Tag Archives: Stakeholder Management

Practical Ethics

EthicsA string of disasters over the last couple of years suggest many business and government leaders simply do not understand ‘practical ethics’.  Through naivety, undue optimism, or laziness, they have set up situations based on blind trust in the ethical standards of others resulting in deaths, injury and the loss of $billions.

Just a few examples:

  • The ‘Home insulation program’ of 2008/9 resulted in 4 deaths, numerous house fires and many well established businesses being destroyed. The naive assumption by the Government seemed to be that with $millions of government funding easily accessed, businesses would still act ethically, train staff and comply with occupational health and welfare standards. The failure by businesses to meet this expectation has resulted in numerous prosecutions after the damage was done.
  • The outsourcing of technical and further education training (TAFE) to the private sector. Private providers under the VET Fee-Help scheme are paid for students signed up to courses, not for students qualified from courses – the naive assumption by the Government seemed to be that with $millions of government funding easily accessed, businesses would still act ethically and only sign up students that could benefit from the courses and would deliver good training outcomes. $hundreds of millions of public funds have been wasted – most of which can never be recovered.
  • Downer EDI’s Board of Directors appear to have blindly trusted their management to run the disastrous $3 billion Waratah train project. Normal governance feedback seemed to have been ignored to the point where the Directors were unable to get information on the project when needed, blowing a $20 million loss into a $200 million loss.

In each of these cases the government and business leaders seemed to have either assumed everyone would act ethically or relied on Adam Smith’s ‘Invisible hand’ (a flawed theory much loved by the rabid right, particularly in the USA). Unfortunately ethics is not that simple!  Writing a code of ethics[i] is a relatively simple process; encouraging people to live up to the code is far more difficult. There are several factors needed:

  • First, the organisations leaders need to lead by example. The ethical standards of the organisation and its supply chain are unlikely to exceed the standards set by the leadership (see: Ethical Leadership).
  • Second, the expected standards need to be clearly and unambiguously articulated. Saying you require one standard of behaviour and then paying people to perform differently will inevitably lead to the organisation getting what it has paid for (see: The normalisation of deviant behaviours).
  • Third, the governance and management systems need ‘real-time’ feedback to both encourage the desired standards of behaviour and to detect any ‘slips’ very early in the process so corrective actions can be implemented before there is a major issue (see: Self Correcting Processes).

Unfortunately governments in particular are reasonably good at enforcing standards years after the breach took place and seem to assume that the ‘deterrent effect’ will suffice to maintain ethical standards – this assumption patently does no work!  I doubt the £2.25m fine imposed on UK consultancy Sweett Group[ii] for bribing a prominent United Arab Emirates (UAE) businessman in return for work will have much effect on other unethical business people contemplating paying a bribe – for a start, no one expects to get caught. The ‘pink batt’ prosecutions occurred years after the scheme was closed, prosecutions under the VET Fee-Help scheme are still to eventuate (and rip-offs are still continuing). The simple fact is the fear of a potential prosecution in a few years time compared to the opportunity to make $millions now has very little effect on unethical people.

Conversely, over policing ‘ethics’ and watching every move can be as destructive as ‘blind trust’. If people feel they are not trusted, there is no incentive for them to act ethically.  Micro management is a major de-motivator and will inevitably lead to suboptimal performance with people doing ‘just enough’ and seeing how much they can get away with[iii]. This approach stifles innovation and creativity.

Practical ethics requires pragmatic trust. You need to trust the people you are working with, governing or managing, but have agreed processes that provide feedback and monitoring, that demonstrates your trust is being honoured.

  • In my ‘Six functions of governance’ management control functions are expected to provide feedback to the governing body that allows it to hold its management accountable and ensure conformance by the organisation being governed. Had these functions been implemented effectively EDI-Downer would be in a much better position today.
  • Demand feedback – even if you do not want to hear bad news! The recent announcement by CSIRO that its climate division will be virtually eliminated may be a pragmatic response to government initiatives and cost cutting but serves no one in the long term. Governments and business rely on climate science to make billion-dollar decisions. Without it, they will be relying on guesswork. Shooting the messenger simply means everyone is ‘flying blind’.
  • Build feedback into management systems. In the various government debacles mentioned above (and others) simple changes in process could have reward desirable outcomes rather than rewarding unethical behaviour. The purpose of any TAFE course is to educate a person and demonstrate learning by success in an exam.  Why not pay most of the money on completion of the course? Then make sure audit processes are in place to validate the exam performance is genuine – these exist and are easily applied.

