The false economy of cutting risk budgets — why accountability in project leadership still falls short

This blog contends that reducing contingency and risk budgets in complex programmes is a false economy that widens the accountability gap between senior decision-makers and delivery teams. Drawing on examples from the UK Ministry of Defence and the National Health Service, it demonstrates how risk funding is often reallocated without equivalent scrutiny of the upstream decisions that create exposure. The outcome is unresourced risk, ritualised assurance, and psychological strain on project teams who lack the authority to address root causes but still bear the reputational blame when outcomes falter. Framing the issue as one of symbolic rather than genuine accountability, the piece highlights “performative compliance” and the shifting of responsibility downwards. In line with the APM Body of Knowledge (8th ed.) guidance, it recommends practical actions for project managers, including decision logging, rapid reflective loops, influence mapping, explicit governance of contingency, and collaborating with assurance to reveal decisions, safeguard well-being, and restore trust while longer-term system reforms are implemented.