Stalled Decisions Stress Test | Decision Authority Diagnostic

Stalled Decisions Diagnostic

Stalled Decisions Stress Test

A 5-minute forced-choice diagnostic to identify where cross-functional authority, escalation structure and commitment discipline are causing decisions to stall in your organisation - before they reach the executive.

15 questions 5 decision governance dimensions Results shown on screen Complimentary

Stalled Decisions Stress Test 15 forced-choice questions across five decision governance dimensions. No middle ground. Your results are shown only to you and are not stored or shared. Designed for CEOs, COOs, GMs and senior leaders accountable for cross-departmental delivery.

Progress

0 of 15

Section 1 of 5 Cross-Functional Authority

1. When a decision requires input from more than one department, who has the formal authority to declare it complete?

Nobody formally owns it. The decision circulates until momentum or seniority forces it through. A senior leader informally declares completion when enough agreement exists. A lead department is understood to own completion, but this is not formally documented. A formally documented authority declares cross-functional decisions complete and is consistently applied.

2. When departments disagree on a decision that affects all of them, how is the disagreement formally resolved?

It escalates informally until someone with enough authority forces resolution. A lead department's view tends to prevail without a formal resolution process. A resolution process exists but relies on relationships rather than defined authority. A formally defined cross-functional resolution process with documented authority is consistently followed.

3. When a cross-functional program stalls because no department feels authorised to proceed, what triggers action?

External pressure - a deadline, complaint or senior intervention. An informal escalation when someone decides the stall has gone on long enough. A defined stall trigger exists but is not consistently applied. Formally defined stall triggers activate automatically and route the decision to the appropriate authority.

Section 2 of 5 Escalation Structure

4. When an issue originates in one department but affects others, at what point is it escalated across departmental boundaries?

When affected departments notice the impact. There is no formal cross-boundary trigger. When the originating department decides the impact is significant enough to share. Cross-boundary escalation triggers exist but are applied inconsistently. Formally defined cross-boundary escalation triggers activate when defined impact thresholds are reached.

5. When a cross-functional issue is escalated, how is it routed to the right decision-maker across departments?

Through informal relationships. Whoever knows the right person routes it. A general understanding of routing exists but depends on individual knowledge. Routing pathways are documented but not consistently followed. Formally defined routing pathways direct escalations to the right decision-maker without depending on individual relationships.

6. How frequently does the CEO or executive absorb decisions that should have resolved at a lower level?

Regularly. Cross-functional disputes routinely escalate to the executive. Often. A significant number of operational cross-functional decisions reach the executive. Sometimes. A minority of cross-functional decisions escalate unnecessarily. Rarely. Formal authority at the operational level handles most cross-functional decisions before they need to escalate.

Section 3 of 5 Handover and Accountability

7. When a program moves from one department to another, how is decision authority formally transferred?

Responsibility passes informally. The receiving department inherits the program without formal authority transfer. A handover meeting occurs informally but decision authority is not explicitly documented. Handover documentation exists but does not explicitly transfer decision authority. Decision authority is formally documented and explicitly transferred at each departmental handover point.

8. When a cross-functional program produces an outcome no single department owns, how is accountability assigned?

Accountability is diffuse. No department formally owns the outcome. The department that delivered the most work informally claims accountability. A process for assigning outcome accountability exists but is applied inconsistently. Cross-functional outcome accountability is formally assigned before the program begins and applied consistently at completion.

9. When a handover occurs mid-program due to restructuring or personnel change, how are outstanding decision commitments managed?

The incoming team inherits commitments informally without a formal review. A handover briefing occurs but outstanding commitments are not formally documented. A handover process exists but does not explicitly address outstanding decision commitments. Outstanding decision commitments are formally documented at handover and explicitly assigned to the incoming authority.

Section 4 of 5 Meeting and Commitment Discipline

10. After a cross-functional meeting where agreement is reached, how is that agreement converted into a binding commitment?

It is not. Participants leave with different understandings of what was decided. Meeting notes record the agreement informally but there is no formal commitment mechanism. A commitment mechanism exists but is not consistently applied across all meetings. A formally defined commitment mechanism converts meeting agreements into binding decisions with named owners and timeframes.

