Applying a standard governance model across programs of different scale and complexity tends to produce governance that is either too heavy to be useful or too light to be effective. Even where the balance is right, structure without active accountability will not hold.
Key Insights:
- Governance consistently applied in form but inconsistently in impact is not fit-for-purpose, regardless of how well it was designed. That gap is an accountability problem, not a structural one.
- Over-governance and under-governance are not opposites. Organisations frequently experience both simultaneously, with different parts of the portfolio receiving different levels of oversight.
- Governance does not remain fit-for-purpose automatically. It requires ongoing adjustment as delivery evolves, and that adjustment depends on leaders who stay engaged beyond formal forums.
As transformation portfolios scale and delivery becomes more complex, organisations are placing greater emphasis on strengthening project governance.
The challenge is that this is often approached by extending existing models across a broader range of projects, rather than adapting governance to suit the context. Programs of very different scale, complexity and risk are expected to operate within the same structure, with limited adjustment over time.
In practice, this often leads to governance that is either too heavy to be useful, or too light to be effective.
When governance is too heavy, delivery teams spend a disproportionate amount of time on activity: preparing for forums, producing detailed reporting and navigating layers of oversight that don’t materially improve outcomes. Where it’s too light, decision-making lacks the structure needed to manage risk and maintain alignment.
In both cases, governance exists, but it’s not fit-for-purpose.
When governance is miscalibrated: The cost of too much and too little
When governance isn’t aligned to the needs of the project or program, it starts to work against delivery rather than support it.
Over-governance can slow delivery, dilute focus and reduce the quality of decision-making. Critical issues are lost in large volumes of reporting, and teams become more focused on meeting governance requirements than progressing the work.
Under-governance creates a different set of risks. Decisions are less visible, dependencies are harder to manage and escalation pathways become unclear. Projects continue to move forward, but without the level of oversight required to manage complexity effectively.
We also frequently see organisations experiencing both at the same time. Governance is applied consistently in form, but inconsistently in impact. Some areas of delivery are over-managed, while others lack the support needed to make timely and well-informed decisions.
This scenario typically reflects the difficulty of maintaining governance that keeps pace with changing delivery conditions.
Recognising when governance no longer fits the scale
There are some consistent signals that governance is misaligned to the project:
- There’s lots of governance activity, but its contribution to delivery outcomes is unclear.
- Decision rights aren’t well understood or consistently applied.
- Forums and meetings exist, but don’t reliably resolve issues or progress decisions.
- Teams spend significant time on reporting, with limited impact on delivery.
- Accountability for outcomes becomes diffused across roles and forums.
It’s tempting to label these as performance issues, but in reality they usually indicate that governance is no longer aligned to the way delivery is operating. Even where governance structures are in place and appropriately scaled, their effectiveness ultimately depends on how they are applied in practice.
Why accountability matters as much as structure
Fit-for-purpose governance can’t be separated from accountability. Governance structures alone can’t guarantee that accountability is consistently upheld. Their effectiveness depends on how they are applied in practice, particularly the extent to which leadership actively engages with delivery and shapes decisions as work progresses.
Accountability sits across multiple layers of delivery, from executive sponsorship through to project teams. The way this accountability is exercised has a direct impact on how governance functions in practice.
In environments where accountability is strong, governance becomes a mechanism for raising issues early, making decisions in a timely way and maintaining focus on outcomes. Leaders actively engage with delivery, seek out information beyond formal reporting and take responsibility for how projects progress.
Where accountability is weaker, governance can quickly lose its effectiveness. A “good news” culture bias can emerge as a direct response to how information is received and acted upon. Teams become more cautious in how risks are presented. Issues are contained or deferred, and escalation pathways lose their impact.
Over time, this undermines trust in both directions. Leadership lacks visibility of emerging risks, and delivery teams lose confidence that raising issues will lead to meaningful action.
In these conditions, governance may continue to operate structurally, but it no longer supports delivery in a practical sense.
Maintaining governance that supports delivery
Effective governance is not set at the outset and left unchanged. It requires ongoing adjustment as delivery evolve and it’s calibrated at a level of governance to match the scale and complexity of the work. It’s this shift that ensures decision-making is clear and timely and maintaining a consistent focus on outcomes, rather than activity.
It also requires deliberate attention to how governance is applied in practice. Leaders need to stay engaged beyond formal forums, maintain a clear understanding of the intent behind the work and take responsibility for how it progresses.
For organisations delivering complex transformation, the challenge is not simply establishing governance structures, but ensuring those structures remain aligned to the work and are actively upheld through consistent leadership behaviour.
Governance creates value when it is both fit-for-purpose and actively used to shape delivery. Without that alignment, it risks becoming either an administrative burden or an ineffective control, rather than a mechanism that enables successful outcomes.
Quay Consulting is a professional services business specialising in the project landscape, transforming strategy into fit-for-purpose delivery. Meet our team or reach out to have a discussion today.