Tag Archives: Organizational Governance

PMI’s Practice Guide for the Governance of Portfolios, Programs, and Projects

governance-of-portfolios-programs-and-projectsPMI’s newly released Practice Guide for the Governance of  Portfolios, Programs, and Projects, provides some useful guidance to organisations and practitioners on the implementation of the management of portfolios, programs, and projects, but very little on the governance of this important aspect of most organisations.

The understanding of project management, program management and portfolio management is well developed and easily accessible to all organisations, many of which have well developed capabilities in these areas, but most still see their projects and programs fail on a regular basis.  Our 2012 post Project or Management Failures? highlighted the issues.

The source of many of these failures lies in the organisation’s ability to manage the overall function of ‘doing projects’ – defined by Professor Peter Morris as ‘the management of projects’ to differentiate this area of middle and executive management from traditional ‘project and program management’. The overall domain covered by the ‘the management of projects’ concept is outlined in our White Paper WP1079 The Strategic Management of Projects.

Despite confusing the governance function and the management function, this PMI Practice Guide is a valuable contribution to this area of management and to a lesser extent the governance of projects, programs and portfolios.  As previously mentioned, the major weakness in the PMI Practice Guide is its failure to differentiate and understand the different functions of governance and management.  Whilst this confusion is common in documents prepared by practitioners and academics focused on IT management and project management, it is rarely seen in any other area of management.

Governance is the exclusive responsibility of an organisation’s governing body; in corporations this is the ‘board of directors’, in other types of organisation, their equivalent.  The governing body is responsible for setting the objectives, culture, and ethical framework for the organisation, employing the organisation’s senior management, oversighting the organisation’s management functions and providing assurance to external stakeholders the organisation is operating effectively and conforming to its obligations (for more on this see: WP 1096 The Functions of Governance). Elements of some of these functions can be delegated to management, particularly in the areas of surveillance and assurance, but accountability remains with the governing body. Importantly in a well governed organisation, the governing body does not interfere in or directly undertake the management of the organisation – it is impossible to govern your own work!

The functions of management were defined 100 years ago by Henri Fayol in his book Administration Industrielle et Generale.  Management involves planning, forecasting, employing other managers and workers, and organising as in creating the organisation; then coordinating, controlling and directing the work of suppliers and subordinates to achieve the organisation’s objectives; whilst working within the ethical and cultural framework set by the governing body (for more on this see: WP 1094 The Functions of Management). A key function of every management role is ensuring subordinates and suppliers conform to the ‘rules’ set by the governing body.

In short, the role of governance is to set the objectives and rules; the role of management is to manage the resources of the organisation to achieve its objectives, working within the ‘rules’. This approach to governance is clearly defined in ISO 38500 the international standard for the corporate governance of information technology, and ISO 21505 the draft international standard for the governance of projects, programs and portfolios.  PMI has completely failed to understand this distinction and as a consequence invented a range of meaningless definitions in the Practice Guide along with a framework that defines basic management functions such as providing resources to undertake work as ‘governance’.

The simple fact of life is the governing body employs managers to undertake management functions and this involves allocating resources, deciding on priorities and making decisions within the strategic framework approved by the governing body. The basic functions of management were clearly defined by Henri Fayol in 1916 had have stood the test of time and the rigours of academic scrutiny.

The tragedy of the decision by PMI to ignore legislation, international standards and a range of governance authorities ranging from the OECD to Cadbury and try to invent its own definition of governance, is that in the PMI model, virtually every management role above that of the project manager is turned into a ‘governance role’.

The proposition made by PMI that every manager responsible for organising and coordinating the work of subordinate managers is engaged in governance is simply untenable – good effective prudent management is simply good effective prudent management!

The role of governance is to create the environment that allows good effective prudent management to occur; ensure the organisation employs people capable of implementing good effective prudent management and to oversee the working of management so the governors can provide assurance to the organisation’s stakeholders that their management team is in fact providing good effective prudent management. The actual work of providing good effective prudent management to achieve the objectives of the organisation is the role, responsibility and duty of managers

Strangely enough most people in real governance positions know what governance is and know what management is.  Alienating this group is a real pity because once you get past the problem of describing almost every management role as a ‘governance role’ the Guide contains a lot of very useful information focused on improving the abysmal performance of many organisations in the complex area of the ‘management of projects’.

