Most supply chain transformation programmes do not fail because organisations choose the wrong technology.

They fail because organisations struggle to translate investment into sustained improvements in productivity, resilience, and decision quality. Across industries, senior leaders describe the same experience: major ERP upgrades, analytics platforms, planning tools, and digital initiatives consume time, budget, and executive attention, yet day-to-day decisions remain just as difficult as before.

This gap between ambition and outcome is often described as the value void — the space where transformation investment accumulates without producing proportional business impact. It is not abstract. It shows up in missed service targets, excess inventory, persistent firefighting, and a gradual loss of confidence in transformation itself.

‍

Why the usual explanations fall short

When initiatives stall, post-mortems tend to converge on familiar explanations: change management was insufficient, data quality was poor, or the organisation was not ready. While these factors matter, they describe where friction appears, not why it emerges so consistently across industries, operating models, and technologies.

In practice, many organisations invest in digital capability before they have aligned on which decisions truly matter, who owns those decisions, and what constraints prevent better outcomes today. Technology is deployed into environments where decision rights, incentives, and priorities remain unresolved. As a result, even well-implemented systems struggle to change behaviour.

Dashboards highlight issues but do not trigger action. Forecasts improve, but operating plans remain unchanged. Automation accelerates processes that few people fully trust. The organisation becomes more instrumented, but not more decisive.

‍

The hidden constraint: decision clarity

The recurring constraint beneath these patterns is not a lack of information, but a lack of shared decision clarity. Leaders may agree that performance must improve, yet disagree — often implicitly — on which decisions should improve first and why.

Without that clarity, digital initiatives compete for attention. Each promises value, but none has an unambiguous claim on priority. Investment becomes fragmented. Sequencing decisions are driven by technical readiness, funding cycles, or executive sponsorship rather than decision leverage. Benefits fail to compound.

This explains why productivity gains often fail to materialise even after substantial investment. Inputs improve, but the mechanics of how decisions are made under pressure do not.

‍

Failure modes that emerge over time

When organisations skip proper orientation, several predictable failure modes follow.

• Pilot projects proliferate without scaling
• Programmes expand in scope as teams attempt to retrofit alignment after the fact
• Executive confidence erodes as promised benefits slip
• Future investment becomes harder to justify, even when the underlying need remains

Over time, transformation becomes associated with disruption rather than progress. Leaders revert to short-term workarounds that further entrench the problem.

‍

A more productive starting question

Organisations that close the value void tend to begin with a different orientation question:

If the data were reliable, where would we actually start?

This reframes transformation as a prioritisation challenge rather than a technology exercise. It forces leaders to identify which decisions would genuinely change outcomes if they were better informed, better timed, or better owned.

It also shifts the conversation away from tools and toward leverage.

‍

Questions that matter at the orient stage

At this stage, progress comes from sharper questions about decision impact and constraints.

• Which decisions consume the most management time without improving outcomes?
• Where do teams hesitate to act because information arrives too late or feels unsafe?
• Which decisions create the greatest downstream cost when they go wrong?
• Which initiatives would unblock multiple downstream decisions if they worked?
• What constraints are organisational rather than technical?
• Where would better decisions reduce risk, not just improve efficiency?

These questions surface trade-offs and ownership issues early. That is uncomfortable, but it prevents costly false starts later.

‍

Why peer discussion helps early

Orientation is difficult to do in isolation. Leaders benefit from hearing how others recognised similar patterns, misdiagnosed them initially, and reframed the problem before committing investment.

Peer discussion normalises uncertainty and builds confidence that time spent orienting is not time wasted. Once the problem is framed clearly, it becomes possible to test what must be true for value to appear.

‍