25 April 2026
Who owns the outcome?
If a vendor commits to an outcome and the customer has not nominated a single named owner internally, the deal has already failed. It just has not noticed yet.
Customers are buying outcomes rather than implementation. That part is clear. What is not clear in most engagements I am asked to look at is who owns the outcome on the customer side.
Adoption sits with internal change management. Data quality sits with whoever owns the upstream systems. Executive sponsorship sits with the buyer’s boss. Operational integration sits with the function the work is touching. Performance attribution sits somewhere between finance and the original sponsor, both of whom would prefer it sat with the other.
If a vendor commits to an outcome and the customer has not nominated a single named owner internally, the outcome will be delivered by the vendor and re-defined by the customer. Both parties will sincerely believe they are right. Neither will be happy at renewal.
The first question I would now put on the procurement intake form is not “what outcome are you buying” but “who in your organisation is accountable for it landing.” If the answer is a working group, the deal has already failed. It just has not noticed yet.
More from the Friday Frame archive.
- 9 October 2026
What’s changed since we approved it?
Does the approval still fit the work?
- 2 October 2026
What changes after the training?
Training becomes useful when people have the workflows, incentives and support to put what they learn into practice.
- 25 September 2026
A shared platform still needs local judgement.
Scaling across markets means deciding what stays consistent, what local teams can adapt and who has authority to act.
Get a heads up when there is new writing here.
I publish irregularly. The Friday Frame ships most weeks. The longer essays land when they are ready. Drop your email and you will get a note when something new goes up, or when an existing post gets a meaningful rewrite. Nothing else.