The Framework of Project Governance
(→Three Pillars of Project Governance) |
(→Three Pillars of Project Governance) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Three Pillars of Project Governance=== | ===Three Pillars of Project Governance=== | ||
; Structure | ; Structure | ||
| − | The structure of project governance refers to the structure of the governance committee and the project steering committee. The broader governance environment includes various stakeholders and user groups. In some cases, there is a programmed board managing a group of related projects which form a portfolio decision-making group. These committees are required to establish policies and procedures in which decision rights and | + | The structure of project governance refers to the structure of the governance committee and the project steering committee. The broader governance environment includes various stakeholders and user groups. In some cases, there is a programmed board managing a group of related projects which form a portfolio decision-making group. These committees are required to establish policies and procedures in which decision rights and relationships are documented.<ref name="TTP"/> |
; People | ; People | ||
Revision as of 22:19, 20 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract
Project governance is the establishment of organizational comprehension and circumstances under which delivering and organizing successful projects.[1] Establishing project governance for all projects is an essential element in defining responsibilities and accountabilities in organizational control. Project governance provides a framework for consistent, robust and repeatable decision making. Hence, this offers a structured approach towards assuring businesses to conduct project activities, "business as usual" activities, as well as organizational changes.[2] Project success is the primary objective of all projects; thus the systematic application of suitable methods and a stable relationship with project governance is of vital importance to reach an optimal project success.[3] According to the research article "Project Governance – The Definition and Leadership Dilemma"; a majority of authors on project governance have a background in project management, where they attempt to create the project governance framework through a bottom-up approach. Due to a variety of projects in the industry, the range of stakeholders interest, different values and types, and complexity spectrum, the bottom-up strategy has its limitations when providing concise guidance to managers when executing and enforcing project governance.[4] Based on these observations, the objective of this article sections into three parts; firstly the big idea of project governance will be described including the three pillars of project governance. Secondly, three different approaches towards project governance will be identified along with the core principles. Lastly, the limitations concerning the different approach towards project governance will be analyzed.
The Big Idea
The governance of project management involves areas of corporate governance which mainly relate to project activities. Effective governance of project management ensures that the project portfolio of an organization is aligned to its objective, delivered efficiently and is sustainable. The governance of project management also supports the corporate board and project stakeholders receiving timely, relevant and reliable information.[5] According to the PMBOK® guide, the oversight of project governance aligns with the organization's governance model, which includes the project life-cycle. The project governance framework provides structure, processes, decision-making models and tools for the project manager and team members to manage the project while supporting and controlling the project for successful delivery. A project's governance defines and fits within the broader context of the portfolio, program, or organization sponsoring it but is separate from organizational management.[6] Project governance involves stakeholders, as well as documented policies, procedures, and standards; responsibilities; and authorities. The project sponsor is also required in the project governance, which is the person who authorizes the project, makes executive decisions, solves problems and conflicts beyond the authority of the project manager. Additionally, the project steering committee or board, which provide senior level guidance to the project, are also involved in the project governance.[6][7]
Three Pillars of Project Governance
- Structure
The structure of project governance refers to the structure of the governance committee and the project steering committee. The broader governance environment includes various stakeholders and user groups. In some cases, there is a programmed board managing a group of related projects which form a portfolio decision-making group. These committees are required to establish policies and procedures in which decision rights and relationships are documented.[2]
- People
The effective structure of the governance committee depends on the people participating in the committees. The nature of the project determines the committee's membership. In regards to programmer and portfolio boards, different factors come into play when deciding the memberships which result in the decision of which organizational roles should be represented in the committee.[2]
- Information
The project manager escalates information that informs decision makers, the governance committee, which consists of regular reports on the project, issues, and risks. These key documents are the main elements that describe the project and the business case.[2]
Core Principles
Practical Guidelines
Three Different Approaches
The journey which defines and applies project governance fuels the growing frustration of substantial capital project failure and the realization that project management at a technical and operational level should be complemented and supported at strategic and institutional management levels. The theoretical definition of project governance depends on the various authors with technical backgrounds, areas of practice or research fields. Three primary categories of project governance were identified according to the research article "Project Governance – The Definition and Leadership Dilemma." The first project category analysis single firm governance plan when choosing and managing internal projects. The second category examines multi-firm projects where various companies engage in contractual arrangements. The third category considers projects that involve multiple interconnected participants relying on the presence of one supreme hierarchical authority, usually the lead sponsor. These three categories of projects include a diverse collection of participants with opposing interests and agendas towards the management and outcome of the projects. In the second categorization of projects, project management in an institutional context could be viewed in three functional levels which are the following:
- Level 1: Technical -> which is delivery oriented with a priority towards tools that are used, practices, management and control of project activities.
