Where does project success really begin? Many assume it’s during execution or monitoring, when Gantt charts are being updated and status reports start landing in stakeholders’ inboxes. But in my experience, governance, the framework of decision-making and oversight, does its most critical work at the very start, in the initiation phase. In complex industrial projects (whether in manufacturing startups or multi-billion-dollar Gigafactory builds) when governance is poorly defined at kickoff, no amount of effort later will fully recover the project.
In this article, I will explore why the initiation stage is where governance truly earns its keep, how it links to the broader organization’s rules and values, and how we as project leaders can put it into practice. Moreover, the key messages will be that governance is far more than scheduling meeting and sending updates. Project governance is often misunderstood whereby many people reduce it to the mechanics of meetings and status updates. But true governance is deeper: it’s about decision rights, strategic alignment, oversight, risk posture, and accountability. In other words, governance isn’t about how often you meet or what your slides look like, it’s about making sure the right people are involved in the right decisions, at the right time, for the right reasons.
Governance at Initiation: Planting the Seeds of Success (or Failure)
Every project journey often begins before the project officially exists; at the bid or tender stage. The question isn’t just how we’ll execute, but whether we should pursue the opportunity at all. In well-governed organizations, that decision isn’t driven by excitement, optimism, or a slick commercial proposal alone; it’s guided by structured scrutiny. Why? Because many project failures are rooted in decisions made before the project even starts.
Take bidding on a set of equipment delivery, for example. It might look attractive on paper—new client, big scope, potential long-term partnership. But without early governance asking the hard questions: Is this client financially reliable? Do we have the capacity to deliver? Are the specs realistic? Does this fit our strategic positioning? The organization risks taking on a project it can’t execute successfully.
When governance is missing or superficial at this stage, teams often jump in, win the bid, and only then realize what they’ve committed to—tight timelines, unclear specs, slim margins, or unaligned expectations. At that point, it’s too late to renegotiate, and recovery becomes a costly firefight. In contrast, effective governance at the bid/no-bid stage creates a necessary pause; a moment to validate strategic fit, assess risk, and secure internal alignment before committing to turn that opportunity into a full-blown project.
Effective governance at initiation focuses squarely on the rationale for proceeding. It asks: What exactly will this project deliver, and why does it matter? What outcomes are we aiming for, and do they truly benefit the organization? Is the project aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives, goals, and values? The governance team’s key question is blunt: What is the return or value-added from our investment in this project? If these questions can’t be answered convincingly, that’s a red flag – maybe the project should not proceed.
For example, imagine a company bidding on a high-value set of equipment delivery project, only to realize after winning the contract that they had no input in the basis of design. The specifications were already fixed, the timeline was aggressive, and critical assumptions didn’t reflect the realities of their manufacturing capabilities. But by then, the sales and commercial team had committed, and the contract was already signed.
What followed wasn’t just scope creep. It turned into a series of engineering revisions, change order disputes, and a breakdown in trust with the client. The team found themselves delivering a product they hadn’t helped shape, under conditions they couldn’t fully control.
This is a governance failure that didn’t happen during execution. It happened much earlier, when no one asked the tough questions before bidding. Does this opportunity reflect our core strengths? Were we involved early enough to influence the solution? Without that pause, the project moved forward with a misalignment that no amount of execution effort could fix.
Unfortunately, many organizations still lack a robust, disciplined process for evaluating projects at initiation. Business opportunities often get the green light because they sound exciting, not because they’ve been properly challenged. As a result, underperforming projects get approved when they should have been rejected or re-scoped.
This is where good governance matters. Early on, an executive needs to play the role of a professional skeptic or “devil’s advocate” to ensure only worthy, well-aligned projects move forward. This upfront discipline is crucial to prevent wasted investments and to set up approved projects for success and protect time, money, and people’s energy from being wasted on the wrong project.
The Initiation Advantage: Alignment, Resources, and Risk
That early governance moment isn’t just a formality. It’s where the real groundwork is laid. This is where strategic alignment is tested—does the project actually support the organization’s goals, or is it just a good idea with no clear value? It’s also where resource commitment gets real. Do we actually have the people, time, and budget to pull this off, or are we assuming things will fall into place later?
Governance at this stage also sets the tone for how risk will be handled. It’s the point where major risks, constraints, and compliance requirements need to be surfaced, not after the plan is already in motion. And just as important, it defines how change will be managed. What happens if the scope grows? Who decides if the cost or timeline needs to shift?