  • Section 2 describes organisational project management and the tailoring management practices to meet organisational needs; the essential relationships and considerations; roles and responsibilities; and domains, functions, and processes. It describes how ‘the management of projects’ can be implemented as a program or project for integrated portfolio, program, and project management.
  • Section 3 describes portfolio management, its links to governance and its central role in the ‘management of projects’.
  • Section 4 describes program management and Section 5: management at the Project Level.

In summary PMI’s Practice Guide for the Governance of Portfolios, Programs, and Projects is a good attempt to focus attention on the vital executive and middle management roles that routinely fail to properly support the delivery of projects and programs; the Practice Guide is spoiled by the delusion that middle level managers and executives undertaking their normal management responsibilities are somehow ‘governing’ the organisation.  As a consequence, the governing bodies of organisations and corporations will tend to dismiss the Practice Guide as an irrelevance.

The key element missed by PMI is the understanding that good management practice is an outcome of good governance, and bad management practice is a symptom of governance failure. The role of governance is to ensure its organisation’s management structures and systems are ‘good’. The fact PMI have completely missed this important distinction in their Practice Guide and as a consequence significantly reduced its value to organisations is an opportunity lost! In most organisations both the governance of projects programs and portfolios needs improving and the overall management of projects programs and portfolios needs improving – these are both important, but require very different improvement processes!

Governance and the Magna Carta

On the 15th June 1215 the Magna Carta (Latin for “the Great Charter”), was sealed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor. Drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.

Magna carta

Unfortunately, neither side stood behind their commitments, leading to civil war with the rebel barons receiving active support from France. After John’s death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, and at the end of the civil war in 1217 it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta.

The 1297 version of Magna Carta

The 1297 version of Magna Carta

Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes; and his son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England’s statute law. But as important as this document is in English history, it was not ‘unique’ – the Magna Carta is based on a long Anglo-Saxon tradition of governance.

The 1215 Magna Carter was based on The Charter of Liberties, proclaimed by Henry I a century earlier. Henry I was King of England from 1100 to 1135; he was the fourth son of William the Conqueror and came to the throne on the death of his bother in a hunting accident. The Charter of Liberties issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100, and was designed to counteract many of the excesses of his bother William II and shore up support for Henry.  Among other things the Charter of Liberties restored the law of Edward the Confessor one of the last Anglo-Saxon kings of England.

Anglo-Saxon law itself has a long history; the Textus Roffensis currently held in the archives at Rochester, Kent, documents Anglo-Saxon laws from the 7th Century. These laws and practices suggest the rights of individuals were fairly well protected and the King was responsible for governing within the law (see: Arbitration has a long history).

The Norman Conquest of 1066 brought a more imperial style of governing that flowed from the Roman Emperors (post Julius Cesar), based on ‘the divine right of kings’ and a feudal system that placed the King at the top of a hierarchy of power based on the control of land – the King owned all of the land and granted it to Barons in return for allegiance and taxes.  The only limitation on the King’s power was the willingness of his barons to accept the King’s rule and if they did not, rebellion was their only option. This type of ‘absolute’ power was wound back a little by the Magna Carta which guaranteed the rights of Nobles and the Church but did little for ordinary people.

However, during the course of its repeated ‘re-issuing’ the Magna Carta did pave the way for Parliamentary government and stood as a powerful counter to attempts by monarchs to assert the divine right of Kings as late at the 17th Century. By the end of the 17th century, England’s constitution was seen as a social contract, based on documents such as Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, and the Bill of Rights. These concepts were taken to the Americas by the early colonists and formed part of the underpinnings of the USA constitution.

