Why Projects Go Off Track: Friction and Misalignment

By Damien Raczy – www.iod.nc – February 20, 2026

In 1588, Philip II of Spain launched one of the most ambitious military projects of his era: 130 ships, an embarked army, and the objective of invading England. History remembers above all the disaster. Yet it was not the storm that sank the Armada — it was the organisation.

Three fractures, already visible, should have sounded the alarm.

The first was strategic. The objective — invading England — was clear on paper, but the execution plan ignored the reality on the ground: weather conditions in the English Channel, the tactical superiority of the English fleet, the impossibility of coordinating at a distance from Madrid. The vision was rigid where the situation demanded adaptability. No alternative had been considered. When circumstances deviated from the planned scenario, there was nothing to fall back on.

The second was organisational. The army and the navy formed two sealed worlds, with no common language and no shared authority. Decisions travelled up to Madrid before coming back down — slowly, distorted. The Duke of Medina Sidonia, appointed commander-in-chief, had neither the experience nor the actual power to arbitrate between corps that distrusted each other. Supplies were insufficient, logistics poorly coordinated. Each part pulled in its own direction. The whole did not function as a system, but as a collection of silos forced to coexist.

The third was human. The men — sailors and soldiers alike — had not been prepared for the unexpected. Faced with storms, night attacks, and contradictory orders, behaviour froze. Neither the skills nor the confidence needed to improvise, adapt, or hold. Fear, fatigue, and a failure to understand the decisions handed down from above did the rest.

For this great project to have succeeded, it needed to be agile. It was pyramidal. These three fractures — an inflexible strategy, a siloed organisation, unprepared individuals — combined and amplified each other. Weather and tactical hazards, surmountable in isolation, became an irreversible catastrophe. The retreat was humiliating, and Spain's weakening, lasting.

What strikes us, five centuries later, is the unsettling familiarity of this picture. The same fractures, the same chain reactions, the same consequences: projects going off track, performance falling short of ambitions, sometimes outright failure. In a context of relentless pursuit of efficiency, these mistakes continue to recur — at different scales, in different sectors, but through the same mechanisms.

What truly makes the difference between a resounding success and a bitter failure?

The answer is rarely built on a single plane. It engages three levels simultaneously: the clarity and flexibility of strategy, the quality of organisational coordination, and the capacity of individuals to adapt and act. It is at the intersection of these three dimensions — and in the friction that lodges there — that the essential part most often plays out. Version R6 of our IOD Core Skills model makes this its field of analysis: understanding these frictions in order to better defuse them, and transforming tensions into levers for lasting performance, by accounting for the interactions between what is real and what is perceived.

1. Introduction and Problem Statement

Imagine an ambitious project: a digital transformation in a small or medium-sized enterprise. Everything seems aligned on paper — clear strategy, allocated resources, motivated teams. Yet six months later, deadlines have exploded, costs have spiralled, and motivation has crumbled. Why? This scenario is common, affecting 70% of projects according to studies such as those of the Project Management Institute (PMI). Conversely, some organisations perform exceptionally well — Tesla, for instance, disrupting the automotive industry through relentless coherence.

The central problem lies in friction: those invisible or manifest tensions that impede organisational flow. They arise from misalignments across three levels:

The strategic level: direction and intent. This level defines the purpose and future of a project. It is about setting a precise course for the whole group.

• The objective: determining whether the priority is to transform the organisation or to maximise financial returns.
• The posture: strategy involves choosing between stability (maintaining a fixed line to protect existing gains) and agility (favouring innovation and the capacity to adapt rapidly to the unexpected).
• The purpose: this is the stage at which one decides what one wants to become in the long term.

The organisational level: functioning and structure. This level concerns the internal mechanics — how work is broken down, distributed, and coordinated across departments.

• Compartmentalisation: how departments communicate or, conversely, become isolated from one another (the "silo" effect), creating blockages.
• Flow management: managing dependencies between teams. If one task is poorly synchronised with the next, uncertainty increases and efficiency falls.
• Coordination: the challenge is to create processes that link the parts of a project together without generating unnecessary friction.

The individual level: people and attitudes. This level focuses on the people who bring the organisation to life on a daily basis. It addresses the psychological dimension and competencies.

