Misalignment in digital projects frequently hides behind apparent agreement on deliverables while stakeholders hold competing definitions of success, priorities, hopes, and fears. Cultural norms such as organisational politeness, power imbalances, and rushed decision-making produce fragile consensus that unravels during delivery. Perceived issues like scope creep or poor execution often stem from projects moving in multiple directions without shared clarity. Genuine alignment requires trust, openness to challenge, and explicit, shared definitions of the problem and success before work begins. Addressing cultural dynamics is more critical than technical fixes for improving digital project outcomes.
Surface-level agreement (e.g. "yes, we absolutely need a new website / CRM / ticketing system / DAMS / interactive exhibit / whatever") often masks a mess of competing definitions of success, different internal priorities and unspoken hopes or fears. What ends up looking like scope creep, overreaction to change, or poor execution is often a misdiagnosis, and is instead the inevitable result of a project simultaneously heading in multiple directions without realising it (or realising but not acknowledging it).
How often have you been involved in a project where everything looked harmonious, aligned and agreed on the surface but that you knew (or felt) was proceeding with silent or undiscovered disagreement and no shared definition of success. It feels like it happens with alarming regularity. By 'alignment', I mean a genuine, shared understanding of the problem, priorities, and what success will look like, not just agreement on a deliverable. Misalignment is the absence of some, or all, of that.
Collection
[
|
...
]