Every ₦1 Billion Project Is Really Hundreds of Decisions
Executives approve a single number: the budget. But that number is the output of hundreds of smaller decisions made earlier and separately — by different people, at different times, often without anyone testing whether they still add up. Location. Scope. Unit mix. Contractor selection. Timeline. Each is made in relative isolation, then presented for sign-off as if it were self-evidently correct.
Where the Hundred Decisions Hide
By the time a project reaches a board for approval, most of its real decisions have already been made — quietly, upstream, without independent testing. The approval itself is really a ratification of choices already locked in:
- Which location, and against what alternatives
- What scope, and whether it matches the actual business need
- Which contractor, and on what basis they were selected
- What timeline, and whether it was set by the calendar or by the work
- What procurement structure, and who it protects
Construction does not correct a poor decision. It makes it permanent, at cost.
What Decision Governance Actually Means
Most organisations have governance for approving expenditure — sign-off thresholds, board papers, procurement committees. Far fewer have governance for improving the decisions underneath that expenditure. The two are not the same thing. Approval governance asks "has this been authorised." Decision governance asks "has this been tested."
The difference shows up after the fact, when a project is delivered on budget and on time — and still fails to serve the business it was built for. That outcome isn't a delivery failure. It's a decision that was never independently tested before it became expensive to reverse.