Project governance

Last updated

Project governance is the management framework within which project decisions are made. Project governance is a critical element of any project, since the accountabilities and responsibilities associated with an organization's business as usual activities are laid down in their organizational governance arrangements; seldom does an equivalent framework exist to govern the development of its capital investments (projects). For instance, the organization chart provides a good indication of who in the organization is responsible for any particular operational activity the organization conducts. But unless an organization has specifically developed a project governance policy, no such chart is likely to exist for project development activity.

Contents

Therefore, the role of project governance is to provide a decision making framework that is logical, robust and repeatable to govern an organization's capital investments. In this way, an organization will have a structured approach to conducting both its business as usual activities and its business change, or project, activities.

Three pillars of project governance

The decision making framework is supported by three pillars:

Structure

This refers to the governance committee structure. In the first instance the Capital Expenditure Board that sanction resources (capital, human and other) to projects. Secondly the portfolio committee who ensures that the right project are selected. As well as there being a Project Board [1] or Project Steering Committee, the broader governance environment may include various stakeholder groups and perhaps user groups. Additionally, there may be a Programme, governing a group of related projects of which this is one, and possibly some form of portfolio decision making group. The decision rights of all these committees and how they relate must be laid down in policy and procedural documentation. In this way, the project's governance can be integrated within the wider governance arena.

The other governing bodies include the following:

People

The effectiveness of the committee structure is dependent upon the people that populate the various governance committees. Committee membership is determined by the nature of the project - other factors come into play when determining membership of programme and portfolio boards - which in turn determines which organisational roles should be represented on the committee.

Information

This concerns the information that informs decision makers and consists of regular reports on the project, issues and risks that have been escalated by the Project Manager and certain key documents that describe the project, foremost of which is the business case.

Core project governance principles

Project governance frameworks should be based around a number of core principles in order to ensure their effectiveness.

Principle 1: Ensure a single point of accountability for the success of the project

The most fundamental project accountability is accountability for the success of the project. A project without a clear understanding of who assumes accountability for its success has no clear leadership. With no clear accountability for project success, there is no one person driving the solution of the difficult issues that beset all projects at some point in their life. It also slows the project during the crucial project initiation phase since there is no one person to take the important decisions necessary to place the project on a firm footing. The concept of a single point of accountability is the first principle of effective project governance.

However, it is not enough to nominate someone to be accountable – the right person must be made accountable. There are two aspects to this. The accountable person must hold sufficient authority within the organisation to ensure they are empowered to make the decisions necessary for the project's success. Beyond this however is the fact that the right person from the correct area within the organisation be held accountable. If the wrong person is selected, the project is no better placed than if no one was accountable for its success. The single person who will assume accountability for the success of the project is the subject of Principle 2.

Principle 2: Project ownership independent of Asset ownership, Service ownership or other stakeholder group

Often organisations promote the allocation of the project owner role to the service owner or asset owner with the goal of providing more certainty that the project will meet these owner's fundamental needs, which is also a critical project success measure. However, the result of this approach can involve wasteful scope inclusions and failure to achieve alternative stakeholder and customer requirements:

  1. The benefit of the doubt goes to the stakeholder allocated with the project owner responsibility, skewing the project outcome;
  2. Project owner requirements receive less scrutiny, reducing innovation and reducing outcome efficiency;
  3. Different skill sets surround project ownership, Asset ownership and Service ownership placing sound project decision making and procedure at risk;
  4. Operational needs always prevail, placing the project at risk of being neglected during such times;
  5. Project contingencies are at risk of being allocated to additional scope for the stakeholder allocated project ownership.

The only proven mechanism for ensuring projects meet customer and stakeholder needs, while optimising value for money, is to allocate project ownership to specialist party, that otherwise would not be a stakeholder to the project. This is principle No. 2 of project governance.

The project owner is engaged under clear terms which outline the organisations key result areas and the organisation's view of the key project stakeholders. Often, organisations establish a Governance of Projects Committee, which identifies the existence of projects and appoints project owners as early as possible in a project's life, establishes Project Councils which form the basis of customer and stakeholder engagement, establishes the key result areas for a project consistent with the organisations values, and, oversees the performance of projects. These parameters are commonly detailed in a Project Governance Plan which remains in place for the life of the project (and is distinct from a Project Management Plan which is more detailed and only comes into existence during the development of the project).