- Level 2: Strategic -> managing projects as organizational and holistic entities, that expand the domain to include their front-end development and definition. This ensures alignment with the project's sponsor objectives, leadership, contracting strategy and influencing stakeholders.
- Level 3: Institutional -> managing the institutional context with an external, global environment.
The categorization of these commonalities forms the basis of the three project governance "school of thought" specifically the; single-firm school, multi-firm school, and the large capital school.
Single-Firm School
The application of project governance in this category is driven by projects in a single and autonomous company. Usually, practitioners in this category are IT companies and organizations involved with internal projects with minimal external client engagements. The levels of project governance are at a strategic and technical level due to its top-down nature. IT project management relates to selecting correct internal projects and that they are implemented according to company's standards. In the single-firm school, the project value is of secondary nature whereas large capital projects could reside under the category if projects are under the organization's single control, influence, and authority. Corporate governance could handle the project governance only with the sponsor as a separate corporate entity.
Multi-Firm School
The multi-firm school focuses on the relationship between different organizations engaging in single or multiple projects. One argument about the three critical project management perspectives, particularly socio-technical, organization, environment and project management perspectives is that it contains no formal framework for analyzing and managing the different interests between different participating organizations.
Large Capital School
From this approach, projects are often viewed as temporary organizations that need to define the appropriate governance framework where decisions can be made. The focus is to create an environment which is shielded from the external environment, political, and strategic influences, in which for project management activities can thrive. Decision making is the main focus instead of management and control. Therefore, project governance framework is considered to consist of an authoritative and organized structure within a sponsoring institution, including processes and rules, to ensure that projects meet their purpose. Many large capital projects including private, public and public-private partnership projects, have inherent complexities that lie in their international, cross-country borders of different contracting companies. These projects deal with challenges of governing an internal supply chain of multiple, multi-national organizations as well as the network of external actors. For large capital projects, the focus is on a higher level compared to the other approaches, which includes institutional issues that interact with the external and macro environment.
Applying Project Governance in Projects
Project Governance in Industries
Examples of Good & Bad Project Governance
Limitations & Benefits
Limitations
Benefits
Limitations of the framework will be discussed.
Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography
References
- ↑ Rod Beecham. (2011). Project Governance : The Essentials. IT Governance Ltd
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Xuan Liu and Hai Xie. (2014). Pillars and Principles of the Project Governance. Trans Tech Publications. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.835.6802
- ↑ Werner Robbert Titus DEENEN. (2007). Project governance - phases and life cycle. Universitaria Press Craiova. http://www.mnmk.ro/documents/2007/2007-24.pdf
- ↑ Michiel C Bekker. (2015). Project Governance – The Definition and Leadership Dilemma. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2279869142
- ↑ Great Britain. Office of Government Commerce. (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. TSO.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Project Management Institute, Inc. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) - Fifth edition. Project Management Institute, Inc
- ↑ Joana Geraldi, Christian Thuesen, Josef Oehmen and Verena Stingl. (2017). How to DO projects. A Nordic flavour to managing projects. Danish Standards Foundation
