Here's my observation:
Any large bureaucracy with the inevitable personal and public politics, territorial protections, and constant tussles for dominance will have risk attitudes that tend to run vertically, not necessarily shared, consistent, or coherent laterally by process.
So, as a transaction progresses laterally through an organization, it will be buffeted or influenced by different risk attitudes as it crosses vertical boundaries in the process flow.
And, of course, as the apparent risk changes -- I say 'apparent risk', but I'm really referring to the transaction's utility -- then the SWOT of the transaction changes complexion.
In other words, what may be of great utility to me won't necessarily be of great utility to you -- so I'll support the transaction -- it's an opportunity -- but you may not -- it's a risk -- and so it gets stuck in the process unless "the big guy/gal" kicks it loose.
The way to keep things moving is by finding and then supporting an interest that favors the nemesis but yet is tolerable to you. After all, transactions don't have friends, they just have interests. If it favors me, I'll help push on that rock.
Sometimes, as anyone who has found this magic knows, an interest needs to be created where it does not naturally occur.
Who has not seen a totally irrelevant idea/need/favor attached to something to create the necessary grease to move things along? So long as there is legitimacy, transparency, and lack of personal corruption, so be it.
Read in the library at Square Peg Consulting about these books I've written
Buy them at any online book retailer!
Read my contribution to the Flashblog