Projects have many stakeholders and an effective project governance framework must address their needs. The next principle deals with the manner in which this should occur.

Principle 3: Ensure separation of stakeholder management and project decision making activities

The decision making effectiveness of a committee can be thought of as being inversely proportional to its size. Not only can large committees fail to make timely decisions, those it does make are often ill-considered because of the particular group dynamics at play.

As project decision making forums grow in size, they tend to morph into stakeholder management groups. When numbers increase, the detailed understanding of each attendee of the critical project issues reduces. Many of those present attend not to make decisions but as a way of finding out what is happening on the project. Not only is there insufficient time for each person to make their point, but those with the most valid input must compete for time and influence with those with only a peripheral involvement in the project. Further not all present will have the same level of understanding of the issues and so time is wasted bringing everyone up to speed on the particular issues being discussed. Hence, to all intents and purposes, large project committees are constituted more as a stakeholder management forum than a project decision making forum. This is a major issue when the project is depending upon the committee to make timely decisions.

There is no question that both activities, project decision making and stakeholder management, are essential to the success of the project. The issue is that they are two separate activities and need to be treated as such. This is the third principle of effective project governance. If this separation can be achieved, it will avoid clogging the decision making forum with numerous stakeholders by constraining its membership to only those select stakeholders absolutely central to its success.

There is always the concern that this solution will lead to a further problem if disgruntled stakeholders do not consider their needs are being met. Whatever stakeholder management mechanism that is put in place must adequately address the needs of all project stakeholders. It will need to capture their input and views and address their concerns to their satisfaction. This can be achieved in part by chairing of any key stakeholder groups by the chair of the Project Board. This ensures that stakeholders have the project owner (or SRO) to champion their issues and concerns within the Project Board.

Principle 4: Ensure separation of project governance and organisational governance structures

Project governance structures are established precisely because it is recognised that organisation structures do not provide the necessary framework to deliver a project. Projects require flexibility and speed of decision making and the hierarchical mechanisms associated with organisation charts do not enable this. Project governance structures overcome this by drawing the key decision makers out of the organisation structure and placing them in a forum thereby avoiding the serial decision-making process associated with hierarchies.

Consequently, the project governance framework established for a project should remain separate from the organisation structure. It is recognised that the organisation has valid requirements in terms of reporting and stakeholder involvement. However dedicated reporting mechanisms established by the project can address the former and the project governance framework must itself address the latter. What should be avoided is the situation where the decisions of the steering committee or project board are required to be ratified by one or more persons in the organisation outside of that project decision making forum; either include these individuals as members of the project decision-making body or fully empower the current steering committee/project board. The steering committee/project board is responsible for approving, reviewing progress, and delivering the project outcomes, and its intended benefits, therefore, they must have capacity to make decisions, which may commit resources and funding outside the original plan. This is the final principle of effective project governance.

Adoption of this principle will minimise multi layered decision making and the time delays and inefficiencies associated with it. It will ensure a project decision-making body empowered to make decisions in a timely manner. [2]

Additional and complementary principles of governance

The board has overall responsibility for governance of project management. The roles, responsibilities and performance criteria for the governance of project management are clearly defined. Disciplined governance arrangements, supported by appropriate methods and controls are applied throughout the project life cycle. A coherent and supportive relationship is demonstrated between the overall business strategy and the project portfolio.

All projects have an approved plan containing authorisation points, at which the business case is reviewed and approved. Decisions made at authorisation points are recorded and communicated. Members of delegated authorisation bodies have sufficient representation, competence, authority and resources to enable them to make appropriate decisions. The project business case is supported by relevant and realistic information that provides a reliable basis for making authorisation decisions. The board or its delegated agents decide when independent scrutiny of projects and project management systems is required, and implement such scrutiny accordingly.