This kind of proactive risk governance sets the tone that the project will be managed within agreed bounds of risk and compliance. It also defines escalation paths: if certain risk thresholds are crossed or decisions needed (say cost overrun > 10%), we know at initiation who will decide (maybe the steering committee) and when. That clarity is gold when you’re in the heat of execution later.
During initiation, governance also influences how scope is defined and how changes will be handled. A governance-minded project manager will secure agreement on the process for scope changes right at the start (e.g., any scope expansion beyond X requires steering committee approval). By doing this under the umbrella of initiation governance, you prevent scope creep from catching leadership off-guard later.
It doesn’t matter whether the project is predictive, adaptive, or somewhere in between. Governance at initiation should be tailored—not heavy for the sake of it, but structured enough to support clear decisions and avoid surprises. When it’s done right, the project starts with direction, support, and fewer blind spots. When it’s skipped or rushed, even a solid team ends up fighting fires that could’ve been avoided. Hence, start right, and everything that follows will sail smoothly.
Bridging Organizational Governance and Project Governance
One insight that seasoned PMs eventually grasp is that project governance doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s a reflection of your organization’s broader governance values. The latest PMI standards reinforce this connection. In fact, the new PMBOK 8th Edition reframes “Project Integration Management” as the Project Governance performance domain. This change elevates governance from a background function to a central domain that guides how a project is aligned and integrated. According to PMBOK 8, project governance is about making strategic decisions for the project that safeguard value even if that means pulling the plug when a project no longer serves its purpose.
Organizational governance is the umbrella of policies, standards, and ethics that guide an enterprise; project governance is the application of that umbrella to a specific project. A project does not operate on an island. It should reflect the company’s rules and aspirations. For example, if your organization prides itself on sustainability and ethical practice, your project governance should ensure compliance with those mandates from day one.
PMBOK’s new principles drive this point: Focus on value, embed quality, be an accountable leader, and integrate sustainability throughout the project. These aren’t just pretty words on a poster; they are marching orders for governance. Focusing on value means continually aligning the project to business objectives and intended benefits. Embedding quality means baking in processes to meet stakeholder requirements and standards. Accountability means leadership decisions guided by integrity and transparency. And sustainability means considering environmental and long-term impacts in every phase.
When we set up project governance, especially during initiation, we translate these organizational principles into project practices. For instance, at the charter stage of a cleantech project, including an environmental compliance checkpoint and a value assessment against strategic KPIs is a direct reflection of the company’s sustainability values and value-focus principle.
Practically speaking, linking organizational and project governance often means mirroring the organization’s governance structure within the project. If your company has established decision-making processes and authority levels, use them. One approach is to replicate the organizational governance: apply similar approval hierarchies, ethical checks, and communication channels in the project context.
For example, if a pharmaceutical company has strict processes for quality and regulatory approval at the company level, those same checks should show up in project governance too. A project to build a new packaging line, for instance, would need to follow the same review steps the company uses for any product launch—like approvals from QA, validation protocols, and compliance sign-off. The project doesn’t make up its own rules. It follows the same decision flow the organization uses every day. On the other hand, governance can be tailored. A unique project (say, an R&D pilot) might need a customized governance structure with new roles or committees to address its unique risks.
Either way, the goal is the same: ensure the project’s direction and oversight are in harmony with the company’s overall governance system. When project governance aligns with organizational governance, projects are not just one-off efforts, they become vehicles of strategic execution and executives tend to support and fund projects that clearly reflect the company’s priorities and guardrails.
Meetings Aren’t Governance: Decisions Are
Let’s tackle a common misconception head-on: Project governance is NOT just about scheduling meetings, filling out templates, and updating stakeholders. Too many project managers conflate governance with bureaucracy – they think if they hold a monthly steering committee and send a weekly status email, they’ve “done governance.” I used to joke that some folks treat governance like a checklist: Kickoff meeting? Check. Status PPT? Check. Next… But real governance is not about rituals for their own sake. It’s about the substance behind those rituals.
