The accountability trap

Who should be accountable for delivering an initiative? It’s a simple question, but one that many organizations struggle to answer.

A common assumption is that Transformation should own delivery—after all, they define the strategy, align resources, and troubleshoot execution. But this is a critical mistake.

Transformation is essential, but it should never be accountable for execution. When organizations misplace accountability within Transformation – or within delivery functions like IT – the result is predictable: initiatives are completed, but the benefits aren’t realized.

Without a single accountable owner to exert “grip”, initiatives drift, stall, or fail outright -regardless of how well they are funded or planned.

The role of Transformation

Transformation is the operating system that enables successful delivery, but it is not the executor of change. Its role is to:

• Orchestrate and Prioritize – Ensuring the right initiatives are funded and aligned to strategy.
• Plan and Manage Capacity – Making sure resources are allocated effectively across the organization.
• Control Execution, Without Owning It – Ensuring governance structures exist to maintain alignment.
• Troubleshoot and Enable Success – Identifying blockers and ensuring initiatives don’t stall.

But what it does not do is own execution. That must sit within the business.

💡 Transformation builds the system of control that allows delivery to succeed -but accountability must lie with those who will realize the benefits.

Why IT or Transformation should not own initiatives

One of the biggest reasons initiatives fail is misaligned accountability. Too often, organizations default to placing ownership within a delivery function (Technology, Transformation, or Operations). This almost always leads to failure.

The three most common failure patterns

1. IT is accountable for build, but not for embedding change.
   • A new customer service platform is delivered on time and on budget – but frontline teams aren’t equipped to use it, and adoption remains low.
   • The system works, but the business impact never materializes.
2. Transformation ‘owns’ an initiative, but has no direct levers to execute.
   • A new digital strategy is rolled out, but Transformation lacks authority to enforce adoption within business units.
   • They track progress, escalate risks, and report RAG statuses – but real-world change never embeds.
3. Delivery teams focus on execution, not value realization.
   • A programme is seen as ‘successful’ because it launched – but no one is accountable for tracking whether the intended business benefits were actually achieved.
   • The initiative is ‘completed,’ but the return on investment is never validated.

💡 If accountability sits in IT or Transformation, the initiative will be delivered – but the business won’t take ownership, and the benefits won’t materialize.

Every initiative needs a single “home”

To avoid the accountability gap, organizations need a simple rule:

Every initiative – no matter how cross-functional – must sit within a single Business Unit (BU).

This means:

• A single accountable owner takes responsibility for the end-to-end success of the initiative, from delivery to benefits realization.
• Other teams (Technology, Operations, HR) contribute but are not accountable.
• Accountability is based on where the majority of the benefits are realized, not where the work is done.

Why this works

• Prevents initiatives from getting lost in cross-functional complexity.
• Ensures the business takes ownership of embedding and realizing benefits.
• Avoids misplacing accountability in delivery teams that have no levers to drive adoption.

The problem with "Two-in-a-Box"

Some organizations try to solve the accountability problem with a “Two-in-a-Box” model – pairing a business executive and an IT lead as co-owners of a programme.

This sounds good in theory but creates the very issue we’re warning against: split accountability.

When two people are accountable, neither is truly accountable. This is why successful organizations like Deutsche Bank assign initiative ownership to the business while ensuring delivery teams remain responsible for execution.

A better approach is a single accountable owner supported by clear governance – such as RACI frameworks and governance committees that hold initiative leaders to account.

The takeaway

• Transformation is critical, but not accountable for delivery. It enables execution but does not own it.
• Every initiative needs a single home BU that is accountable end-to-end.
• If accountability sits in IT or Transformation, the initiative will be delivered – but the benefits won’t be realized.

💡 By structuring accountability correctly, organizations ensure that initiatives don’t just get delivered – they deliver real value.