The governance message from the Mana Carta is the need for the ‘governor’ to respect the rights of the people being governed. The closer a governor gets to absolute power the greater the tendency to despotism and corruption. Effective governance systems balance the needs and rights of the governor and the governed, operate within an open framework, incorporate checks and balances, and adapt to changing circumstances. ‘Absolute systems’ are almost incapable of changing progressively, the usual course is the governors apply more and more coercion to stay ‘in power’ until eventually the whole system is destroyed by revolution or catastrophe; damaging everyone.

Following Magna Carta, the English constitution evolved and adapted to change and certainly since the restoration of the Monarchy after the English Civil War and Commonwealth of Oliver Cromwell has been designed to adapt and change. Corporate and organisational governance has followed a similar trend and evolved from its inception in the early 17th century into its modern form (see: The origins of governance).

However, whilst the concept of governance has been evolving and the purpose of good governance is to balance the needs and expectations of all stakeholders to the common good, governance failures remain commonplace.  Our last blog post Governance and stakeholders highlighted three recent governance failures; the discussion on FIFA in particular highlighting the danger of concentrating nearly absolute power in the hands of one person.

There are some interesting parallels, eight hundred years ago on the banks of the Thames an embattled King John met the English barons who had backed his failed war against the French and were seeking to limit his powers. The sealing of the Magna Carta, symbolically at least, established a new relationship between the king and his subjects. Eight days ago, Sepp Blatter met his advisors near the banks of Lake Genève and sealed his fate by announcing his resignation from FIFA. If FIFA survives, it is highly likely the powers of his successor will be similarly limited by a new ‘charter’.

The bigger question though, is how can these excesses be avoided in future? History tells us that transparency and good information is one of the keys to avoiding excess, as is making the ‘governors’ accountable to the governed.  Another is the affected stakeholders being willing to assert their rights before a situation gets out of hand and more desperate measures become necessary.

On two separate occasions I’ve been lucky enough to see one of the four remaining copies of the original Magna Carter, once at Lincoln in the UK, and once as part of an exhibition in Canberra. As we reflect on this document and its 800 year history its worth considering its key message, that good governance requires both limits on power and for the governors to consider the interests of their stakeholders; if these two elements are present, the likelihood of governance failure is going to be significantly reduced. This is equally true for national governments, organisational governance and the governing of projects, programs and portfolios.

Certainly, as far as the governing of projects, programs and portfolios is concerned, both the EVA18 Project Controls Conference in England and our local Project Governance and Controls Symposium are organised by people who believe one of the keys to good governance is having open, effective and robust reporting system in place that deliver accurate information to all relevant stakeholders. The challenge we face is persuading more organisations to invest in this key underpinning of good governance – hopefully we won’t have to wait another 800 years…

The moral underpinnings of good policy.

Over the last couple of weeks I’ve needed to look at the relationship between morals, ethics, values, principles and policies to help define several of these terms for use in ISO 21503, Guide to the governance of projects, programs and portfolios.  All of these terms are important aspects of governance but the interrelationships are far from clear.

The best construct seems to be something along these lines, but any thoughts or suggestions to the contrary will be appreciated.

Morals and ethics are the starting point, both deal with distinguishing between ‘right and wrong’ behaviours, but morals are internal to a person, ethics are rules developed by others:

  • Morals are the internal code of behaviour that define what is considered right or acceptable by the person, usually derived from a religious or philosophical base. The choice of which morality to follow is made by the individual, and therefore ‘morals’ tend to refer to that person’s ideals regarding right and wrong; within the framework of the society they live in – there can be different moralities.
  • Ethics involves systematising and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct, and refers to the series of rules provided to an individual by an external source, typically in a ‘professional code of ethics’; eg, the PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

Values are an expression of a person’s fundamental beliefs, founded on their ethical and moral framework. Values are used to define and differentiate right from wrong, good from bad, and just from unjust based on what is important to the individual – things the person ‘values’. Where are group of people operate within an organisational culture, the ‘values of the organisation’ are derived from the values of the members of the organisation. An organisation’s values are the standards used to provide guidance to the members of the organisation as they determine what is the best decision or course of action to take.