Don’t get me wrong – regular meetings, communications, and RACI charts are useful tools. But they are means to an end, not the end itself. The true aim of governance is to ensure clarity, alignment, and accountability (there’s a triad for you) throughout the project. If a meeting doesn’t drive a decision or surface a risk, it’s not governance, it’s theater. If a status report isn’t provoking questions or action from leadership, it’s just noise. Effective governance may involve fewer meetings but more candid conversations: Are we on track to deliver value? If not, who will decide what to do?
In practice, I’ve seen teams fall into the trap of “governance = admin work.” Early in my career, I was guilty of it too: I’d focus on setting up fancy steering committee decks and detailed communication plans, thinking I was being diligent. Meanwhile, some fundamental governance questions were overlooked. In one manufacturing project, we realized too late that we never clearly defined who had final approval on design changes – we had plenty of meetings, but no clarity on decision rights. It led to confusion and finger-pointing when changes arose. That’s poor governance hiding behind busywork.
Good governance, on the other hand, might look “simpler” on the surface but is far more impactful. It centers on outcomes, not overcomplicate process. A well-governed initiation phase might just produce a concise project charter and one frank executive review meeting. In that meeting, the right people ask hard questions and either commit or redirect the project. The emphasis is on decisions, oversight, and shared understanding, rather than the page count of a PowerPoint. In the spirit of PMBOK 8, governance should be performance-focused and tailored to the project’s context, not judged by how many documents we produce, but by how well it protects value and supports smart decisions.
So, if you catch yourself equating governance with “let’s plan more meetings,” pause and rethink. Ask instead: What decisions or insights are these activities supposed to yield? If that isn’t clear, the governance needs a rethink. Would you still hold that meeting if no one required it? If yes, it has value. If not, perhaps a different governance mechanism is needed. Governance is purposeful oversight, not paperwork.
Putting Governance into Practice: Tips for the Initiation Phase
So how can project managers and PMO leaders tangibly demonstrate effective governance during project initiation? Here are some practical tips and tools I’ve found invaluable:
Define Decision Rights & Escalation Paths Up Front
Don’t wait until a crisis to decide who has authority over what. In the initiation phase, explicitly document who will approve major changes, who the decision-makers are for key milestones, and how issues will escalate if the team hits a roadblock. This might be in a project governance plan or charter section. As PMBOK 8’s guidance suggests, clarify these governance principles early – who decides, who gets informed, and how far you go before escalating. For example, include a simple chart that says: “If risk cost > $X, escalate to Steering or Governance Committee; if schedule slip > Y weeks, involve VP or even COO in SMEs” etc. This avoids paralysis or any clashes over areas of responsibility later because everyone knows the chain of command.
Engage the Right Sponsors and Stakeholders
A project without an engaged executive sponsor is like a plane without a pilot. During initiation, identify and involve the sponsor (or sponsoring group) actively. Ideally, have them co-create the project’s high-level objectives and success criteria. Also involve key stakeholders early, especially those who hold institutional knowledge or will be major beneficiaries/users of the project. Their input will improve the project definition and their buy-in will smooth execution. A tip here: use a RACI matrix (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) for the initiation deliverables. List out roles for things like “Approve project charter” (Accountable: Sponsor; Responsible: PM; Consulted: Finance Director; Informed: Team Leads) etc. This clarity ensures everyone knows their part in governance. It’s much easier to assign roles at the outset than to gather everyone onboard mid-project.
Align with Legal, Ethics, and Compliance from Day 1
Early governance reviews should include checks for any compliance requirements like regulatory approvals, environmental impact, data security, you name it. Skipping this can be disastrous (nobody wants to discover a legal roadblock after spending millions!). For instance, adding a corporate compliance officer to the initiation review board can ensure the project plan will be aligned with new sustainability reporting requirements. Yes, it can add an extra discussion early on, but it spares from a potential violation later. Showing governance here might mean developing a compliance checklist as part of initiation: e.g. “Will this project adhere to X standards? Do we need any permits? Are there ethical considerations (labor, sourcing, etc.)?” If anything flags, plan for it or adjust the project scope.
Tie the Project to Strategy (and Write it Down)
This is a simple but powerful practice: in your project charter or kickoff presentation, include a section explicitly linking the project to top-level strategic goals or OKRs of the organization. For example: “This project supports our 2025 Strategic Goal #2: Expand renewable energy offerings by 20%.” Then ensure the governance team validates this link. It gives the governance team a reference point to judge trade-offs. Throughout the project, that strategic link should be a recurring theme in governance meetings (“Are we still contributing to Goal #2?”). It also signals to senior management that the project is serving the broader mission (in case they need to prioritize resources, your project has a stronger case). I advise PMs to always answer: Which strategic priority does your project feed? If they struggle to answer, that’s a warning sign the project might drift without strong governance correction.