• Reactions: how each individual perceives their work, which may manifest as enthusiasm or, conversely, as resistance to change in the face of new methods.
• Feelings: sentiments of frustration or satisfaction directly influence engagement. A gap between a person's expectations and their professional reality creates tension.
• Aptitude: this encompasses the know-how and capacity of individuals to take ownership of the tools or objectives entrusted to them.

These misalignments can be real (objective, such as a lack of resources) or perceived (subjective, such as a team viewing the strategy as overly directive). In combination, they create a snowball effect: an S-O misalignment amplified by divergent I perceptions leads to cumulative friction. According to multilevel systems theory (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), these bottom-up interactions (individuals influencing the organisation) and top-down ones (strategy imposing constraints) explain why projects go off track — not for lack of ideas, but for lack of alignment.

To frame the problem: in a Data/AI governance context — where friction is exacerbated by silos and a lack of leadership engagement — ignoring these frictions is costly.

More broadly, many organisations undertaking transformation projects, needing to adapt, find themselves confronted with what is politely called "resistance". Many consulting engagements fail to go beyond diagnosis: the production of reports and presentations has at best a cosmetic effect, serving mainly to buy time — according to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, as the fortune-teller in Asterix might put it: "After rain comes sunshine."

This article proposes a cross-analysis, a methodology based on R6, and concrete pathways for steering change.

2. Cross-Analysis of the Effects of Real and Perceived Friction

To understand the impact, it is possible to distinguish between real and perceived friction, then analyse their cross-effects at the strategic, organisational, and individual levels.

Real Friction: Objectifiable Barriers

These frictions are measurable and factual. For example:

• At the strategic level: an ambiguous vision creates uncertainty (Thompson, 1967), leading to conflicting priorities.
• At the organisational level: rigid processes hinder adaptation, as in uncoordinated interdependencies (Galbraith, 1973).
• At the individual level: a lack of competencies (for example, unbalanced polarities in R6, such as accountable vs. innovative) blocks execution.

Effects: project overruns (delays of 20–50%), financial losses, and organisational underperformance. In an SOI combination, a strategic misalignment (S) with the organisation (O) amplifies individual friction (I) — such as an innovative strategy poorly supported by rigid structures, which frustrates team members.

Perceived Friction: Subjective "Lenses"

More insidious, these frictions stem from divergent perceptions. An individual may perceive a strategy as "too directive", even if it is objectively balanced. Inspired by paradox theory (Smith & Lewis, 2011), tensions between complementary polarities (for example, autonomy vs. cooperation) are experienced as conflictual when poorly perceived.

Effects: amplification of real problems. For example, a team perceives a lack of leadership (perceived I) while ignoring a solid organisation (real O), leading to collective demotivation. In Data/AI projects, consultants often lament a perceived disconnect between strategic rhetoric and reality, causing resistance and failure.

Cross-Analysis: Synergies and Amplifications

This cross-analysis reveals that perceived friction amplifies real friction by a factor of 2 to 3 (according to studies in organisational psychology). For instance, a project goes off track not only because of a real O misalignment, but because I perceptions transform it into a trust crisis.

A complete action matrix can then be drawn up:

3. Methodology: A Dual SOI Analysis Strategy for Real and Perceived Misalignments and Frictions

To address these frictions, the R6 methodology proposes a dual analysis: examining real (objective) and perceived (subjective) misalignments at the SOI levels.

Step 1: Diagnosing the Real

Surfacing Objective Misalignments

This initial step — preliminary and exploratory — aims to establish a baseline by identifying factual misalignments reported between strategy (S), organisation (O), and individual behaviours (I). The goal is to surface objective inconsistencies as presented, bearing in mind that this "reality" is the one stakeholders choose to show. For example, a transformation strategy requiring adaptable, innovative teams, but thwarted by a controlling organisation with rigid processes and hierarchical structures. This inevitably produces dysfunction: individuals, caught between contradictory expectations, do not deliver the expected behaviours, leading to delays, errors, and global inefficiency.

