BIE’s latest event brought together senior leaders to explore what boards really see when transformation programmes are underway, and how organisations can connect delivery activity to measurable business value.
BIE’s Simon Moore hosted a discussion featuring transformation leader Stephen Williams, who has worked for BIE on numerous occasions and whose experience spans complex programmes across multiple sectors and markets.
The informal, interactive format encouraged leaders in the room to challenge assumptions, share experience and consider how boards can become more inquisitive about what is really happening beneath programme reporting.
As transformation portfolios become larger and more complex, one central question framed the discussion:
How can boards be confident that transformation programmes are delivering real value, rather than simply reporting progress?
As organisations operate in increasingly complex and concentrated markets, leaders face growing pressure to demonstrate that major transformation investments are delivering measurable outcomes. With less margin for error, boards need greater confidence that programmes are creating value rather than simply consuming investment.
A recurring risk in major programmes is what Stephen described as “watermelon reporting”; a term that has been highlighted across a number of our NED events, originally by Gina Jardine. Transformation programmes are often vulnerable to this, which he described as “everything looks green on the outside, but the inside is really red.” As information moves up through governance structures, difficult details can become diluted, making it harder for boards to identify emerging risks or value.
The response is not simply more reporting. Boards need a clearer line of sight between the investment they approved, the work being delivered and the outcome the organisation expects to realise.
This requires leaders to look beyond polished status updates and ask:
A clear theme throughout was that leadership teams must remain curious and willing to get beneath the surface of programme reporting.
Transformation business cases are often treated as fixed documents; approved at the outset, handed into delivery and revisited after go-live. Yet programmes rarely remain static. Scope shifts, markets move, organisations acquire or divest businesses, and assumptions change.
Stephen used an analogy stating, “what started as oranges end up as apples”, to bring to life this point of ensuring that the business case must remain live throughout the programme. Rather than waiting until the end to reconstruct return on investment, leaders should continuously connect design decisions, process changes and delivery choices to their expected benefits.
Therefore, building value management into delivery requires clear ownership of benefits, measures that are directly linked to process and role changes, regular reassessment of the assumptions underpinning the business case, and transparent decision-making when priorities or operating conditions change.
One of the most compelling examples Stephen shared during the discussion was centred on a large enterprise-wide transformation at a major transport organisation. The programme involved redesigning core operations across HR, finance, supply chain, revenue, billing, and shared services.
One year into the programme, the pandemic caused organisation’s revenue to reduce by 98%, creating immediate pressure to stop investment. With conditions having changed so dramatically, leadership questioned whether the programme could still justify continued investment.
However, because the team had quantified process changes during design, they could demonstrate that the programme now contained three times the value of the original case. By identifying hundreds of potential benefits and prioritising those with the greatest impact, the programme was able to continue with a sharper focus.
The broader lesson was clear. Value is not protected by the original plan. It is protected by understanding how value is created and adapting delivery as circumstances change.
Another key theme was the importance of focusing on measures that genuinely matter.
Transformation programmes often generate huge volumes of reporting, KPIs and dashboards. However, the discussion highlighted the difference between collecting data and understanding value.
Boards need clarity on the handful of measures that connect operational activity to strategic outcomes.
This led to Stephen’s framework of golden threads and golden nuggets.
According to Stephen, successful organisations connect detailed operational metrics to the outcomes that matter most at board level.
Golden threads are the strategic outcomes that matter most at board-level. In his case study, the defining measure was cost per passenger. In another organisation, it might be price per unit, customer retention, or service reliability.
Golden nuggets are the detailed operational measures generated by individual systems and processes, such as procurement cycle time. These measures become meaningful only when they can be linked to the board-level outcome.
As Stephen explained, “The nugget means nothing if you can’t link it up to the broader measure that the board is interested in”. The discussion highlighted a challenge many organisations face. They often measure hundreds of operational indicators but struggle to connect them to the outcomes that matter at leadership level.
When organisations successfully connect golden nuggets to golden threads, they create a clear line between day-to-day activity and strategic value.
The discussion also reinforced that implementation alone does not constitute success.
The programme Stephen used as an example achieved 93% user adoption on its first day of go-live, rising to 100% by the following Monday.
Critically, adoption was measured rather than assumed. Usage, behaviours and engagement were actively tracked, allowing leaders to understand not only whether the technology had been implemented, but whether people were genuinely using it.
However, the discussion made clear that adoption must be planned and measured throughout delivery rather than assessed after implementation. By quantifying process changes and tracking usage and behaviours, the team could monitor whether the programme was delivering its intended outcomes and intervene quickly where additional support was needed.
The broader point was that value is realised when people adopt new ways of working, not simply when systems are deployed. Successful organisations therefore treat adoption as a key measure of transformation success from the outset.
Technology may enable transformation, but it does not create adoption on its own. A consistent theme throughout the discussion was that successful transformation depends far more on people than systems. As Stephen observed, “It’s the people side, not the tech side, that makes all the difference.” He argued that organisations should invest heavily in change management, engagement and adoption activities, suggesting they should account for around 20% of a programme budget.
Effective change leadership means meeting people where they are and respecting their past contribution. Long-serving employees should not be positioned as obstacles to progress; their operational knowledge can help shape better solutions and turn scepticism into advocacy. Organisations that invest in communication, engagement and change management are far more likely to achieve adoption and realise the value their programmes were designed to deliver.
Building that adoption requires early involvement from the people who understand current operations, honest communication about what is changing and why, space for challenge and feedback, visible measures of adoption and behaviour, and leaders who remain patient, consistent and open throughout the transformation journey.
Overall, the discussion highlighted that successful transformation requires more than strong governance, detailed reporting or well-defined business cases. It requires leaders who are willing to look beyond the board pack, challenge assumptions and seek a deeper understanding of what is happening on the ground.
Transformation succeeds when strategy, delivery and behaviour remain connected. For boards, that means maintaining a clear line of sight between programme activity and business outcomes, testing whether reported progress is translating into measurable value, and staying close enough to delivery to understand where risks and opportunities are emerging.
As the conversation demonstrated, organisations realise the greatest value from transformation when they combine rigorous measurement with genuine curiosity. By creating environments where challenges can be identified early, assumptions can be tested and decisions made with confidence, leaders are better equipped to turn transformation ambition into lasting outcomes.
At BIE, creating space for candid discussion and shared learning is central to how we support organisations navigating complex change. If you would like to continue the conversation around transformation, change leadership or board effectiveness, we’d be delighted to hear from you.
