The Room Cools. The Furnace Kicks Back On. Nobody Calls That Indecisive.
72% of supply chain leaders revisit major decisions—more than half do it 3+ times. Why portfolio governance needs built-in loops, not rigid finish lines.
Gartner asked 151 supply chain leaders about the last major investment decision they signed off on. 72% had already gone back and revisited it. More than half did that three times or more.
Most portfolio governance treats the approval meeting as the finish line. Go back to it after, and it reads like a problem—somebody didn't do their homework, or somebody lost their nerve.
Grinding Instability vs. Big Disruptions
Gartner's own conclusion cuts the other way. It's not the big disruptions that erode a decision. It's the ordinary grinding instability underneath it:
- Cost swings
- Capacity shifts
- Demand that won't hold still
None of it gets priced into the original business case. When it shows up, a leader either quietly eats it or drags it back to the room and answers for why they didn't see it coming.
Designing Reversible Gateways
I run intake for a program that moves work from unfunded proof-of-concept into funded investment. If that gate only opens once, the whole process breaks the first time a cost estimate turns out wrong three months later.
A thermostat doesn't apologize for kicking the furnace back on when the room cools off. Nobody calls that indecisive. It's just the system doing what it's built to do: read the room, adjust, repeat.
Does your governance model have a place to revisit a decision without it looking like you got it wrong the first time?