Pragmatic trust is a graduated process – as people demonstrate their trustworthiness and ethical standards less oversight is needed (but less does not mean no oversight); the challenge is to design systems that reward desirable behaviours and outcomes creating a win-win, people who demonstrate high ethical standards are rewarded.

This approach is the antithesis of the current government approach which seems to rely on blind trust, assumes everyone is ethical, and as a consequence directly benefits unethical behaviours (at least in the short term). Not only have the $millions paid out in VET Fees to unethical providers resulted in minimal return to the government; they have actively encouraged unethical standards and have damaged businesses and organisations that do offer quality courses. A lose-lose outcome in which the only winners are the unethical businesses that have ripped off the system – the Pink Batts Royal Commission found a similar effect on the insulation businesses.

Slippery-slopeEthics are by definition based on the standards of behaviour considered acceptable by a group[iv].  When a significant proportion of the groups members start to let standards slip, they will tend to drag the rest of the group with them down the slippery slope – it is very hard to stand out against the normally accepted behaviours of your group. And as with any slippery mountain slope, it is far easier to slide towards the bottom than to keep your footing and climb towards the top.

The role of ethical leaders is first to set the ethical standards, then live up to the standards themselves, and finally require their followers to conform to the standards using pragmatic trust and encouragement rather than after the event punishment.


 

[i] The PMI Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is a good example: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF/PMICodeofEthics.pdf

[ii] See: http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/sweett-group-must-pay-32m-bri7bery-a7bu-dh7abi/

[iii] For more on motivation see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1048_Motivation.pdf

[iv] For more on ethics and leadership see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1001_Ethics.pdf

The Shergold Report calls for better governance and better project controls!

Shergold2The recently released report by Professor Peter Shergold, ‘Learning from Failure: Why large government policy initiatives have gone so badly wrong in the past and how the chances of success in the future can be improved’ (the Shergold Report), sets out a framework designed to improve the delivery of major Australian Government programs.  But the framework is not limited to government; the concepts can be usefully applied by any organisation seeking to initiate a major program of works.

The report focuses on making practical recommendations to enhance the capacity of the Australian Government to:

  1. Design and implement large public programmes and projects;
  2. Develop robust and effective governance and accountability arrangements for such programmes and projects;
  3. Understand the broader environment in which programmes and policies are designed and implemented;
  4. Identify, understand and manage risks; and
  5. Provide accurate, timely, clear and robust advice to ministers and within the APS.

Substitute ‘organisation’ for ‘Australian Government’ and ‘senior stakeholders and governors’ for ‘ministers and within the APS’ and the value of the document to the wider community becomes apparent.

The Shergold Report does not make specific recommendations to the government; rather it reaches a series of immutable conclusions based on the narrative in each section and is intended to spark public comment and discussion from a wide spectrum of people both within and outside of the Australian Public Service.

The Shergold Report contains 28 proposals for improvement; the key conclusions are reproduced below are reformatted as recommended good practices for any organisation planning to undertake a major program of works:

Ensuring Robust Advice: Good governance is founded on good policy, and good policy depends on good advice. To this end, executives and managers should be held accountable for the quality of advice they provide. Significant advice should be provided in writing and records maintained.

Decision Making: The importance of decision-making, and the circumstances under which it occurs, underscore the need to have well-functioning support systems in place.

Creating a Positive Risk Culture: Moving the organisation from reactive, defensive risk management; to proactive, performance-focused risk engagement. The major challenge is to embed the new approaches within a strong risk culture. This requires: understanding appetites for risk on individual programs and across the portfolio, appointing a Chief Risk Officer, at a senior executive level, proposals should be supported by an endorsed Risk Management Plan, and preparing a bi-annual whole-of-organisation Risk Assessment for the governing body, analysing the system-wide impact of operational, financial, strategic, legislative and procurement risks faced by the organisation.

