On a regular basis, organizations identify work that needs to be done on a business system within your organization. It might be implementing new tools or making enhancements to an existing solution. When planning and evaluating new things, everyone thinks about the end state, which usually sounds alluring and so much better than the current state. When consideration is given to the implementation process, everything sounds easy and manageable.
But then it comes time to do the work. Your Project Manager starts talking about Project Charters, Steering Committees, Risk Logs and Change Control. You take a look at the Project Charter – a 20-page document with sections on stakeholders and system architecture and communications plans – and you start thinking, “This sounded so easy – why can’t you just go ahead and implement it?”
Well, here’s why. Unlike managing regular day-to-day activities, project work normally involves more complexity and uncertainty. Although diligence may be exercised at each step of the project, additional requirements are identified, solutions do not always work as intended, activities take longer than expected, costs are higher, and end users may be less than enthusiastic about the proposed changes.
Including suitable project governance means the work is scoped, planned and documented. If done properly, all parties have a common understanding of what included in the project; what is not in scope; what time commitments from staff are expected and when. Status reports and steering committees provide executive support for projects so when things are getting off track or problems arise, the right people are in the room to make decisions about alternative plans. Risk logs can help you “plan for the worse, hope for the best” so when a risk materializes, you are prepared. Change management and effective communications help deal with the uncertainties and aversion to doing things differently that many people feel.
What, then, does suitable governance mean? Suitability is the balancing act between having enough governance process and documentation to manage the work and disproportionately creating overhead.
I think what makes sense at the project level is to evaluate three components: the resources required to do a project (normally money, people and equipment); the complexity of the proposed solution and changes; and the significance of impact on the organization. The higher you rate each of these items, the more rigorous governance you need.
At an organizational level, governance becomes more general as it looks at the status of the organization’s full project portfolio. Rather than looking at a single project, you have to evaluate all projects relative to each other, relative to their support of different corporate strategies and other factors. Similar to project level reviews, you are still looking at resource demands, progress against plan and how risks are being managed, so project level governance should inform organizational processes.
Yes, governance does create overhead. But it also encourages a robust, dispassionate assessment of progress and results, ensures project accountability and permits project reviews and adjustments that will help deliver the expected benefits.
