly encounter gaps, defects, and functionality that doesn’t meet users’ real needs. Technical problems and unresolved defects then consume time and money during implementation. NZ example: The Novopay rollout for the Ministry of Education exposed major gaps between business needs and the system delivered; the technical review highlighted system gaps, defects and quality weaknesses that drove large remedial costs.
Fix it: Invest time up front in discovery and user research (service design), create minimum viable increments with real users, insist on independent testing gates, and budget for a rigorous data-validation phase before go-live.
2) Weak governance, assurance and independent oversight
What goes wrong: When boards and programme sponsors don’t have clear assurance lines, or governance is reactive rather than strategic, risks compound and early warning signals are missed. Large infrastructure programmes in NZ have repeatedly required extra funding after assurance failed to catch escalation early. The City Rail Link experienced major cost increases that required board/government attention and additional funding.
Fix it: Establish a clear governance triangle — sponsor, programme board, delivery lead — with independent assurance (internal or external) and regular, honest reporting against risk, budget and scope. Make contingency draws subject to strict governance tests.
3) Political direction, changing priorities and scope creep
What goes wrong: Shifting political priorities, continually re-scoped ambitions or “big vision” changes mid-programme cause rework and delay. NZ’s light-rail discourse shows how shifting scope, ambitious redesigns and political shifts dramatically increased cost estimates and prolonged delivery.
Fix it: Lock down scope in staged, deliverable tranches that map to funding and decision points. Use an agreed change control process — and require business case refreshes that quantify cost/benefit before any major re-scoping.
4) Poor procurement and supplier management
What goes wrong: Rushed or poorly-structured procurements lead to cost escalation, adversarial contracts, and finger-pointing when things go wrong. Suppliers can be under-specified or not held to meaningful incentives, and contract management is often weak. Procurement issues were central to several high-profile NZ programme disputes and cost escalations.
Fix it: Buy for outcomes not just deliverables; structure contracts with shared risk/reward and clear KPIs; keep strong commercial capability in-house to manage vendors; run supplier capability assessments and include realistic mobilisation timelines and penalties/incentives that matter.
5) Inadequate stakeholder engagement and disregard for equity / Te Tiriti obligations
What goes wrong: Projects that don’t genuinely engage end-users, communities and tangata whenua miss critical perspectives, produce low adoption, and incur later remedial fixes. Lessons from the Christchurch rebuild show the value of purposeful structures to coordinate many stakeholders and embed local needs.
Fix it: Build stakeholder engagement into the programme budget and plan from day one. Co-design with affected communities (including Māori) and embed Te Tiriti principles so service outcomes are equitable and enduring. Use working groups and user panels to validate design decisions continuously.
6) Underestimating complexity, risk and contingency (optimism bias)
What goes wrong: Teams repeatedly underestimate the unknowns — technical complexity, supply chain shocks, consenting and regulatory hurdles — and therefore under-allocate contingency and schedule buffers. Academic and practitioner analysis shows mega-projects are inherently risky and need proportionate contingency and staged delivery.
Fix it: Apply reference class forecasting (learn from comparable projects), build realistic contingency into budgets and schedule, use staged decision points (stage-gate funding), and stress-test plans against adverse scenarios before approval.
Short checklist for sponsors and boards (use at Gateway/decision points)
- Has the business case been independently validated (including realistic contingencies)?
- Are user needs validated with real users and do acceptance criteria map to those needs?
- Is there an independent assurance plan and regular, unfiltered reporting to the board?
- Is procurement structured to align incentives and enable active commercial management?
- Have tangata whenua and affected communities been engaged and influences incorporated?
- Is the programme staged with go/no-go decision points and fresh business case reviews for scope changes?
Final thought
Large programmes rarely fail for a single reason. They fail because several predictable governance, procurement, scope and engagement mistakes combine. The good news is these are solvable: tighten your upfront discovery and requirements, strengthen governance and assurance, design staged funding with hard change control, and treat stakeholder and Treaty engagement as a core delivery function — not an optional add-on. That’s how you stop deadlines and budgets from becoming wishful thinking.