• Tools: structured interviews based on fact-finding, audits (e.g. Galbraith's matrix for interdependencies), and quantitative assessments.
• SOI Focus: measuring concrete gaps via KPIs (e.g. innovation rate vs. process rigidity; competency alignment with strategic objectives). This examines how an agile strategy is undermined by a siloed organisation, or how misaligned behaviours (lack of training) amplify dysfunctions.

This real-world diagnosis establishes a factual foundation for subsequent work on perceptions, avoiding speculation and prioritising tangible evidence such as productivity losses or budget variances.

It should not be forgotten, however, that what is presented as reality by some may be contested by others, and that what is labelled as objective is merely the result of a metasubjective process (David Moshman) — that is, a judgement we make about what we perceive, asserting: "This is true; this is what is real."

Step 2: Diagnosing the Perceived

Taking Subjective Perceptions Seriously

Beyond facts considered objective, this step explores the perceptions of those involved, because even an "imaginary" friction can have very real consequences. Some may not fully understand the issues at stake and require clarification; others may oppose the direction on principle, or find themselves in an awkward position due to poor communication or miscalibrated expectations. A superficial approach would invoke the famous "resistance to change", produce polished presentations to catalogue it, and propose cosmetic solutions. The R6 approach goes further: it holds that even if something is merely an impression, that impression is real and deserves to be treated as such. The discrepancy between perception and reality is just as factual as the project's financial losses — it can erode trust, amplify rumours, and transform a minor misunderstanding into a major crisis.

• Tools: structured behavioural interviews, focus groups, anonymous questionnaires and other surveys, in order to capture perceptions in all their diversity.
• R6 Integration: R6 structures the analysis along three axes (posture, coordination, execution) with complementary polarities. For example, assessing whether an "innovative" polarity is perceived as chaotic by teams, even if it is objectively balanced. This reveals how a strategy perceived as overly directive (perceived S) can frustrate individuals (perceived I), even when the organisation is sound (real O).

This perceptual diagnosis completes the real-world diagnosis by revealing human amplifiers, transforming impressions into actionable data to restore alignment.

Step 3: Cross-Analysis and Prioritisation

Treating Frictions as Non-Conformities to Drive Convergence

This step crosses the real and perceived diagnoses to identify discrepancies as non-conformities with expectations (strategic, organisational, or individual). The approach is psychosocial and pragmatic: it integrates the human factor through qualitative exchanges, semi-quantified using a simple severity scale (1 to 5), to prioritise without rigidity. The objective is to reduce divergences by fostering convergence between objective reality and perception, through tailored interventions.

• Tools: collaborative workshops (e.g. narrative mapping of frictions), R/P convergence matrix (adapted from the initial typology), and qualitative scales for assessing human impact (e.g. level of perceived frustration vs. objective losses).
• Process:
  • Crossing SOI data: for example, in a Data/AI project, a perception of "silos" (perceived O) may mask a real lack of competency sharing (real I), creating a non-conformity where frustrated teams block strategic innovation (S), amplifying cumulative friction.
  • Choosing the intervention: for minor cases (isolated perception), a quick fix suffices (clarification, immediate adjustment). For deep-seated frictions, a psychosocial RCA is required (human root cause analysis: exploring relational and cultural causes), leading to targeted corrective actions (e.g. training, process realignment).
  • Monitoring through feedback loops: an operational continuous improvement loop (PDCA: Plan → Deploy → Check the effect on convergence via qualitative and semi-quantitative feedback → Act to adjust), integrated into daily practice. Strategic loop: monthly oversight by leadership to assess overall convergence (e.g. via human KPIs such as perceived engagement rate), enabling adjustments to the management system.

This step transforms frictions into human levers, significantly reducing divergences in applied R6 cases by making the process inclusive and actionable.

This dual analysis makes R6 a holistic tool, as demonstrated in our case studies at www.iod.nc/R6-what.

4. Expected Gains

Adopting the R6 approach is not just about numbers: it fundamentally changes how projects are experienced and steered. The most powerful benefits are qualitative and systemic, even if measurable gains support them.

• Projects finally move forward: frictions and misalignments cease to be invisible brakes or permanent blockages. By addressing the real and the perceived simultaneously, rumination loops, endless deferrals, and unnecessary escalations are eliminated. Things happen, deadlines are better respected, teams deliver. This is the return of smooth operational flow and a collective sense that "things are moving."

