Governance - WHAT A DRAG!

 

     MVG - Minimum Viable Governance     

         FD=½CPAV2    

 FACT:   Drag increases proportionately with the square of speed.      

 

Minimum Viable Governance: Reducing Drag Without Increasing Risk

It is a simple truth in physics, "drag increases in proportion to the square of speed". The faster you go, the more resistance you encounter. The same principle applies to projects. The more urgent the delivery, the more significant the impact of anything that slows progress. Any activity not directly contributing to the creation of deliverables introduces drag. In theory, if you removed these activities, the project would still deliver.

By far the greatest source of drag is governance. This includes record keeping, planning, monitoring, reporting, progress updates, change management, risk management and the ever‑present demand to attend meetings. In other words, almost everything the project management function requires from the wider team that is not directly producing outputs.

Governance as a Hygiene Factor

Louis Pasteur’s germ theory[1] offers a useful analogy. Before germs were understood, medicine was practised with mixed results. Some patients improved, some deteriorated and some remained unchanged, and each outcome could be rationalised. Pasteur hypothesised that germs were a significant cause of post‑operative deaths. Surgery might save a life, but without hygiene the patient was unlikely to recover.

Herzberg later applied similar thinking to his Two‑Factor Theory of Emotion[2], often referred to as Motivation–Hygiene Theory. Hygiene factors do not motivate, but their absence causes failure.

Governance functions in the same way. It contributes little to the visible outcome, yet it has a profound impact on the likelihood of success. Without governance, projects are significantly more likely to fail. With too much governance, they become slow, cumbersome and risk‑laden.

This creates a clear tension. Governance introduces drag, but governance is also essential for success.

The Case for Minimum Viable Governance

The solution is Minimum Viable Governance (MVG). The objective is to apply no more governance than is necessary to achieve the project’s goals with reasonable certainty. In other words, governance should be sufficient to assure success, but no more.

Determining the appropriate level of governance requires an understanding of several interrelated factors, including:

  • Duration, scale and complexity of the project

  • Number, distribution and diversity of stakeholders

  • Size and composition of project teams

  • Internal and external political dynamics

  • Whether the organisation is public or private, governed or non‑governed

  • Nature of the products being delivered

  • Clarity of objectives and certainty of outcomes

  • Likelihood of change throughout the lifecycle

It is also essential to understand what governance is intended to achieve. It may exist to provide delivery assurance, reduce risk, maintain control, ensure compliance or, in extreme cases, satisfy a sponsor’s anxieties. The latter adds no value and only increases drag.

Responsible project and programme leaders must apply only the governance that is genuinely required. Anything more risks alienating delivery teams and stakeholders, increasing resistance and reducing the likelihood of success.

Achieving MVG is not easy. It requires judgement, experience and discipline. However, the long‑term benefits almost always outweigh the effort.

Practical Guidance for Tailoring Governance

1. Clarify the Purpose

Examine each element of governance and ask why it is being done. If there is no clear purpose, or if the only justification is that a methodology recommends it, remove it.

2. Define the Required Outcome

Once the purpose is understood, agree the outcome needed. From this, the minimum breadth and depth of governance can be determined.

3. Assess Certainty and Volatility

The more certain the requirements and outcomes, the less monitoring and control is needed. Conversely, in volatile environments or agile delivery models, detailed communication and documentation become essential.

4. Consider the Politics

The more politically sensitive the environment, the greater the need to protect the project team from selective memory, altered facts or retrospective reinterpretation. Governance becomes a shield as much as a process.

Final Note

Minimum Viable Governance is not about cutting corners. It is about applying governance intelligently, proportionately and purposefully. When done well, it reduces drag, increases clarity and significantly improves the chances of successful delivery.

If you would like to explore this further, you can get in touch here: chris.shelton@cjshelton.co.uk


Footnote

 

AGILE:        It should be noted that whilst the Agile Manifesto espouses:

 

      • Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
      • Working software over comprehensive documentation
      • Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
      • Responding to change over following a plan

§   

The manifesto DOES NOT negate the need for a level of governance, far from it, agile projects frequently need higher quality governance than that of a traditional (waterfall/turnkey) project.


 

 

 

 

 

NOTES: 

1.     Pasteur, Louis (3 May 1880). Translated by H.C. Ernst. "Extension Of The Germ Theory To The Etiology Of Certain Common Disease". Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. French Academy of Sciences. 90: 1033–44 – via Fordham University Modern History Sourcebook.
 

2.     "Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Two-factor". Education Library. 2021-03-31. Retrieved 2021-03-31. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When you're up to your neck in Crocodiles

Image
  .......It’s hard to remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp   (yes that is me……….and yes they are real life massive Alligators……………and yes they really are about 5 feet away)     AKA: THE IMPORTANCE OF DOCUMENTATION (and the Law of Sufficiency )   FACT:    Selective memory, confirmation bias and revisionism are common human traits, and stakeholders, sponsors and project teams are no more immune to them than anyone else.                          At the same time, documentation is often perceived as an unnecessary burden. The time and effort required to record information, validate details and maintain accurate artefacts can create significant drag on a project. As a result, there is a natural temptation to avoid writing things down, to skip over the need to capture key decisions and events, and simply press ahead. The mindset becomes one of “ j...
Read more

SEPs and Avoiding the Body Brothers

Image
Somebody Else’s Problem: The Invisible Threat to Programme Success Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy introduces the wonderfully absurd concept of the Somebody Else’s Problem (S.E.P.) field [1] —a device that renders objects effectively invisible by exploiting the human tendency to ignore anything too inconvenient to accept. As Adams puts it, an S.E.P. works because “any problems one may have understanding it… become Somebody Else’s Problem” . A starship disguised as a giant pink elephant at a cricket match becomes unnoticeable not because it cannot be seen, but because the mind refuses to acknowledge something so implausible. While Adams’ example is comic fiction, the behavioural principle behind it is very real. In academia, the psychological phenomenon known as diffusion of responsibility [3] describes how individuals are less likely to take action when others are present and theoretically able to do so. This tendency to ignore issues deemed “out of scope” can ...
Read more

F*** the Problem........................Fix the People

Image
Why Affinity Bias Can Make or Break Delivery                It’s who you are, and how you do it!.........not what you do or what you’ve done!                                                                                             When things go wrong, it is stressful for everyone involved. It can also be a lonely and disempowering experience for those who depend on a resolution but cannot contribute to it. Buyers and customers often have no choice but to sit and wait. Delivering an excellent fix rarely restores harmony on its own. The unspoken frustration remains: " it should not have gone wrong in the first place" .   An old mentor of mine used to say, “ Fix the people, not the problem ,” (or less polite wo...
Read more