SI Series, Part 3: Hidden dysfunction problem

When a system integration is complete and the lights come on, no one wants to discover that the system that was supposed to unify the business is actually working against it. Yet that's exactly what happened to a major operator whose "successful" integration left them with three different versions of the same revenue numbers, one for operations, one for finance, and one for executives. None matched.

The integration project had everything going for it. Stakeholder workshops where everyone nodded in agreement. Requirements documents that passed every review. A project charter signed by all department heads. Even the vendor used them as a reference case.

Eighteen months later, they discovered the alignment was completely fictional.

When Teams Think They're Aligned But Aren't

Hidden dysfunction thrives when alignment is assumed rather than verified. A single overlooked difference, like how one team defines "depth" in a geological model or how another interprets "success" in a data migration, can silently undercut the entire integration effort.

Studies often find that 70% of transformation and integration projects fail to achieve their intended goals. In our experience, hidden dysfunction is often the key factor. When teams think they're aligned but aren't, they find themselves months later dealing with reports that don't reconcile, critical data that can't be trusted, and operational delays that drain both time and trust.

The problem starts with surface-level agreement. Teams use the same words but mean different things. When the project charter promises "real-time data," operations assume fifteen-minute updates for production decisions. Finance assumes daily updates for reporting. Regulatory assumes four-hour updates for compliance. All reasonable interpretations. All different. All impossible to deliver simultaneously without explicit trade-offs that no one discussed.

As Peter Drucker observed, "Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work." The hard work of integration isn't just technical, it's the unglamorous process of surfacing and resolving the misalignments that hide beneath polite agreement.

The Warning Signs of Invisible Misalignment

The Vocabulary Trap Different teams see success differently: some prioritize data fidelity, others speed or cost savings. Listen for the same words meaning different things. "Customer data" means prospects to sales, billing records to finance, and service history to operations. When teams start creating their own definitions—"adjusted revenue," "operational revenue," "recognized revenue"—you're seeing evidence that the system can't deliver what everyone actually needs.

Assumptions Go Untested Data models and workflows aren't stress-tested with real-world data. Teams assume that regional differences in geological modeling or variations in data reporting standards won't break the "one-size-fits-all" approach. These assumptions feel safe until the system goes live and encounters the messy complexity of actual operations.

Trade-Offs Stay Hidden Critical decisions get made without full documentation or sharing, so no one sees the cumulative impact. The result is a system that meets technical milestones but can't handle real-world complexity. Reporting errors become routine. Workflows that seemed efficient create new workarounds. Once trust erodes, teams revert to spreadsheets and manual processes, undoing the very investment the integration was meant to protect.

The Expert Exodus Your most knowledgeable people start avoiding the system. Senior analysts request raw data instead of using automated reports. Experienced managers revert to email for important communications. This isn't resistance to change, it's a rational response to a system that makes their work harder, not easier.

The Real Cost in Upstream

When integration decisions directly affect regulatory compliance, operational continuity, and field development, the cost of these mistakes is felt on the ground in lost production time and missed opportunities. Companies typically see integration projects consume 40-60% more resources than planned, not because of technical failures, but because of the endless cycle of fixes and workarounds needed to bridge gaps that should never have existed.

The organizational cost is worse. Trust erodes in both the system and the people who built it. Teams develop parallel processes that recreate the inefficiencies the integration was supposed to eliminate. Decision-making slows as people lose confidence in system outputs and start building verification processes for everything.

What Actually Works

Experienced project leaders don't assume alignment, they verify it and refine it throughout the integration process. Start by asking each stakeholder group to define what success means for their specific part of the business. Not generic goals, but measurable outcomes they can observe in their daily work.

Challenge assumptions early by stress-testing proposed workflows and data structures with real operational data, not theoretical models. Look for points where assumptions break down, like regional differences in geological modeling or variations in regulatory reporting requirements.

Document trade-offs transparently. Make visible what's gained and what's sacrificed in each major decision. When every department understands what they're getting and what they're giving up, trust builds and surprises get minimized.

Test with real scenarios before finalizing design. Run actual business processes through the system using the messy, inconsistent data that exists in your current environment. Look for places where elegant design breaks down when it encounters real-world complexity.

Moving Forward

A system integration is supposed to unify a business, not divide it. Yet without tackling hidden dysfunction head-on, even the most sophisticated implementation can end up creating more problems than it solves.

The companies that avoid this trap don't have better communication or stronger project management—they have better assumption testing. They verify that shared vocabulary means shared understanding. They surface conflicts between departmental needs before those conflicts get embedded in system design.

The question isn't whether your integration will face alignment challenges—it's whether you'll discover those challenges during design when they're fixable, or after go-live when they're expensive.

---

If you’re planning an integration and want a partner who brings both competence and candor, schedule a consultation with us.