Establish a Decision-Making Protocol
Beyond identifying who decides, lay out how decisions will be made and documented. Will you use a change control board (CCB) for scope/cost changes? Will decisions be made in meetings or can they be asynchronous approvals? Set some ground rules. For instance, you might decide that any decision over a certain threshold requires a formal proposal document and sign-off by at least two executives. It might sound formal, but having that in writing saves time later. For instance, in an engineering project you can decide that all major technical decisions would be captured in a Decision Log accessible to all stakeholders, with rationale. During initiation, you can agree on the format and that log became a governance tool – whenever a question arose later like “Why did we choose X design? or why the power panel and control panel of a CRAH unit are recessed?”, the log (approved by the design authority in governance meetings) had the answer. It keep you consistent and transparent.
Choose the Right Governance Model for the Context
Not every project needs the same governance setup. In adaptive or fast moving environments, teams may operate with self governance. They work within clear boundaries but have the freedom to make decisions on the ground. That works when the team is experienced, the risk is manageable, and feedback loops are tight.
In more complex or regulated projects, governance leans centralized, with oversight from steering committees, PMOs, or compliance boards. And in many cases, it’s a hybrid, a mix of empowered teams with decision rights on execution, and formal escalation paths for scope, cost, or risk.
The key is to right-size governance for the project’s context. Not too heavy. Not too loose. Just enough structure to support clear decisions, aligned priorities, and timely course correction when needed.
Schedule Governance Touchpoints and Reviews
While governance is not only about meetings, it is important to schedule key checkpoints in the project timeline from the start. Set the cadence: for example, a steering committee review at the end of initiation (to approve charter), another at end of planning (to approve detailed plan), then quarterly during execution, etc. These become immovable anchor points where major issues can be addressed. In a growing manufacturing company I worked with in 2021, we instituted a simple stage-gate: no project could move from Initiation to Planning without a formal “Gate 0” review by a small executive panel. It wasn’t bureaucratic; it was literally a 1-hour meeting to confirm the basics (strategy alignment, rough cost/benefit, sponsor assigned). But having that on the calendar ensured everyone took the initiation docs seriously. My tip: put these governance reviews on calendars as part of the project schedule. Treat them as deliverables. This also signals to the team that governance isn’t an ad-hoc thing – it’s part of how we work.
Document Governance Agreements
Whatever you settle on in initiation – be it escalation thresholds, roles, or meeting cadences, document it and share it. PMs might include a “Governance section” in the Project Charter or a separate Governance Plan. This might list the project’s governing bodies (e.g. Sponsor, Steering or Gate review Committee, PMO oversight), their responsibilities, and key procedures (approvals, reporting frequency, etc.). It might even include a simple org chart of the project governance structure. Don’t worry about it being perfect; governance will evolve as the project does, and that’s fine. But an initial documented agreement serves as the baseline. It gives new team members a quick intro on how decisions are made, and it provides a reference if any dispute arises (“let’s check our governance plan – it says the Change Control Board decides on scope changes, not the engineering manager alone”). Keeping governance explicit prevents misunderstandings. It’s part of building a culture of transparency and trust, which any seasoned PM will tell you is the glue for complex projects.
Each of these tips essentially boils down to being deliberate about governance. In the initiation phase, you’re setting the rules of the game. By using these tools and behaviors, you demonstrate that governance isn’t just a buzzword, it’s woven into how the project will run from day one.
There’s more depth to governance than we’ve covered here. It also includes how you structure sourcing decisions, how you set up feedback loops for learning, and how you choose indicators to track alignment and momentum. But those belong in execution. For now, the focus is simple: start strong. Right-sized governance at initiation isn’t about adding weight, it’s about giving the project the structure it needs to move with clarity and confidence.
Roles and Responsibilities: PM, PMO, and Leadership in Governance
Effective governance is a team sport. It involves players at different levels of the organization, each with distinct responsibilities to uphold governance. Let’s clarify who does what.