There are clearly defined criteria for reporting project status and for the escalation of risks and issues to the levels required by the organisation. The organisation fosters a culture of improvement and of frank internal disclosure of project information. Project stakeholders are engaged at a level that is commensurate with their importance to the organisation and in a manner that fosters trust. [3]

Principles for multi-owned projects

Multi-owned is defined as being a project where the board shares ultimate control with other parties. The principles are: [4]

Roles

A key role in project governance is that of the project sponsor. The project sponsor has three main areas of responsibility which are to the board, the project manager and the project stakeholders.

The board

For the board, the sponsor provides leadership on culture and values, owns the business case, keeps the project aligned with the organisation's strategy and portfolio direction, governs project risk, works with other sponsors, focuses on realisation of benefits, recommends opportunities to optimise cost/benefits, ensures continuity of sponsorship, provides assurance and provides feedback and lessons learnt.

The project manager

For the project manager, the sponsor provides timely decisions, clarifies decision making framework, clarifies business priorities and strategy, communicates business issues, provides resources, engenders trust, manages relationships, and promotes ethical working.

Project stakeholders

For other project stakeholders, the project sponsor engages stakeholders, governs stakeholder communications, directs client relationship, directs governance of users, directs governance of suppliers and arbitrates between stakeholders. [5]

Elements

Project governance will:

Important specific elements of good project governance include:

See also

Related Research Articles

Corporate governance is defined, described or delineated in diverse ways, depending on the writer's purpose. Writers focussed on a disciplinary interest or context often adopt narrow definitions that appear purpose-specific. Writers concerned with regulatory policy in relation to corporate governance practices often use broader structural descriptions. A broad (meta) definition that encompasses many adopted definitions is '“Corporate governance” describes the processes, structures, and mechanisms that influence the control and direction of corporations'.

Governance is the process of interactions through the laws, norms, power or language of an organized society over a social system. It is done by the government of a state, by a market, or by a network. It is the decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that leads to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions". In lay terms, it could be described as the political processes that exist in and between formal institutions.

Information technology (IT) governance is a subset discipline of corporate governance, focused on information technology (IT) and its performance and risk management. The interest in IT governance is due to the ongoing need within organizations to focus value creation efforts on an organization's strategic objectives and to better manage the performance of those responsible for creating this value in the best interest of all stakeholders. It has evolved from The Principles of Scientific Management, Total Quality Management and ISO 9001 Quality management system.

A responsibility assignment matrix (RAM), also known as RACI matrix or linear responsibility chart (LRC), describes the participation by various roles in completing tasks or deliverables for a project or business process. RACI is an acronym derived from the four key responsibilities most typically used: responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. It is used for clarifying and defining roles and responsibilities in cross-functional or departmental projects and processes. There are a number of alternatives to the RACI model.

In a corporation, a stakeholder is a member of "groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist", as defined in the first usage of the word in a 1963 internal memorandum at the Stanford Research Institute. The theory was later developed and championed by R. Edward Freeman in the 1980s. Since then it has gained wide acceptance in business practice and in theorizing relating to strategic management, corporate governance, business purpose and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The definition of corporate responsibilities through a classification of stakeholders to consider has been criticized as creating a false dichotomy between the "shareholder model" and the "stakeholders model" or a false analogy of the obligations towards shareholders and other interested parties.

Clinical governance is a systematic approach to maintaining and improving the quality of patient care within the National Health Service (NHS). Clinical governance became important in health care after the Bristol heart scandal in 1995, during which an anaesthetist, Dr Stephen Bolsin, exposed the high mortality rate for paediatric cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. It was originally elaborated within the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS), and its most widely cited formal definition describes it as:

A framework through which NHS organisations are accountable for continually improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish.

Executive sponsor is a role in project management, usually the senior member of the project board and often the chair. The project sponsor will be a senior executive in a corporation who is responsible to the business for the success of the project.

The chief risk officer (CRO) or chief risk management officer (CRMO) or chief risk and compliance officer (CRCO) of a firm or corporation is the executive accountable for enabling the efficient and effective governance of significant risks, and related opportunities, to a business and its various segments. Risks are commonly categorized as strategic, reputational, operational, financial, or compliance-related. CROs are accountable to the Executive Committee and The Board for enabling the business to balance risk and reward. In more complex organizations, they are generally responsible for coordinating the organization's Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) approach. The CRO is responsible for assessing and mitigating significant competitive, regulatory, and technological threats to a firm's capital and earnings. The CRO roles and responsibilities vary depending on the size of the organization and industry. The CRO works to ensure that the firm is compliant with government regulations, such as Sarbanes–Oxley, and reviews factors that could negatively affect investments. Typically, the CRO is responsible for the firm's risk management operations, including managing, identifying, evaluating, reporting and overseeing the firm's risks externally and internally to the organization and works diligently with senior management such as chief executive officer and chief financial officer.

