Governance - Without it any program or project is destined to fail. Is it the secret sauce for success? How much governance, and when is it too much (ever fed a Mogwai after midnight, and let it go for a swim)? Governance is good, too much governance is as much a recipe for chaos and disaster as not having it at all, but with the added expense of governance.
Governance is for....
Governance is for the benefit of the program. It happens when the information naturally generated by the program is funnelled upwards and outwards, where everyone that needs the information to make effective decisions, has the information to make effective decisions efficiently.
This requires a simple to use, yet comprehensive project management system. A single or integrated system for managing project plans, tasks, completion, issues, risks, and documents. If the tools do not give that integrated and comprehensive view over a program, the stakeholders do not have adequate information to make decisions effectively. The compensation? Add more people in the governance to make sense of the disparate data. This is true for the governance at the customer site, as well as with the implementation partner (if your partner has a significant governance contingent, the question you should ask is: what portion of this governance team is there to compensate the lack (or poor use) of the project management tools?
Keep them busy
Should you find yourself in a program with a larger than necessary governance team, it is not uncommon to find the governance team creating its own workload. Unfortunately, for every hour that a governance team member creates in work for him or herself, anywhere between 5 minutes and 15 minutes per project member is created (that adds up quickly - a larger sized program with 50 team members will have between 250 and 750 minutes of work created for every hour of additionally invented governance).
Make governance effective again
Keeping a program on budget, on scope, on time, and on track to deliver value requires governance. With the right tools in place, most of the governance work is completely transparent to the program team, and only in terms of steering towards budget, scope, time, and value is the governance influencing the work of the program team. Integration of the tools across the project functionality is critical. It is no use of having a comprehensive Microsoft Project Server instance to cover the project, if it is not used, or integrated with, an time-registration tool, an issue and risk register, and a decision log. Any manual reconciliation that needs to be done across systems, is a potential for error and obfuscation (a little bit of inaccuracy can save tons of explanation!). Integrating Microsoft Project Server with Visual Studio Team Foundation Server will provide a lot more insight, especially if VSTFS is used for updates of tasks and spent time, which then integrates into Project Server. However, this program infrastructure comes at a cost - both license and actual set up per program is in many cases cost prohibitive. There are simpler solutions on the market, that offer a very comprehensive (albeit with less bells and whistles) integrated view on the performance of the project.
Governance teams and meetings
Who should be in the governance team? The answer to that question depends on the size, complexity and nature of the program. However, it is quite easy to determine who should not be there:
· Eaves-droppers - those gathering and collating information and pushing that "up the chain". If your tools are not adequate to provide this information, then a project administrator could compile the reports. However, this is not part of the governance team
· No-Stakeholders - advisors are useful on any program, but they are not part of the governance team, as they are not stakeholders in the sense of budget, scope, time, or value.
· VIP's - visitors, either once or regular, with a significant standing in the organisation (usually at the implementing partner) visiting but not having a role on the program. These people may have a stake in the overall performance of the program team. but their stake in the success is already delegated down to the program director via accountability. It is great to have these Very Important People visit the program (as a show of commitment, and as a means to get a message heard across the partner organisation), but it is not an extension of the governance team
The governance team is kept small and efficient, the meetings are to the point as well. Following are important governance aspects, and each should have an appropriate slot with the right stakeholders:
· Executive Steering Committee Meeting - in very large programs, this is the executive level of decision making, represented by members of the C-suite.
· Operational Steering Committee Meeting - Ultimate operational steering of the program. In smaller programs, this is combined with the Executive Steering Committee meeting in one meeting only.
· Architecture Review Board - review, advisory, and steering with regards to architectural decisions and their influence on budget, scope, and cost (short term) as well as value (long term). Reports into the Operational Steering Committee with summary findings and direction
· Project Status Reporting and Meetings - scope, budget, and time steering, reports into steering committee
· Risk and issues meetings - reporting, assigning ownership and status of issues and risks, reports into status meeting (or in smaller programs, is part of the status meeting).
The right tools
Effective governance is a combination of the right tools, and the right people. The more seamless the integration between the various program information streams, the more effective a small team of people can be in the governance. The more information that needs to be gathered and collated, the longer it takes for information to flow, and the less informed stakeholders feel - having a substantial stake in the success of a program, but not having the right information at the right time, is a trigger for having direct or delegated involvement in governance (more often than not, at the expense of the program). Never underestimate the need for good governance, nor the damage governance out of control can do.
Originally posted: 8 January 2018