Project Manager (PM)
The PM is the day-to-day guardian of governance on the project. That sounds ironic: the governed watching the governance. In practice the PM implements the governance processes and keeps everything transparent. I often think of the PM as the bridge between the project team and the governance bodies. In practice, the project manager’s role in governance is to apply the agreed structure, keep decision-makers informed, escalate when needed, and make sure the project runs within the agreed scope, budget, and timeline. In short, the PM runs the project in line with the governance framework: they facilitate communication, enforce the decisions made by the steering committee or sponsor, and raise flags when something is beyond their authority.
The PM’s leadership and organizational skills keep the project on track within the agreed guardrails.
When a project manager is running a project day to day, one of their core governance responsibilities is status reporting with insight, not just sharing numbers, but explaining what the numbers mean, what risks or trends they reveal, and whether a decision or support is needed from senior leaders. A transparent PM who escalates issues early, clearly, and without delay often becomes a key “connector” that makes governance actually work in practice.
Executive Sponsor / Steering Committee
These are the upper management roles that provide strategic direction and oversight. The Executive Sponsor is typically a senior leader who champions the project and ensures it aligns with the business strategy. In governance terms, the sponsor sets the direction, approves major decisions, and makes sure the project’s objectives stay tied to strategic goals.
They are the ultimate point of escalation and often hold the purse strings. The Steering Committee (if one exists) usually comprises multiple leaders or stakeholders who collectively guide the project at a high level. They oversee the project from a strategic standpoint, provide guidance, make high-level decisions, and manage risks to safeguard alignment with the organization’s vision. In essence, this group asks “Are we doing the right project, and are we doing it right?”
They meet at predefined intervals (or critical junctures) to review progress, issues, and to authorize continuance or changes. In my experience, a strong sponsor or steering committee doesn’t micromanage the team . They create conditions for success: clearing political roadblocks, ensuring cross-department cooperation, and stepping in decisively when the project is veering off course strategically.
For instance, on one large program, a steering committee can re-prioritize scope mid-way when market conditions changed, something the project team alone couldn’t have done. Examples of reprioritize scope could be: Advancing high-value features that respond to new market demand, even if they weren’t originally planned for that phase, deferring or dropping lower-value deliverables to protect time, budget, or focus, reallocating funding and capacity toward elements that now matter more strategically, or changing success criteria so the project optimizes for relevance rather than original completeness.
This is governance in action, keeping the project relevant to the bigger picture.
Project Management Office (PMO) or Governance Office
If your organization has a PMO, think of it as the custodian of project governance standards. The PMO defines the governance framework and provides the tools and metrics to support it. The PMO makes sure there is consistency in how projects are governed and that lessons learned are fed back into the system. They might set policies like “All projects above $X must have a risk register and monthly risk review” or develop templates for charters and decision logs. In a sense, the PMO acts as the operational core or backbone of governance.
They maintain visibility over all projects (especially in a portfolio) so they can support executives with insights (e.g., aggregated status dashboards, portfolio risks) and identify where governance needs strengthening.
PMO can actually audit projects at initiation and midway to ensure governance processes were followed – not as a “police” act, but as a support: if a project lacked a clear risk management approach, the PMO coach would step in to help the PM set one up. In smaller organizations without a formal PMO, these responsibilities might fall to a single program manager or even the project sponsor to enforce. But the principle is the same: someone needs to own the governance framework and nurture it across projects.
Team Members and Other Stakeholders
While not traditionally seen as part of “governance”, the project team and key stakeholders do play a role. They are expected to provide honest insights and feedback to the governance bodies.
A healthy governance culture encourages team members to flag issues or risks without fear, knowing that there’s a process to handle them.
Stakeholders (like department heads affected by the project, end users, or clients in some cases) should be consulted appropriately and their feedback considered in decisions. In a real sense, they help shape governance by voicing concerns or needs that leadership might not see day-to-day.
For instance, a stakeholder (say, production manager) can bring about an issue the team was facing on the ground; that information was crucial for the steering committee to adjust course. So, while team members and stakeholders aren’t “decision-makers” in the governance hierarchy, their active participation (through status updates, workshops, etc.) is a vital part of effective project governance.
