Answer extracted from the Beyond The Plan podcast — listen to the full episode below.
What is the 'false start' phase in the progression toward governance and delivery failure?
The false start occurs at project beginning when scope documents remain unsigned while work has already started, budgets await approval, governance meetings are cancelled or postponed, and sponsor representatives lack decision rights. This creates a dangerous gap where projects are moving forward without the structural foundation needed to succeed.
Starting work before you're ready
The false start phase is a predictable pattern that emerges when organizational pressure to show progress overrides the discipline of proper setup. Work launches despite unfinished governance basics—scope hasn't been formally signed off by stakeholders, but teams are already mobilizing. Budgets remain in approval limbo. Most critically, decision-making authority fractures when sponsors send delegates to governance meetings who cannot commit to decisions or lack continuity across sessions.
This fragmentation guarantees failure. As Isabel Grae Garaway explains in the episode, the hiatus between starting work and completing governance setup is where projects lose control. Teams operate without clear authority above them, stakeholders remain unaligned, and scope shifts become inevitable.
Why the false start dooms delivery
Absent sponsors or sponsors who delegate without decision rights leave projects orphaned at precisely the moment accountability is most critical. When governance meetings are postponed or cancelled, the project enters a vacuum where nobody is actively managing risk or settling scope disputes. The combination creates conditions for compounding failures—scope creep, budget overruns, and stakeholder misalignment that could have been prevented with proper setup.
The false start is not accidental. It's a systemic problem rooted in the gap between what governance should accomplish—enabling the right decision-making at the right time—and what organizations actually do when they rush. You can hear more specifics about how to recognize and avoid this trap in the full episode, where Garaway walks through real examples of false starts across infrastructure and government programs.
"Governance always precede delivery failure. You can tell a project that's going to fail before it's even started."
Isabel Grae Garaway — Governance Expert. Garaway began her career in defence, where she developed deep expertise in robust governance frameworks and risk management across large-scale infrastructure and complex programs. She specializes in fit-for-purpose governance—the principle that organizational structures should match project risk, not bureaucratic habit—and how that alignment prevents delivery disasters.
The false start phase is one of several predictable stages that signal incoming delivery failure. The episode explores how pre-project red flags and governance breakdowns cascade into the operational failures that ultimately derail projects—some costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
Key takeaways
- False start occurs when project work begins before scope is formally signed off and governance structures are in place.
- Cancelled or postponed governance meetings combined with absent sponsors create an accountability vacuum that guarantees failure.
- Delegates attending governance meetings without decision rights cannot move projects forward or settle scope disputes.
- This predictable phase signals delivery failure well before operational problems emerge, making it identifiable and preventable.
See also
What are the pre-project red flags that indicate delivery failure is likely?
Unclear sponsorship with no executive accountability, contested or unclear scope, business case that fails to articulate intended benefits, and unsecured funding all signal that delivery failure is likely.
What makes the New South Wales Investor Assurance Framework considered best-in-class governance practice?
The framework, created in 2012, is risk-based assurance rather than budget-based, features independent challenge from external experts, and maintains clear accountability structures across all infrastructure projects.
How should governance scale across projects of different sizes and risk profiles?
Governance should be relative to the risk. A $200 million program building major infrastructure requires extensive governance because the stakes are high, while smaller projects need proportionally lighter structures.