What Kind of Work Were These Instruments Built For?
Delivery governance instruments were designed for large, physical, contract-heavy programs. They still carry those assumptions into work that shares none of them.
Professional knowledge and strategic perspectives across strategy, projects, operations, engineering, transformation and business performance.
18 articles found
Delivery governance instruments were designed for large, physical, contract-heavy programs. They still carry those assumptions into work that shares none of them.
Two initiatives can have near-identical scope and need entirely different leaders. The deliverable list will never tell you which. The constraint set will.
The power and interest grid allocates communication effort. It does not tell you who carries the consequences — which is the question governance actually needs answered.
A sponsor is not the most senior person who supports your program. It is the office holding delegated authority to stop it — and most organisations leave it empty.
Method, training and certification are funded as capability. Some of it becomes an organisational asset and some of it walks out the door. Few business cases say which.
Promoting your best specialist into delivery leadership is not a step up the same ladder. It is a move to a different profession, and most organisations fund neither.
Every function in your organisation has an owner. The interfaces between them usually have none — and that is where delivery quietly fails.
Executives do not need to build the model. They need enough depth to tell when the recovery plan in front of them is arithmetically impossible.
A project is a structure designed to dissolve. That single property guarantees a handover, and the handover is where most enterprise benefit is lost.
Uncertainty is not a reason to delay planning. It is the strongest argument for starting early, and for changing what a plan is expected to do.
A risk register that records only threats leaves an organisation structurally blind to favourable deviation. The definition itself is the problem.
Most program reporting detects problems long after they became expensive. Detection latency, not measurement volume, is the property leaders should design.
A gate that has never stopped anything is not a control. It is a status review with a budget attached, and the portfolio is paying for the difference.
The role an enterprise depends on to convert strategy into outcomes carries full accountability and almost no structural power. That is a design choice.
Every reporting layer compresses. What gets discarded first is the anomalous detail — which is precisely the information leaders most need to receive.
Every strategy rests on beliefs nobody has verified. Most organisations record them once in an appendix, then never look at them again until something fails.
Project management vocabulary transfers between contexts. Governance calibration does not, and enforcing one standard across both destroys value.
A successful project management career requires more than technical competence. It depends on perspective, resilience, patience, community and the ability to learn from everyone involved.