In summary, project governance is an ecosystem of roles. The project manager navigates and feeds that ecosystem with information, the sponsor/steering provide direction and decisions, the PMO lays the groundwork and monitors, and stakeholders contribute inputs. When each plays their part, governance strikes a balance between control and empowerment – decisions are made at the right level, neither ignored nor overstepping. If you’re a senior PM or PMO leader reading this, ask yourself: do all these players in your organization know their governance duties? If not, there’s an opportunity to coach and clarify. Governance is most effective when everyone understands their role in it.
Governance in Different Environments: Startup, Growing, and Mature Organizations
One size does not fit all when it comes to governance. The approach to project governance can and should differ based on an organization’s maturity and culture. I’ve worked in startups, rapidly scaling scale-ups, and large mature enterprises. Governance looked and felt very different in each, though the core principles remained consistent. Here’s how I’d characterize the differences, especially in industries like manufacturing and cleantech.
Startups (Informal, High-Agility Environments)
In a startup or very young company, formal governance processes might be minimal or non-existent at first. Decision-making is often concentrated with the founders or a tiny leadership team. The culture prioritizes speed and innovation, and there’s often a perception that “heavy” governance will just slow things down.
For example, a cleantech startup developing a prototype might make project decisions on the fly in daily stand-ups or ad-hoc chats. This can work when the team is small and the stakes are lower. The benefit is extreme agility. However, as someone who joined a startup as their first project manager, I noticed the governance gaps quickly: no clear criteria for stopping a pet project, no formal risk reviews, and decisions often revisited because they weren’t documented.
Startups actually need governance too, but scaled to fit, “just enough” governance to prevent chaos without strangling creativity and innovation. This could mean implementing a lightweight stage gate (e.g., a simple checklist before moving from concept to development), or setting up a weekly leadership touchpoint to validate priorities. The key is to balance lean decision-making with a bit of oversight to avoid wasted effort.
In manufacturing startups, I’ve seen painful lessons when early governance is missing—teams can end up designing a product that later requires major redesign or a full pivot because the market simply doesn’t value an overpriced solution loaded with “nice-to-have” features, or quality and safety levels that go beyond what customers are willing to pay for. Early governance helps challenge those assumptions upfront, so the product stays commercially viable, not just technically impressive. The takeaway: even in startups, a little governance goes a long way, it might be informal (a whiteboard with project priorities that the founder reviews), but it needs to be intentional.
Growing Organizations (Scaling Up Governance)
As a company grows (perhaps moving from startup to mid-size, or taking on bigger projects), the cracks in informal governance start to show. This is often when a PMO or formal project governance structure emerges. In a growing manufacturing firm or cleantech scale-up, you might be introducing new product lines, building facilities, or executing larger programs that demand coordination. At this stage, the organization typically implements more structure: defined project approval processes, more documentation, regular management reviews.
A renewable energy company can skyrocket from 50 to 300 people in two years. Suddenly they start to have multiple projects and needed a way to prioritize and supervise them. Introducing a project steering committee (including heads of product, engineering, and finance) and a basic project portfolio management meeting monthly is vital. Initially there might be resistance (“do we really need these meetings?”), but when resources got tight and two projects’ scopes started overlapping, that governance forum can prove invaluable to make a decision on which project to focus on.
Growing organizations often struggle with right-sizing governance. Too little and projects derail; too much, and you undermine the agility that made them successful. My advice for this stage is to implement governance gradually and pragmatically: pick the biggest pain points (maybe projects exceeding budgets or teams unclear on decision authority) and put governance focus there. Perhaps introduce RACI matrices and clearer charters on key projects, or require a project brief and executive sign-off before any major new project starts (preventing rogue initiatives).
In cleantech and manufacturing scale-ups, also consider governance around compliance as you grow. Small companies can get away with ad-hoc quality processes, but as you start delivering to customers or building plants, quality and safety governance must tighten up. Essentially, as you grow, governance evolves from implicit to explicit. It’s a maturation process, more like whiskey barrel-aging than a sudden transformation.
Mature Organizations (Formalized, Heavy-Weight Governance)
In mature companies, think established manufacturers or public-sector entities, governance is usually well-defined and institutionalized. There are formal committees, detailed process maps, and oftentimes layers of oversight (perhaps portfolio boards, program boards, etc.). For instance, when I worked at Alstom (a large rail manufacturing company), any significant project went through a phase-gate process with mandated deliverables at each stage and sign-offs by various departments (engineering, finance, quality, etc.).
