Between business and technology, contract and scope, reporting and decision, build and run – that is where waiting time, duplicated work and decisions that are taken but never become effective originate.
loumiTECH investigates how steering, coordination and the use of time interrelate in complex programmes — and which structures actually recover time. Every contribution states what is supported by sources and what remains our own synthesis.
We examine decision latency, coordination effort at interfaces and the question of why documented resolutions often reach the actual work weeks later. The basis is published governance research and anonymised programme observations.
Decision Latency · Coordination Surface · Steering Quadrant · Role clarity · Escalation logic
Read Decision LatencyThis field studies time as a steering variable in programmes. This means waiting time between committee dates, the cadence of reporting and decision, and the response time to deviations. It is not about individual people’s calendars. First studies begin in November 2026.
Waiting time · Committee cadence · Reconfiguration Latency · Response time · Time budgets for escalations
In developmentConfiguration drift in Jira and Confluence, reporting that describes instead of steering, and operability considered only at go-live: this field studies project systems as steering instruments.
Configuration Drift · Decision-Driven Reporting · Build-to-Run · Data quality · Action management
Read Configuration DriftEvidence ReviewAn evidence review systematically evaluates published studies and literature on a clearly defined question. No own data is collected. Every statement is attributed to a source.
Study OverviewA study overview summarises selected published studies without being based on a systematic search. No own data is collected. Every figure is attributed to a source.
Working ModelA working model describes a term or steering model of our own, derived from research and practice. It is explicitly labelled as not validated and states its limits and open questions.
Field ObservationA field observation describes an anonymised pattern from project practice and places it in the context of the literature. It is not a study finding. It serves as a starting point for hypotheses that are then tested.
Transparency. Every contribution distinguishes between statements supported by sources and our own synthesis. Sources are linked, the use of generative AI is disclosed, and version and review date are stated at the end of every contribution.
published contributions in German and English
sources evaluated — studies, standards and literature
working models, each with its validation status disclosed
research fields — steering, time management, project systems
BCG, McKinsey/Oxford and Standish consistently find high deviations from plan. Where causes are asked about, steering and coordination come first and technology only rarely.
ReadCoordination effort grows with the number and heterogeneity of interfaces — not with the number of work packages.
ReadMeasurable time passes between a resolution and the changed work. Programmes rarely steer this time.
ReadTools are configured once, ways of working evolve weekly — without governance, the two drift apart.
ReadOperability is built across the whole delivery, not at go-live — and it determines the value a transformation actually realises.
ReadReporting only becomes valuable when it changes decisions — not when it describes the past.
ReadSteering requirements, contracts, tickets and forecasts separately loses speed long before the first release exists.
ReadInstead of adopting one universal method as a full package: which steering building blocks does this project need, in what form — and which does it deliberately leave out?
Selected by: project architecture · type of change · dependencies · operational proximity
Four perspectives usually managed separately, consolidated into one weekly steering logic — one owner per open item, one explicit escalation level.
Commercial and contractual topics are treated as potential delivery blockers, not as separate workstreams.
Derivation in “Programmes lose time at transitions”Reporting that changes decisions builds on four levels in a fixed order — without a robust data foundation, every further level produces false precision.
Every anomaly is linked to an owner, a next step and a deadline.
Derivation in “Decision-Driven Reporting”All three models are our own syntheses, inspired among others by ISO 21502 and PMBOK 7 (tailoring) — not empirically validated standard models.
The working models are reviewed continuously. Feedback on individual articles, anonymised case examples, pointers to further sources, and cooperation or press enquiries are welcome.
loumi