11. When action is agreed across departments and then does not happen, how is accountability for non-delivery handled?

It is rarely addressed. The item reappears in the next meeting without consequence. The relevant person is informally reminded but there is no formal accountability process. A follow-up process exists but is inconsistently applied. A formal accountability process tracks cross-departmental commitments and addresses non-delivery through a defined mechanism.

12. How long does a typical cross-functional decision take from the point all parties agree it needs to be made to the point it is formally closed?

It is not tracked. There is no visibility of cross-functional decision cycle time. It varies widely and informally depending on who is involved and how much pressure exists. Some categories of decision have expected timeframes but actual performance is not systematically tracked. Cross-functional decision cycle times are formally tracked and managed against defined thresholds.

Section 5 of 5 Decision Velocity

13. Does your organisation have visibility of how many cross-functional decisions are currently open, stalled or waiting for input?

No. There is no mechanism to track the status of cross-functional decisions. Informal awareness exists but there is no structured visibility. Some categories of decision are tracked but coverage is incomplete. A formal mechanism provides visibility of all significant cross-functional decisions and their current status.

14. When a cross-functional decision has been open longer than expected, what triggers a formal response?

Nothing formal. The decision continues to wait until someone acts informally. An informal response when someone notices the delay has become problematic. A response is expected after a certain point but the trigger is not formally defined. A formally defined age threshold triggers an automatic escalation or resolution process.

15. When your organisation needs to accelerate a cross-functional decision because of external pressure, how reliably can it do so without creating new governance failures?

It cannot reliably. Acceleration typically requires bypassing normal process. It can accelerate through informal authority but the outcome is variable. An acceleration mechanism exists but is not consistently applied without creating new problems. A formally defined acceleration pathway enables faster decisions without bypassing governance structure.

Please answer all 15 questions before submitting.

Your Stalled Decisions Results This is a directional view of where decision governance pressure may be emerging across your organisation.

0 / 60

—

Each section is scored out of 12.

Critical risk (0–5) Elevated risk (6–8) Developing (9–10) Managed (11–12)

S1—

Cross-Functional Authority Q1 Q2 Q3

0 / 12

S2—

Escalation Structure Q4 Q5 Q6

0 / 12

S3—

Handover and Accountability Q7 Q8 Q9

0 / 12

S4—

Meeting and Commitment Discipline Q10 Q11 Q12

0 / 12

S5—

Decision Velocity Q13 Q14 Q15

0 / 12

Primary exposure pattern

—

Complete the diagnostic to see your result.

Strongest underlying governance pressure

—

Complete the diagnostic to see your result.

These results are directional. Decision governance pressure is rarely confined to a single dimension. Interpreting what this pattern means in your specific environment requires context. Request Your Results Discussion

Next Step

Request Your Results Discussion

Your diagnostic results indicate where decision governance pressure may be forming in your environment. The next step is a short conversation to discuss what the pattern means in your specific context.

UrbanTech Plus will arrange a short discussion to explore what your results mean in your specific environment. From that conversation, a written report is prepared and walked through with you.

Your most visible problem area

Complete the diagnostic above first. Your result pattern will appear here automatically.

What you receive

A short discussion to explore what your results mean in your environment
A written report identifying the primary governance pressure point
Guidance on whether the issue appears isolated or structural
A walkthrough of findings and practical next steps
No obligation to proceed beyond the initial discussion

The discussion is focused and brief. The written report follows from that conversation, not before it.

Request Your Results Discussion

Complete the diagnostic above first. Your results will be attached automatically. We will be in touch to arrange a brief discussion.

First name

Last name

Organisation

Role

No obligation to proceed beyond the initial discussion. Prefer to call? Reach Shayne on 0411 261 161.

Please complete the diagnostic above first.

Thank You

We have received your results. Someone from UrbanTech Plus will be in touch shortly to arrange a brief discussion about what the pattern means in your environment.

There is no obligation to proceed beyond that conversation. You can reach Shayne directly at shayne@urbantechplus.com or on 0411 261 161.