The upside of mature governance is consistency and thoroughness: projects are carefully and systematically examined before being approved, not taken at face value. It’s rare to launch something that isn’t aligned with strategy or that hasn’t considered risks. Compliance and accountability are baked in (in industries like aerospace, energy, etc., this is non-negotiable for safety and regulatory reasons). However, the downside can be bureaucracy. Decisions might be slow because so many stakeholders are involved; a simple change might require multiple approvals. I’ve seen cases where the governance process itself became a bottleneck – e.g., a project lost momentum waiting two months for the next steering committee just to get a minor scope change approved.
Mature organizations need to be careful that governance remains value-added and not just red tape. Many are adapting by trying to streamline governance for agile or smaller initiatives (for example, having “fast-track” processes for low-risk projects, or empowering lower-level managers with certain decision authorities to avoid every issue bubbling up to an executive board). In a mature cleantech manufacturing context, you might have external pressures too like boards of directors or regulators who demand extensive reporting. The key in these environments is to embrace the strengths of strong governance (robust risk management, alignment with long-term strategy) while continuously refining it to avoid stagnation. One practice I appreciate is when mature organizations conduct governance retrospectives – essentially questioning, “Is our governance approach helping or hindering our projects?” and adjusting accordingly (e.g., maybe reducing meeting frequency if not needed, or consolidating committees) or even revamping the way of working with a new operating model design centered on projects and breaking functional silos like Alstom did couple of years ago.
In summary, the level of formality and rigor in project governance should match the organization’s size, risk profile, and culture. Startups need lightweight, founder-driven governance with a focus on not running off the road. Growing companies should institute more structure carefully, focusing on biggest needs first. Mature companies have the benefit of experience and systems, but must guard against over-governance that can slow down innovation. I often use this metaphor: Governance is a lot like planning a road trip. In a startup, you might just jump in the car with a rough idea of where you’re going. You adjust on the fly, take detours, and figure it out as you go. In a growing company, you’re using GPS. You have a planned route, but still room to reroute if needed. In a mature organization, it’s more like a convoy. Every vehicle needs to follow the same route, with scheduled stops and check-ins, because coordination matters more than speed.
The goal isn’t control for its own sake. It’s making sure everyone gets to the right place, without getting lost or burning out along the way. The best organizations, regardless of stage, keep the spirit of governance, which is ensuring the right things happen while adapting the form to their context.
Conclusion: The Real Job of Governance (and a Question for You)
I’ll conclude with a reflection. Project governance’s real job is not to have meetings or fill out documents, it’s to safeguard value and accountability throughout a project’s life, especially at the start. When done right, governance during initiation aligns your project with strategy, secures the buy-in and resources you need, sets clear expectations, and defines how you’ll handle the unknowns. It creates a project environment where tough questions get asked early, where decisions are made at the right level, and where the project manager is supported (not constrained) by oversight. PMBOK’s evolution to the Governance Performance Domain highlights that initiating and integrating a project is not just about setting up plans and procedures. It’s a leadership responsibility grounded in accountability and holistic thinking. Principle 1, “Adopt a Holistic View” calls for a broader, systems-level view, seeing how the project connects to strategy, risk, and value delivery across the organization. Principle 4, “Be an accountable leader” reinforces the project leader’s role in making decisions transparently, owning outcomes, and setting the tone for how the project will be governed. The other principles like focusing on value, embedding quality, and integrating sustainability, reinforce this foundation, but it’s the combination of holistic oversight and accountable leadership that gives governance its real weight at the start.
I speak about this with a coach’s zeal because I’ve lived the difference. I’ve seen projects where governance was an afterthought, they often drifted or struggled, even if the team was talented. I’ve also led projects where we established strong governance from the kickoff and it’s like having a compass in the wilderness; you might still face storms, but you won’t lose your way.
So here’s my prompt to you:
Where in your current project is governance missing its real job?
Is there a crucial question that went unasked during initiation?
A stakeholder you haven’t heard from in a while?
A decision-making process that feels murky?
It’s never too late to course-correct, but the earlier the better. And if you’re about to kick off a new project, take the time to set up genuine governance, not just the appearance of it. Your future self (and your organization) will thank you when that project delivers what it promised, ethically, effectively and efficiently.
Governance isn’t a burden; it’s our ally in delivering value with integrity. Make it your project’s guiding force from day one. After all, projects that start right, finish strong, and starting right is what governance is really about.