Principles are similar to ethics; they codify a fundamental truth or proposition to define an aspect of an organisation’s overall values in an objective way. They are positive statements of what will be done or achieved. An organisation’s enunciated principles serve as the foundation for its policies, behaviours and reasoning.

The final link in the chain is the organisation’s policies. These are a set of rules used by an organization to define how its members will implement aspects of its principles or objectives. Policies provide the guidance and constraints needed by management to operate he organisation effectively.

Ideally, in a well governed organisation, the connections between morals and ethics, values, principles and policies are direct and free of contradictions and ambiguities; with each policy clearly supporting the underlying ethical and moral foundations of the organisation’s culture. In reality there are frequently conflicting pressures and imperatives within the policies that make choosing the best option difficult – in these circumstances the decision maker’s personal morals and ethics come to the fore.  For more on ethics see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1001_Ethics.pdf

The social dynamics of governance – Bullying and Pressure Projects

A number of current news items have highlighted the complexity and interconnectedness of governance in organisations. The blog post is going to draw together four elements – high pressure projects, bullying, the need for organisations to provide a safe workplace and the need to support people with mental illness; all of which have interconnected governance implications.

To lay the foundation for this post, the interconnected nature of governance has been discussed in our post Governance -v- Management: A Functional Perspective  and is best displayed in this ‘petal diagram’

Petal Diagram Governance

The catalyst for this post are some recent changes in Australian workplace legislation that is forcing all types of organisations to consider how they manage the mental health of their paid and volunteer workforce.  In essence these codified requirements are no different to the pre-existing requirements to protect the physical wellbeing of the workforce and others interacting with the organisation, the only difference is mental heath and wellbeing are now overtly covered.

The new uniform national workplace health and safety laws require employers to ensure that workplaces are physically and mentally safe and healthy, and the work environment does not cause mental ill-health or aggravate existing conditions.  Under these harmonised laws ‘reckless conduct’ offences incur penalties of up to $3 million for corporations and $600,000 and/or 5 years jail for individuals.

These challenges cannot be avoided; it remains illegal to discriminate against individuals on the grounds of disability, including mental disability, in the same way it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of age, sex, race, and religious and other beliefs.

These are not trivial issues as the  $230,000 penalty (fines and costs) awarded  by the Victorian Supreme Court against the former operator of a commercial laundry for ‘workplace abuse’ and the  reputations damage suffered by CSIRO (Australia’s premier scientific research organisation), over on-going bullying allegations demonstrate.

There is a growing awareness of psychological hazards in the workplace including bullying, harassment and fatigue; and the consequences of organisational failures in this area can extend well beyond the strict legal liabilities.  To avoid prosecution and reputational damage, organisations are increasingly being required to take proactive, preventative actions and implement a culture, reinforced by effectively implemented policies to manage these aspects of workplace health and safety. Attitudes are slow to change and creating a culture that properly respects and protects mental wellbeing will require a sustained focus at the governance levels of the organisation as well as in the day-to-day management of the work place.

The payback for good governance and effective management in this area is that organisations that promote good mental health in the workplace are seen as great places to work, and have higher levels of productivity, performance, creativity, and staff retention, and tend to financially outperform other less well governed organisations. These are very similar findings to organisations that actively support and embrace ‘Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – apparently the good guys finish first (not last)!!

However, managing this change is not going to be simple!  Organisations are under ever increasing pressure to adapt to a rapidly changing environment and to produce ‘more with less’ to survive. One of the key capabilities enabling quick and effective strategic change is the domain of project and program management. In response to these organisational pressures, project managers are increasingly being placed under stress to be faster, cheaper and better and to deliver the new capability or ‘thing’ in record time.  Couple this to the mistaken belief of some managers that setting ‘stretch targets’ is a way to motivate workers (even though sustained failure is known to be a major cause of stress and demotivation) and you end up with a classic governance dilemma.

Deciding how to best balance these competing demands require an overarching governance policy supported by a sympathetic implementation by management to achieve both a safe work environment and an effective management outcome.  In the absence of effective governance managers are left to sort out their own priorities and frequently are driven by short term KPIs focused on easy to measure cost and time performance criteria. In these circumstances concern for performance frequently outweighs concern for people.