Internal audit Independent, objective assurance and consulting activity

Internal auditing is an independent, objective assurance and consulting activity designed to add value and improve an organization's operations. It may help an organization accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance processes. Internal auditing might achieve this goal by providing insight and recommendations based on analyses and assessments of data and business processes. With commitment to integrity and accountability, internal auditing provides value to governing bodies and senior management as an objective source of independent advice. Professionals called internal auditors are employed by organizations to perform the internal auditing activity.

Governance in higher education is the means by which institutions for higher education are formally organized and managed. Simply, university governance is the way in which universities are operated. Governing structures for higher education are highly differentiated throughout the world, but the different models nonetheless share a common heritage. Internationally, tertiary education includes private not-for-profit, private for-profit, and public institutions governed by differentiated structures of management.

Internal control, as defined by accounting and auditing, is a process for assuring of an organization's objectives in operational effectiveness and efficiency, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with laws, regulations and policies. A broad concept, internal control involves everything that controls risks to an organization.

Small Charity Governance is concerned with the control and direction of charitable organisations established for the public benefit in the United Kingdom. The majority of charities in England and Wales have an income under £10,000, and only about 22% of charities have any staff at all. Many community groups and small voluntary organisations are not registered charities, because either their turnover is below the threshold for registration or their purpose does not fall within the definition of charitable activity. Much literature about governance is written from the perspective of the minority of larger charities; this article attempts to address the topic by focusing on the experience and concerns of the majority. Governance is the process through which a group of people make decisions which direct their collective efforts. This typically features delegation to a smaller group, which is in turn accountable to the stakeholders or owners of the organisation.

In 1997, a core set of six principles was established by ecological economist Robert Costanza for the sustainability governance of the oceans. These six principles became known as the "Lisbon Principles": together they provide basic guidelines for administering the use of common natural and social resources.

ISO 31000 is a family of standards relating to risk management codified by the International Organization for Standardization. ISO 31000:2018 provides principles and generic guidelines on managing risks faced by organizations.

Stakeholder engagement is the process by which an organization involves people who may be affected by the decisions it makes or can influence the implementation of its decisions. They may support or oppose the decisions, be influential in the organization or within the community in which it operates, hold relevant official positions or be affected in the long term.

The chief audit executive (CAE), director of audit, director of internal audit, auditor general, or controller general is a high-level independent corporate executive with overall responsibility for internal audit.

Project sponsorship is the ownership of projects on behalf of the client organization.

Benefits Realization Management (BRM) is one of the many ways of managing how time and resources are invested into making desirable changes.

National Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental and Economic Responsibilities of Business

India's National Voluntary Guidelines on Social, Environmental and Economic Responsibilities of Business (NVGs) were released by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) in July 2011 by Mr. Murli Deora, the former Honourable Minister for Corporate Affairs. The national framework on Business Responsibility is essentially a set of nine principles that offer businesses an Indian understanding and approach to inculcating responsible business conduct.

Service Integration and Management (SIAM) is an approach to managing multiple suppliers of services and integrating them to provide a single business-facing IT organization. It aims at seamlessly integrating interdependent services from various internal and external service providers into end-to-end services in order to meet business requirements.

References

  1. OGC, Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, London: TSO 2009
  2. Garland, Ross, Project Governance – a practical guide to effective project decision making, Kogan Page, London, Philadelphia, 2009.
  3. Directing Change - A guide to governance of project management, Association for Project Management, 2004. ISBN   1-903494-15-X
  4. Co-Directing Change - A guide to the governance of multi owned projects, Association for Project Management, 2007. ISBN   1-903494-94-X
  5. Sponsoring Change: A guide to the governance aspects of project sponsorship, Association for Project Management, 2009. ISBN   978-1-903494-30-1