Leaders may treat a project “go-live” as the main indicator of success, while others treat it as an intermediate milestone toward measurable benefits and return on investment (ROI).
Because benefits typically depend on sustained adoption and performance outcomes after deployment, a change practitioner assesses leadership focus to determine whether governance will extend through benefits realisation. [1] [2]
Assessment approach
Assessment combines interviews, artefact review and observation of governance. Practitioners examine:
how leaders define “success”,
what is measured after go-live, and
who is accountable for benefits.
Typical evidence includes the business case, steering agendas and KPI packs, with attention to whether adoption and utilisation metrics are used as leading indicators for later financial outcomes. [3]
Observable indicators
Go-live-centric orientation
Executive attention and resourcing decline sharply once technical stability is achieved.
Success is communicated mainly as delivery completion, with limited benefit tracking after go-live.
PMI notes that projects are often treated as “complete” at go-live even though benefits are realised afterwards. [1]
Benefits- and ROI-centric orientation
Named benefits owners are accountable for each material benefit, including baselines and measurement methods.
Governance continues after go-live and reviews adoption and outcome trends on a defined cadence.
Leaders may also pursue visible short-term wins to maintain momentum while benefits accrue. [4]
Leadership behaviours associated with ROI realisation
Practitioners commonly reinforce behaviours that connect post-go-live operations to benefits delivery:
Sustained sponsorship: leaders model the new ways of working, remove barriers and address resistance through visible decisions.
Benefits governance: benefits are reviewed beyond hypercare, with escalation and corrective action when adoption stalls.
Accountability alignment: role expectations and incentives are updated so that desired behaviours are reinforced.
In this framing, measurement is treated as an operational routine rather than a one-off project activity. [3]
Common pitfalls and errors
Frequent errors that reduce realised ROI include:
Equating go-live or system stability with value delivery, leading to premature demobilisation of change support.
racking only lagging financial indicators, delaying detection of adoption shortfalls.
Leaving benefits ownership ambiguous, so post-go-live process changes are not implemented.
References:
[1] PMI: projects often treated as complete at go-live although benefits are realised afterwards.;
[2] PMI: benefits realisation links strategy, deliverables and outcomes (standards overview).;
[3] Prosci: measurement of adoption and compliance correlates with achieving project objectives.;
[4] Kotter: leadership-driven change benefits from generating visible short-term wins.