These issues are compounded by the fact that far too many middle and project managers lack effective people skills and can easily drift from pushing for performance to micro management to outright bullying. The mental wellbeing risks include applying undue pressure to perform that induces stress leading to depression; as well as more overt acts of aggression and bullying. The Australian Fair Work Amendment Bill of 2013 defines workplace bullying as ‘repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed towards a worker or group of workers that creates a risk to health or safety’.

Unfortunately, at least in the Australian context, bullying is a major unreported problem. A recent survey by the University of Sydney (see the report summary) has found that workplace bullying tends to be peer-to-peer and occurs at all levels of organisations. Most incidents occur within the presence of one’s peers, including bullying in meetings and other managers are unlikely to intervene. The problem is insidious, nearly 50% of the survey respondents reported bullying in the last year, and only 16% organisation assisted the situation when the problem was reported. But, ignoring the issue is a high risk strategy.

All types of organisation need to develop focused strategies to reduce the opportunities for bullying to occur at every level from the board room table down to the shop floor; and to policies backed by procedures to deal with bullying effectively when it does occur, in ways that support the victims. Bullying is illegal, causing damage to a person’s mental health is illegal (and bullying is only one way this can occur) and failing to effectively manage the consequences of mental illness is illegal.

The ongoing damage being caused to CSIRO’s reputation by the publication of the report into bullying within the organisation demonstrates the way these problems can escalate into a major issue for the Board. The on-going publicity associated with potential litigation and prosecutions has a long way to run before the final wash up allows CSIRO to move forward with a clean slate. And, as the CSIRO report suggests, the consequences of breaking the law are likely to be a small part of the overall damage caused governance failures in this important area.

The reason this is primarily a governance issue is the challenge associated with developing a philosophy and culture that empowers management to resolve the dilemma associated with balancing commercial objectives against personal wellbeing objectives – there is no ‘right answer’.  It is all too easy for executives to decide the organisation needs a new capability, managers being tasked to deliver the required outcome with inadequate resources, and the project manager to be given an unreasonably short timeframe for delivery.  The pressure to ‘perform’ inevitably leading to increases in stress, conflict and potentially bulling. But whilst there are many questions, and decisions, there are few clear answers:

  • When does the need to perform and work extended hours slip into workplace fatigue and an unsafe work environment?
  • When does the project manager’s desire to push team members for maximum performance slip into bullying?
  • Who is responsible for creating the unsafe work environment:
    –  The PM operating at the tactical level?
    –  The managers that set the strategic objectives?
    –  The executives who created the overall environment?
    –  The ‘governors’ who failed to offer appropriate leadership?

Good management can certainly alleviate some of the symptoms, but good governance is needed to eliminate the root cause and promote mental wellbeing in the workplace. At least in Australia there are now effective laws to help and the data shows improving this aspect of an organisation is good for business, and of course excellent stakeholder management.

Defining Governance

In a previous post, we defined management; this post seeks to achieve a similar definition of governance.

Governance is the act of governing. It is the way rules are set and implemented, and relates to the way decisions are made that define expectations, grant power, and verify the performance of people within the entity being governed.

To distinguish the term governance from government, governance is what a governing body does. It might be the governing body of a geo-political entity (nation-state – typically referred to as the government), a corporate entity (typically the Board of Directors), or another type of organisation. When looking at organisations and corporations (Corporate Governance), the governing body may be the individual that owns an organisation, but more typically is a small group of people at the apex of the organisation’s hierarchy.

Sir Adrian Cadbury (2002) defined the aim of corporate governance as aligning as nearly as possible the interests of individuals, organisations and society. Corporate governance is concerned with holding the balance between economic and social goals and between individual and communal goals. The governance framework is there to encourage the efficient use of resources and equally to require accountability for the stewardship of those resources. It is the system by which business corporations are directed and controlled.

