The Certainty Gap

In complex programmes, some of the most important decisions are made before a project formally exists.

Options are explored, locations are assessed, budgets are shaped, and timelines begin to form. Yet this early phase often sits outside structured project governance on the basis that “the project has not started yet”.

This creates a subtle but significant gap in how organisations manage delivery – a gap in the creation and control of certainty.

We invest considerable effort in governing projects once they are mobilised, but far less attention is given to the period in which those projects are effectively defined.

It is in this space that expectations are formed, assumptions become embedded, and delivery constraints begin to take shape.

The hidden phase before mobilisation

Before formal project initiation, organisations typically move through a phase of optioneering and early decision-making.

In real estate and capital programmes, this may include decisions such as whether to:

• remain in an existing building or relocate
• pursue a landlord-led or client-led solution
• prioritise speed over flexibility, or vice versa
• define scope based on ambition rather than delivery reality

These are not minor administrative choices. They are foundational decisions that shape cost, programme, risk, and ultimately outcomes.

Yet this phase is often characterised by fragmented accountability.

Commercial stakeholders, advisors, and delivery perspectives operate in parallel, but not always within a single integrated governance structure that aligns decision-making with long-term delivery implications.

By the time a project is formally mobilised, many of the most consequential parameters are already implicit.

How the certainty gap is created

In my experience, the certainty gap is rarely the result of poor intent. It emerges structurally.

During early-stage discussions:

• programme durations are often set based on ambition and market expectation
• budgets are framed around headline affordability rather than full delivery cost
• risk is assumed to be manageable later in the lifecycle
• flexibility is expected to be recovered once mobilisation begins

At this stage, no single function typically holds accountability for the end-to-end implications of these assumptions.

As a result, expectations begin to form without the same level of challenge, validation, or structured governance that exists later in delivery.

The impact on delivery teams

Once mobilisation occurs, delivery teams inherit not only scope, but also a set of decisions and expectations that have already been established.

This can lead to:

• compressed programmes driven by earlier assumptions or delays
• reduced flexibility in delivery sequencing and procurement
• increased pressure on cost and quality trade-offs
• limited opportunity to revisit foundational assumptions

From a delivery perspective, it can appear that projects begin under pressure.

However, that pressure is often the cumulative result of decisions made before delivery governance formally began.

Rethinking when governance begins

This is not an argument for expanding project controls into every commercial conversation.

Rather, it is a question of continuity.

Most organisations already have well-developed governance frameworks once a project is mobilised. The opportunity lies in extending appropriate, proportionate governance into the earlier phase where options are shaped and commitments begin to form.

In practice, this may involve:

• structured evaluation of options before decisions are finalised
• clearer ownership of assumptions during optioneering
• earlier alignment between commercial intent and delivery feasibility
• more integrated visibility of cost, time, and risk implications before mobilisation

In some cases, lightweight, iterative approaches can help bring structure to this phase, particularly where uncertainty is still high and decisions are evolving.

The objective is not to slow decision-making, but to improve the quality and durability of the decisions being made.

Towards governance continuity

The core issue is not a lack of project management capability. Most organisations already have strong PMO and delivery controls in place once a project is established.

The challenge lies in continuity.

Governance is often strong during delivery, but less defined during the phase in which delivery outcomes are effectively being shaped.

This creates a situation where organisations manage execution rigorously, but the decisions that determine execution are managed less consistently.

Closing this gap requires a shift in perspective – from seeing governance as something that begins at mobilisation, to viewing it as something that spans the full lifecycle from early intent through to delivery.

Conclusion

The period between strategic intent and project mobilisation is where project certainty is either created or lost.

Yet it is often the least structured part of the lifecycle.

As programmes become more complex and expectations on predictability increase, organisations may need to reconsider not only how they deliver projects, but also how they shape them.

Because by the time a project formally begins, much of its outcome has already been influenced.

Alex Lianos is Associate Director – Project Controls at Mace Consult