• Clarity and capacity for action restored: situations are viewed with clarity and composure, without being paralysed by amplified perceptions or poorly understood facts. Leaders and teams can finally act with confidence: clarifying a misunderstanding, correcting a process, reallocating a resource without fearing they will awaken a hidden crisis. The horizon clears; the shift from "firefighter" mode to "pilot" mode becomes possible.

• Stronger project performance: significant reduction in overruns through more robust SOI alignment. Fewer costly surprises, less rework.

• Greater organisational resilience: better management of inherent paradoxes (stability vs. agility, control vs. innovation), fostering genuine organisational ambidexterity. The organisation becomes capable of weathering the unexpected without imploding.

• Improved engagement and retention: when perceptions align with reality, frustration decreases and trust recovers. Turnover falls significantly, and collective energy turns towards value creation rather than managing internal tensions.

• Overall ROI and concrete savings: for a small or medium-sized enterprise, productivity gains can be very significant — direct savings on budget overruns and emergency recruitment, but above all a return to normal productivity, expected results, respected deadlines, and a sound reputation with clients.

In summary, the real gain of R6 is not solely financial: it is fundamentally the restored capacity to move forward with confidence, to decide and act without human or organisational frictions bringing everything to a standstill. It is the return of a project that breathes, a team looking ahead, and a leader who pilots with clarity rather than plugging leaks.

5. Steering and Control (Integrated into the R6 Methodology)

Steering and control are fully integrated into R6, mirroring modern management systems: a continuous improvement loop at the operational level to address non-conformities in real time, and a strategic supervision loop so that leadership maintains oversight of overall alignment.

Operational Loop (Daily Level / Teams)

It rests on the systematic treatment of frictions and discrepancies identified through steps 1 to 3. Each non-conformity (real/perceived gap against SOI expectations) triggers:

• A rapid analysis (immediate correction if an isolated perception, or psychosocial RCA if the friction runs deep).
• Corrective actions that are assigned, dated, and tracked (e.g. clarifying a strategy perceived as directive, training in competency sharing in a Data/AI project where "silos" mask a real lack of sharing).
• An integrated PDCA: Plan the action → Deploy → Check the effect on convergence (via qualitative and semi-quantitative feedback) → Adjust.

This loop ensures that operations absorb frictions without systematic escalation, mechanically reducing divergences between objective reality and perception.

Strategic Loop (Leadership Level / Periodic Reviews)

Leadership conducts monthly or quarterly reviews to:

• Oversee the management system as a whole (effectiveness of the operational loops).
• Monitor high-level indicators: factual KPIs (deadlines, costs, productivity, measured engagement rate) and perception indicators (perceived gaps via recurring anonymous surveys, level of frustration or alignment with R6 polarities).
• Steer strategy: reallocate resources, adjust priorities, correct systemic misalignments (e.g. if I perceptions persist despite a sound real O, revisit strategic communication or coordination processes).

Indicators and Dashboards

R6 provides simple, visual SOI dashboards (e.g. real/perceived convergence tracking [weak signals], alerts on perceived gaps [symptoms present/absent], evolution of the convergence rate). It is never forgotten that the perception of reality drives behaviour: a factually "green" KPI can coexist with a red perception (frustration, resistance), and it is often the latter that impedes strategy or organisation. Steering therefore balances facts and feelings for authentic, lasting alignment.

Concrete Example

In a Data/AI project, dashboards show a minor factual delay (low R), but surveys reveal a strong perception of silos (high P). The operational loop addresses this via RCA (lack of competency sharing) and corrective actions (collaborative workshops). The leadership review confirms the improvement in convergence and reallocates training time if needed.

R6 is thus not merely a diagnostic tool: it is a living steering system that transforms frictions into continuous alignment signals, preventing overruns and building resilience.

In conclusion, frictions are not inevitable; they are signals for aligning SOI. Explore R6 at www.iod.nc to put this into practice.

Contact IOD Ingénierie: +687 78 20 52 — iod@iod.nc

References

• Kozlowski, S. W. J. & Klein, K. J. (2000)
• Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. (2011)
• Thompson, J. D. (1967)
• Galbraith, J. R. (1973)

Based on IOD Core Skills — All rights reserved.