Stewardship is an important governance concept. It includes:
Fealty: A propensity to view the assets at ones command as trust for future generations rather than available for selfish exploitation.
Charity: A willingness to put the interests of others ahead of ones own.
Prudence: A commitment to safeguard the future even as one takes advantage of the present.

The governance framework, set by the governing body, specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among different participants in the corporation, such as the board, managers, shareholders and other stakeholders, and spells out the rules and procedures for making decisions on corporate affairs. By doing this, it also provides the structure through which the company objectives are set, and defines the means of attaining those objectives and of monitoring performance.

The Functions of Governance
The governance function has two key aspects; the first is deciding what the organisation should be and how it should function. These governance decisions are communicated to management for implementation and the primary outputs from this part of the governance system are:

  • The strategic objectives of the organisation framed within its mission, values and ethical framework.
  • The policy framework the organisation is expected to operate within.
  • The appointment of key managers to manage the organisation.

These aspects are best developed using a principle-based approach that recognises and encourages entrepreneurial responses from all levels of management.

The second aspect of the governance system is oversight and assurance. The governing body should pro-actively seek assurance from its management that the strategic objectives and policies are being correctly achieved or implemented. The assurance and oversight functions include:

  • Agreeing the organisations current strategic plan (in conjunction with executive management). The strategic plan describes how the strategic objectives will be achieved.
  • Suggesting or approving changes to the strategic plan to respond to changing circumstances.
  • Requiring effective assurance from management that the organisations policy framework is being adhered to.
  • Requiring effective assurance from management that the organisations resources are being used as efficiently as practical in pursuit of its strategic objectives.
  • Communicating the relevant elements of the assurances received from management to appropriate external stakeholders.
  • Assurance to the organisation’s owners the strategy and policies are being adhered to by management and the organisation as a whole.
  • Assurance to a wider stakeholder community (including regulatory authorities) the organisation is operating properly.

The role of management is the mirror image of governance:

  • Providing input to develop the strategic plan
  • Implementing the approved strategic plan within the policy guidelines set by the governing body.
  • Providing assurance to the governing body that the management structure is:
    • Operating ethically and accountably
    • Providing effective stewardship of the resources available to the organisation
  • Providing timely and accurate information on achievements and issues.

Managing the organisation and making the executive level and operational level decisions needed to implement the agreed strategy and run the organisation within the ethical and policy framework set by the governing body are the core skills and responsibility of management.

Governance and sustainability
The key challenge for the governing body is balancing the competing needs of the organisations stakeholders, including but not limited to its owners, employees, suppliers, customers and society at large, so as to align as nearly as possible the interests of each stakeholder, the organisation and ‘society’ in a sustainable way.

Tripple bottom line

The four elements of sustainability are the three depicted above plus time. The current governors of an organisation need to be cognisant of sustaining the organisation into the future and governing so that the organisation can continue as a valuable contributor to the needs of its stakeholders in the medium and long term, as well as the current short term.

The Governance of PPP
Within this overall framework, the governance of project, program and portfolio management (PPP) is simply an integral part of the overall governance process. Whilst there are specific skills and elements associated with governing PPP these are governance requirements, the responsibility of the governing body.

Similarly the management of the organisation’s portfolios, programs and projects at both the overall enterprise level and the operational level is an integral part of the management process. So whilst there are specific skills and elements associated with the overarching management of the PPP domain at the enterprise level, these are management skills, and are the responsibility of the management team. In short, Governors govern, Managers manage.

Some final thoughts on Governance
Governance is a holistic process that requires careful balance. Decisions in any one aspect of the organisation being governed affect all of the others, some examples include:

  • A project failure can affect the organisations reputation and share price;
  • An accident to an employee may have direct personal liability implications for the Directors;
  • A poorly worded press release may damage the organisation’s reputation and have direct personal liability implications for the Directors.
  • There are a range of legislative requirement that impose significant ‘duties’ on the governors of commercial and other organisations including financial reporting and disclosure requirements, environmental, OH&S and employment requirements and taxation and superannuation requirements (eg, CLERP9, SOX, etc.). The governors are legally required to govern!

