Governance is not about democracy
As a project gets defined, one of the key aspects that will enable it to execute smoothly is understanding ownership and accountability. Governance is about defining the hierarchy of execution. Having it merely as a background element, or thinking its purpose is to assign prestige, is a misuse of its actual function.
Merely assigning people authority is vague. It does not define a process or a way to mitigate the problems at hand. As management is already a complex and fragile system, building around it requires meticulous attention.
Governance is necessary because a project with no lead goes nowhere. But defining who leads is only the beginning. Someone must also know who does what, who makes decisions, and where responsibilities begin and end.
Size compensation
For large enterprises with massive established hierarchies, governance is more of a patch. Here, it doesn’t truly serve the purpose of directing a project, but of controlling and orchestrating the different parts involved.
Large organizations may not be ideal, but people usually find comfort in ambiguity. Not knowing who owns what and who does what reduces the burden and blurs accountability.
Obviously, these structures slow things down, but a good governance model helps mitigate these artificial problems. Assuming the hierarchy and its problems are there to stay, the question becomes what kind of system we can scaffold to support it as best we can.
Governance becomes a way to work around the machinery, making sure it can operate without every decision becoming an improvised negotiation.
Approval is the start button
Approval isn’t an inherent part of development and shouldn’t be.
Projects should be owned, discussed, and advanced by the people directly involved in them. This doesn’t eliminate the fact that shareholders, owners, or sponsors will be the ones starting projects. But approval isn’t a common activity. Making it one only impedes the speed at which things move.
Approval is just permission granted by higher-ups.
Turning this initial gateway into a recurring requirement weakens the actual ownership of the process by qualified people. Instead of assuming they can work together within established boundaries, we assume someone, typically a manager, must constantly give permission.
If we always need to shift down, we will never get to speed. We simply put in more effort while advancing more slowly.
Charter is authority on paper
When building the initial steps of a project, rules and expectations can be established within defined boundaries. This makes it possible for a team to move without constant interruption, using an agreed-upon framework that already authorizes certain decisions.
The project charter establishes that starting point. It identifies the purpose, the scope, the commitments, and the authority under which the initiative operates.
Get MXI.Studio’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
But authority alone isn’t enough. Stakeholders must be identified, responsibilities assigned, and decision-making rights clarified. A person expected to deliver without the authority to obtain resources cannot truly be held accountable for the outcome.
A decision-making framework is a way to bypass excessive involvement from all parties. It establishes what stakeholders are already prepared to approve, and which decisions require further authorization.
The point isn’t to invite everyone into every meeting. It’s to know who acts, who decides, and who needs to know.
Foreseeable risks are part of the project
Every project has risks, and some are very likely to occur. Part of moving forward is knowing how to rebound when an incident happens.
A supplier may be late, a resource may become unavailable, or a decision may exceed the authority of the person responsible.
Escalation paths aren’t part of the regular flow. They are documented pathways to resolve problems when ordinary execution can no longer proceed. Not having these plans means not being prepared for what could happen.
The failure is not escalation itself, but not knowing when, where, or to whom a problem should be escalated.
This is simply forecasting the evident, not predicting the future.
Maintaining the lead
Planning and taking account of resources are also part of governance. Establishing authority is one thing; making sure the work can actually proceed is another.
A roadmap, milestones, resource allocation, and budgets translate the authorized initiative into something executable.
A plan that lists people without considering their actual availability can look neat on paper but be impossible to use. An unconfirmed resource is an assumption, not a secured commitment.
The same applies to budgets and dependencies. Having the money doesn’t mean it is available when needed, just as having someone assigned doesn’t mean they have the capacity to contribute.
Planning is not about predicting everything correctly. It’s about maintaining direction while accounting for what changes.
Governance as a foundation of execution
Governance exists for as long as a project runs, but it needs to be established before execution begins.
It sets not only the boundaries and pathways but also helps determine the viability of the initiative. Is the enterprise ready to take on and lead this project? Is it even possible to absorb the additional workload created by the endeavor?
Approval cannot answer these questions on its own.
Governance doesn’t describe a person, but a structure. Whether it serves to mitigate the problems of an existing hierarchy or to make responsibilities more specific and clear, its purpose remains to establish how the work can proceed.
If everyone does everything, then no one owns anything.
