The Illusion of Progress — and the Storm Beneath It
In my last blog, Automation Isn’t the Answer — It’s the Amplifier, we explored how automation so often becomes the “fix” that exposes more than it repairs.
After the Optus Triple Zero outage, the response was, as we discussed, almost predictable: “We’ll fix it with automation.”
It’s a sentiment echoed by countless organisations facing failure — a reflex that feels decisive and modern, yet rarely addresses the root cause.
Because automation, at its core, isn’t strategy.
It’s a tool.
And like every tool, it only performs as well as the hands — and minds — that wield it.
The growing global trend of “automate to solve” is revealing something uncomfortable:
our project management and leadership foundations aren’t keeping pace with our ambitions.
We’ve built a culture that rewards speed over substance, optics over outcomes, and motion over meaning.
And in that race, automation — once meant to simplify — has become an amplifier of everything we’ve failed to fix.
Automation Without Alignment
Let’s be clear — automation itself isn’t the villain.
But our approach to it often is.
Across industries, automation is being rolled out reactively, not strategically.
It’s applied like a bandage, not a blueprint.
And it’s championed as the saviour of productivity while quietly embedding disconnection, bias, and fragility into our systems.
Globally, 88 percent of business transformations, including automation initiatives, fail to meet their objectives. (Entrepreneur Media 2024)
Not because the technology breaks, but because the thinking behind it is broken.
When automation is driven by fear, optics, or urgency rather than purpose, all it does is scale dysfunction faster.
The process may look modern — but the mindset behind it is anything but.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
If we shift our gaze from automation to the system that births it — project management — the picture doesn’t improve.
Bent Flyvbjerg’s landmark study across 16,000 projects found average cost overruns of 27 percent — and one in six that blow out by 200 percent or more.
Globally, 50–70 percent of major projects still fail to meet one or more of their objectives.
And here in Australia, the situation is becoming increasingly concerning.
According to the AIPM and KPMG State of Project Management 2022 report:
- Shareholder satisfaction with project outcomes dropped from 52 percent in 2020 to 48 percent in 2022.
- Only 50 percent of projects delivered on business goals most of the time (down from 51 percent in 2020).
- Only 36 percent came in on budget most of the time.
- And just 32 percent were delivered on time — a sharp decline from 42 percent in 2020.
That means less than half the time, projects are considered successful.
And these are the same projects now being asked to deliver automation — at speed, at scale, and often without the clarity or capacity to get the basics right.
If 50% is the best, globally, then that in itself tells a haunting story. Talk about a coin toss.
Add that together, and what we’re facing isn’t innovation.
It’s compounded risk.
When Big Names Get It Wrong
We don’t have to look far to see the fallout.
- Optus (2023–2025): Following the 000 outage, automation was pitched as the answer. But the failure was never just technological — it was structural: fragmented accountability, poor readiness, and a culture of reaction over reflection.
- Zillow (2021): The US real-estate giant’s pricing algorithm overstated home values so badly that the company wrote down US $304 million and shut the division. The AI didn’t fail — leadership did.
- McDonald’s (2023): Their AI-driven drive-thru pilot ended after customers were served absurd orders — including 260 Chicken McNuggets. Efficiency overshadowed empathy.
- Australian Universities (2025): Over a dozen universities rolled out AI tools to detect cheating — only to wrongly accuse students and damage trust. What began as an integrity safeguard became an integrity risk.
- Enterprise Security (2025): A global study found 82 percent of network-automation projects failed to reach full success — not from bad code, but from a skills crisis that left systems vulnerable.
Each story shares the same DNA:
Projects rushed. Oversight diluted. Context ignored.
Automation didn’t collapse under its own weight — it was crushed beneath the weight of poor project discipline and misplaced trust in technology alone.
What’s Really Going Wrong
When organisations rush to automate, it’s usually to demonstrate control after losing it.
The “Just Fix It” mindset has become the corporate norm — a reflex to look busy rather than be effective.
But urgency is not strategy.
And visibility is not accountability.
Many automation projects begin with a problem that’s poorly defined and an outcome that’s politically driven. The business thinks it knows what it needs, but because the issue is viewed in isolation, the “solution” ends up being another disconnected patch.
The result?
Shortcuts in scope.
Compressed timelines.
Under-resourced teams.
And decisions made by whoever shouts loudest, not whoever understands the system best.
By the time the automation goes live, the real problem is still unresolved — it’s just harder to see.
The Compounding Risk of Poor Project Delivery
Every automation initiative begins life as a project.
And that’s where the story of risk really starts.
When project fundamentals are weak — unclear purpose, poor governance, fragile communication — automation doesn’t save you.
It exposes you.
Poor scope? Now you’ve automated it.
Misaligned expectations? Now they run 24/7.
Weak accountability? Now it’s coded into the system.
This is the compounding effect of mismanagement: when leadership treats delivery like a tick-box instead of a discipline, every future project inherits the flaws of the last.
Automation doesn’t just magnify output — it magnifies oversight failure.
The Human Factor We Keep Ignoring
Behind every failed automation story is the same quiet truth: it was people who made the decisions, not machines.
The business believed it understood the problem.
The project team was pressured to move fast.
Suppliers delivered to spec, not to purpose.
And governance was an afterthought.
Add to that the ongoing skills crisis in cybersecurity, automation, and data management, and you have a capability gap that no AI can close.
Automation cannot compensate for misalignment, fatigue, or lack of care.
It can only make those risks move faster.
The Risk Rebel Perspective
Automation and project management are not separate challenges.
They’re reflections of the same leadership story — one of intent, clarity, and accountability.
The real difference isn’t in the tools. It’s in the lens leaders use.
Those who lead with the PROTECT mindset — grounded in people, trust, collaboration, and care — build projects that align purpose with delivery.
They recognise that systems don’t fail alone; they fail when the people guiding them lose sight of why they were built.
Planning Under Blue Skies means thinking ahead — not reacting in crisis.
It means creating projects and systems that don’t just work, but work together.
Because leadership isn’t about managing risk.
It’s about designing environments where people — and progress — can thrive.
A Moment of Reflection
Technology can execute.
But only people can lead.
Automation can make us faster.
But only people can make us wiser.
Until organisations fix how they deliver — not just what they deliver — automation will continue to amplify cracks instead of closing them.
The biggest risk facing business today isn’t AI, automation, or software failure.
It’s leadership failure — the belief that technology can replace judgment, accountability, and care.
So before you automate, pause and ask:
Are you solving the right problem — or just speeding up the wrong one?
Because leadership isn’t about controlling systems.
It’s about creating the conditions where people — and progress — can thrive.
That’s what it truly means to Protect the House.