Because of this interconnectedness, governance operates at the organisational level which means you govern an organisation that does projects; you do not govern the individual projects; if the project teams are part of the overall organisational structure – you manage them! There is no effective difference between temporary project teams and permanent teams within the organisation.

Exceptions to this are when a project is set up as a temporary organisation external to the main organisation either as an isolated ‘skunk works’ or ‘major project team’ focused on developing something independent of the work of the main organisation, or as a joint venture between two different organisations. Then, as with any subsidiary, if the project organisation is operating as a largely autonomous entity, it becomes an organisation in its own right that requires governing and any parent organisation is one of the key stakeholders the governing body of the project has to consider.

To access our other papers looking at different aspects of governance see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PM-Knowledge_Index.html#OrgGov

Defining Management

A consistent theme in these posts is the assertion that governance and management are different processes undertaken by different entities within an organisation. In short, Directors or their equivalent govern, Managers manage.

This assertion is supported by the unequivocal view of governments, the OECD, stock exchanges world-wide, various ISO Standards, various Institutes of Company Directors and the Association for Project Management in the UK. The various laws, standards, definitions and guidelines published by these bodies all agree the Board has the exclusive responsibility to govern all aspects of the organisation and this includes the governance of project and program management activities.

The governance function has two key aspects; the first is deciding what the organisation should be and how it should function. These governance decisions are communicated to management for implementation and the primary outputs from this part of the governance system are:

  • The strategic objectives of the organisation framed within its mission, values and ethical framework.
  • The policy framework the organisation is expected to operate within.
  • The appointment of key managers to manage the organisation.

The second aspect of the governance system is oversight and assurance. The governing body should pro-actively seek assurance from its management that the strategic objectives and policies are being correctly achieved or implemented. The assurance and oversight functions include:

  • Agreeing the organisations current strategic plan (in conjunction with executive management). The strategic plan describes how the strategic objectives will be achieved.
  • Suggesting or approving changes to the strategic plan to respond to changing circumstances.
  • Requiring effective assurance from management that the organisations policy framework is being adhered to.
  • Requiring effective assurance from management that the organisations resources are being used as efficiently as practical in pursuit of its strategic objectives.
  • Communicating the relevant elements of the assurances received from management to appropriate external stakeholders.
  • Assurance to the organisation’s owners the strategy and policies are being adhered to by management and the organisation as a whole.
  • Assurance to a wider stakeholder community (including regulatory authorities) the organisation is operating properly.

From the list above, it is obvious that the governance system cannot operate without the effective support of the organisation’s management system. And, if governance and management are different systems within an organisation, they should have different functions creating different outputs. We believe this is the case and the purpose of this post is to define what management is and does.

The functions of management were defined by Henri Fayol (1841 – 1925) in his general theory of business administration and surprisingly, this is still seen as a one of the basic definitions of management. He proposed that there were five primary functions of management and 14 principles of management:

Fayol’s Functions of Management

  1. to forecast and plan,
  2. to organise
  3. to command or direct
  4. to coordinate
  5. to control (French: contrôller: in the sense that a manager must receive feedback about a process in order to make necessary adjustments and must analyse the deviations.).

Inherent in these functions is decision making!  The primary role of management is to make decisions and value judgements within the framework set by the governing body to achieve the objectives set by the governing body. The primary output from management can be defined as information and instructions that have to be communicated to others.

The communication is firstly to the workers so they understand what has to be produced, where and when; secondly to the governing body to provide assurance that the right decisions have been made and the right things are being produced in the right ways applying the organisation’s policy framework correctly.

