The Project Manager’s View of the Governance Team/Function
Some project managers see the project governance team (sponsor and steering committee) as a headache — a chore to manage and corral.
Others see the project governance team as a ‘god-send’ — and use it as a ‘rubber stamp’ that could also take responsibility for the (lack of) results.
Good and Bad Experiences
Some project managers are affected by having worked with ineffective governance teams. “They were basically ‘noise’. We presented a pack (to them) each month, they asked a few questions, agreed just about everything we asked for and then we were off for another month. But ask them to make a critical decision, and we were delayed for four weeks or more!” (This is an example of an ‘abdication’ governance team who are too remote from the project detail to easily make a decision.)
The other end of the spectrum is the ‘over-controlling’ governance team. “They are a nightmare! They’re always second-guessing what we’re dong and how we’re doing it. I have to spend half the month nurturing them to prevent them taking over the project and to ensure we get the decisions we want without recourse to analysis paralysis and reports on reports.”
One project manager had a project sponsor who was also the subject matter expert for the project and who, therefore, wanted to define the solution, design the documentation, set the policies, evaluate the training, etc. The project manager offered to give up his role to the sponsor who was quite affronted. He was “only trying to help” and offer their expertise. (A truce was organized with a clear delineation of roles policed by an outsider.)
Few project managers ever see the governance team as an active resource for them to use. Presumably because they’d never seen a steering committee act in this role.
We advocate to steering committees that they see themselves as a resource for the project team — a resource to get things happening, remove obstacles, champion the project in difficult times, lead the way and take the action necessary to ensure the project’s business success — rather than just be a controlling body.
To all steering committees this notion of being a resource for the project is one they hadn’t considered before. They’d always assumed that they were there to ‘govern’ and ‘control’, just as senior managers are there to ‘manage’.
But once they’d ‘got it’ their project managers reported far more useful, action oriented and effective steering committee meetings!
Project Managers Vis-à-Vis Sponsors v Steering Committees
Project managers tended to confuse the different relationships they should have with their sponsors and steering committees.
They basically tended to treat the sponsor as a person to get more detailed briefings, otherwise the reporting is the same. This should not be the case.
The project manager and sponsor are accountable for focusing on the project's progress, the budget, timelines and other project management performance measures. Their perspective, in this situation, is in on the project dimensions.
The project manager and the steering committee (which, in this case, includes the Project Sponsor) are accountable for focusing on the business’ progress, how well the business outcomes, benefits and value is being (or going to be) realized. Their perspective is on the business dimensions.
This distinction has not been recognised in any of the governance reporting we have seen.
Start by understanding the 26 dimensions of project governance.
