Misalignment waste, cost, risk and failure:

End Customer Focus

The extent to which customer-related risks, outcomes, and signals are actively recognised and integrated into how the relationship operates.

Level 3 – Baseline

Customer outcomes are considered in delivery and tracking.

Supply Chain Suffering From Waste, Cost, Risk & Failure

OLD NEWS

  • Unclear roles and decision-making authority

  • Fragmented leadership without unity or shared vision

  • Micro-management and centralised control

  • High staff turnover and inconsistent approaches

  • Poor communication flow from leadership

  • Lack of leadership ownership and accountability

  • Disconnection between leaders and operational realities

  • Blame-shifting instead of problem-solving

  • Culture of fear undermining effective decisions

  • No shared vision or stability in leadership

  • Widespread lack of trust in leadership

  • Leadership promises not followed through

  • Adverse impact on staff morale and well-being

  • Disconnect between leadership rhetoric and reality

  • Fear-based culture suppressing initiative and collaboration

  • Senior leaders seen as distant or invisible

  • Feedback not listened to or acted upon

  • Engagement varies wildly between sites

  • High leadership turnover disrupts relationships

  • Staff feel disempowered and disengaged

  • Communication seen as chaotic, unclear, and untimely

  • Over-reliance on mass emails (“blanket bombing”)

  • Important messages often lost or ignored

  • Lack of joint communication initiatives

  • Disconnection between corporate and operational messaging

  • Communication is mostly top-down and one-way

  • No consistent strategy for information sharing

  • Poor mutual understanding of roles and responsibilities

  • Misalignment between intentions and delivery

  • Fragmentation between operational and leadership levels

  • Meetings lack purpose, clarity, and outcomes

  • Too many meetings, often duplicative and unfocused

  • Poor planning, preparation, and follow-through

  • Culture of blame dominates discussions

  • Meetings perceived as performative, not productive

  • Siloed teams and lack of cross-functional collaboration

  • Blame and defensiveness are default modes

  • Low morale due to overwork and poor recognition

  • Toxic behaviours go unaddressed

  • Staff feel unsupported and isolated

  • Processes are inadequate, inconsistent, or outdated

  • Staff do not follow processes; leadership doesn’t enforce them

  • Culture of “doing it my way” over standardisation

  • Crisis management replaces structured planning

  • New IT systems are poorly implemented and not user-friendly

  • IT systems are cumbersome, slow, and confusing

  • Lack of training and user guidance

  • Systems not fit for operational needs

  • Poor integration across platforms

  • Systems contribute to inefficiencies and contract risk

  • Assurance processes seen as tick-box exercises

  • Lack of feedback or corrective actions

  • Inconsistent auditing and follow-up

  • Contractual compliance over meaningful quality

  • Low confidence in accuracy of assurance outcomes

  • KPIs viewed as manipulated or irrelevant

  • Disconnect between targets and actual delivery

  • Performance reporting lacks transparency

  • No learning or improvement from metrics

  • Staff don’t believe metrics reflect real work

  • Staff unaware of or disconnected from mission statements

  • Statements perceived as corporate lip service

  • No shared objectives across organisations

  • Disconnect between values and leadership behaviour

  • Objectives don’t guide day-to-day decision-making

  • “Cost first” mentality undermines quality and value

  • Short-term fixes trump long-term sustainability

  • No shared understanding of value between parties

  • Frontline needs ignored in strategic decisions

  • Value perceived through profit, not impact

  • Teams have fundamentally conflicting goals

  • Lack of aligned purpose or mutual commitment

  • Cultural differences erode trust

  • Centralised decisions override local needs

  • Adversarial relationship dominates interactions

  • Mutual distrust and blame are entrenched

  • “Them and us” culture undermines collaboration

  • Joint ownership of issues is rare

  • Leadership doesn’t model unity

  • Contractual policing overrides partnership

  • Collaboration is inconsistent and person-dependent

  • Power imbalance prevents fair engagement

  • Personality clashes hinder teamwork

  • Local relationships stronger than systemic ones

  • No shared identity or ethos

  • Senior leaders are remote and disconnected

  • Engagement happens too late or superficially

  • Overburdened leaders struggle to prioritise people

  • Site-level leadership often more effective

  • Need for consistent presence and clarity

  • Change is top-down and reactive

  • Perceived as “only financially motivated”

  • Change fatigue widespread among staff

  • Local teams not empowered to adapt

  • Poor rollout of IT systems hinders progress

  • Blame culture dominates problem-solving

  • Problems are ignored or delayed

  • Little cross-communication on issues

  • Third parties brought in after delays

  • Solutions pursued only after cost implications considered