Fayol’s Principles of Management

The principles of management define some of the ways the functions of management can be implemented – some of theses principles need adjusting to remain effective in modern organisations but the concepts are still valid:

  1. Division of work. This principle is the same as Adam Smith’s ‘division of labour’. Specialisation increases output by making employees more efficient.
  2. Authority. Managers must be able to give orders. Authority gives them this right. Note that responsibility arises wherever authority is exercised.
  3. Discipline. Employees must obey and respect the rules that govern the organisation. Good discipline is the result of effective leadership, a clear understanding between management and workers regarding the organisation’s rules, and the judicious use of penalties for infractions of the rules.
  4. Unity of command. Every employee should receive orders from only one superior, from top to bottom in an organisation (not practical in matrix organisations).
  5. Unity of direction. Each group of organisational activities that have the same objective should be directed by one manager using one plan.
  6. Subordination of individual interests to the general interest. The interests of any one employee or group of employees should not take precedence over the interests of the organisation as a whole.
  7. Remuneration. Workers must be paid a fair wage for their services.
  8. Centralisation. Centralisation refers to the degree to which subordinates are involved in decision making. Whether decision making is centralized (to management) or decentralized (to subordinates) is a question of proper proportion. The task is to find the optimum degree of centralisation for each situation.
  9. Scalar chain. The line of authority from top management to the lowest ranks represents the scalar chain. Communications should follow this chain. However, if following the chain creates delays, cross-communications can be allowed if agreed to by all parties and superiors are kept informed.
  10. Order. People and materials should be in the right place at the right time.
  11. Equity. Managers should be kind and fair to their subordinates.
  12. Stability of tenure of personnel. High employee turnover is inefficient. Management should provide orderly personnel planning and ensure that replacements are available to fill vacancies.
  13. Initiative. Employees who are allowed to originate and carry out plans will exert high levels of effort.
  14. Esprit de corps. Promoting team spirit will build harmony and unity within the organisation.

Whilst some authorities have added to and changed some aspects of Fayol’s work in the intervening 100 years, these additions and changes have generally expanded and clarified the concepts outlined above. In general terms Fayol’s work has stood the test of time, has been shown to be relevant and appropriate to contemporary management and defines what management is and does. A person undertaking any of the five functions, or employing any of the 14 principles is engaged in management (not governance).

What I believe this post makes crystal clear though is the difference between governance and management – when a manager is deciding the best options or seeking information on actual performance to use in decisions the manager is managing.

Governance is seen differently by Directors and Managers

A survey undertaken as part of our work developing a paper on ‘project governance’ highlights a distinct difference between the views held by managers and directors. To gather data, we ran a short survey between 23rd January and 9th February 2013 on four closed Linked-In groups; two of the groups were for project management association members, two for company directors. In all cases you had to be a member of the association to be a member of the group ensuring the sample communities were quite distinct.

The survey question was:
Who is responsible for the governance of an organisation? This poll is focused on governing, rather than implementing policy unless you feel implementation of policy is itself a governance function.

The four options included in the survey were:
– The Board of Directors or equivalent:
– The Directors plus Senior Executives:
– The Senior Management group:
– All managers in governance roles eg PCBs: (project control boards)

Whilst the total number of responses were low a significant difference of views emerged between the two communities.

The overwhelming majority of directors, 86% see governance as the exclusive responsibility of the Board of Directors or its equivalent.

Whereas more than 70% of the project managers see ‘governance’ as the responsibility of either ‘The Directors plus Senior Executives’ or ‘The Senior Management group’ and less then 30% agree with the proposition that governance is the exclusive responsibility of the Board of Directors or their equivalent.

Whilst it would be useful to validate these findings with a larger sample, the stark difference between the two communities is consistent with our observations and other anecdotal evidence. The project management community perspective that ‘governance’ is a management function is simply not supported by other managers and directors.

We have been advocating for several years that:
“Governance” is what a “governing body” does. It might be a geo-political entity (nation-state), a corporate entity (business entity), a socio-political entity (chiefdom, tribe, family etc.), or any number of different kinds of governing bodies, but governance is the way rules are set and implemented.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance)
It is encouraging to see the directors of our businesses have a similar view.

The damage caused by the project management communities’ view of governance is set out in a letter-to-the-editor published in this months PM World Journal, see: http://pmworldjournal.net/article/on-the-subject-of-the-january-series-article-enterprise-project-governance-how-to-manage-projects-successfully-across-the-organization-what-is-enterprise-project-governance-by-paul-dinsmore-luiz/

For more papers on this subject see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PM-Knowledge_Index.html#OrgGov1