Enhancing Program Management: Program and project management are too often seen as control activities; they are actually creative processes!  They require discipline and professional expertise to maintaining single point accountability while being open and flexible to the opportunities of networked governance structures. To achieve this requires:

  • Defined standards of proficiency for project and program managers, with active support through career development opportunities, continued education and participation in professional communities of practice such as the upcoming Project Governance and Controls Symposium.
  • For each project or programs[1], a clear understanding of who accepts end-to-end responsibility for managing implementation (typically the Sponsor[2]), wields delegated authority and where accountability resides.

Opening up to diversity: A diversity of perspectives in the workplace and the boardroom improves performance. Diversity increases critical analysis of information, results in better decision-making and challenges ‘groupthink’. Program advisory groups should be established that include representation drawn from outside the organisation in order to capture a broader diversity of perspectives and knowledge.

Embracing adaptive governance: Organisations that thrive are flexible. They seize opportunities, learn rapidly and recognise that partners will be needed to deliver long-term goals. When they enter uncharted territory they respond fast, start small, test new approaches, watch market responses, learn from doing, scale-up their activity or, if necessary, try again.

Most importantly, they are honest about failure. They recognise that mistakes happen, interrogate why they occurred and set in place remedial measures to ensure that they perform better next time. Failure and its lessons are an inevitable part of entrepreneurial life but are also central to maintaining organisational competitiveness. This means (where possible) new proposals should include a trial or demonstration stage, allowing new approaches to be developed fast and evaluated early. Large projects should incorporate staged decision-making[3].

Conclusions

Good governance is focused on creating good outcomes, not developing a straightjacket of impenetrable and restrictive procedures – the person or organisation that has never made a mistake has never made anything! The art of effectively using project and programs to create a new and desirable future is effective governance, backed by prudent risk management and effective, adaptive delivery and change management processes. The Shergold Report concludes that:

  1. Policy is only as good as the manner in which it is implemented
  2. Policy advice can only be frank and fearless if it is supported by written argument.
  3. Deliberations, oral and in writing, need to be protected.
  4. Deliberative documents need to be preserved, whether written on paper or delivered by digital means.
  5. It is up to ministers (the governing body), not officials (management), to make policy decisions.
  6. The effective management of risk is just as important in the public sector as in the private – perhaps more so.
  7. As the public service fully commits itself to measuring results by outcomes, program management needs to be accorded far greater professional status.
  8. Good governance increasingly depends on collaboration across sectors.
  9. The APS needs to be further opened up. Diversity and external inputs to the organisation.
  10. An adaptive government (organisation) can respond rapidly to changing circumstances without taking unnecessary (and unforeseen) risks.

The one area missing from the Shergold Report is recognition of the importance and difficulty of implementing organisational change (and the disciplines of change management and benefits realisation). The concepts are implicit in many aspects of the report but would have benefitted from direct discussion.

These limitations aside, the Shergold Report is a very deep and well considered document, well worth the effort of reading by both private and public sector mangers and governors. It highlights failures and the learning that can be taken from the experiences to improve future outcomes. To quote Confucius “By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest”. Learning from other’s experience may not be the ‘noblest’ option but is far preferable to repeating avoidable mistakes.

We will be commenting further on this report in future posts and I’m sure it will feature prominently in discussions at the upcoming Project Governance and Controls Symposium that is being held in Canberra in May.

Shergold1

The full report can be downloaded from: http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/learning-from-failure

From a completely different source, the Australian Infrastructure Plan Priorities and reforms for our nation’s future (Feb. 2016), recommendations under Chapter 9 – Governance calls for very similar processes to the Shergold Report.  These reports, and many previous, have consistently promulgated the same message.  We know what needs to be done, understanding why its not being done is the real challenge.


 

[1] To understand the difference between a project and a program see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1002_Programs.pdf

[2] For more on the role of the Sponsor see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1031_Project_Sponsorship.pdf

[3] For more on ‘gateway reviews see: http://www.mosaicprojects.com.au/WhitePapers/WP1092_Gateways-Scorecards.pdf

Project Risk Management – how reliable is old data?

One of the key underpinnings of risk management is reliable data to base probabilistic estimates of what may happen in the future.  The importance of understanding the reliability of the data being used is emphasised in PMBOK® Guide 11.3.2.3 Risk Data Quality Assessment and virtually every other risk standard.

One of the tenets underpinning risk management in all of its forms from gambling to insurance is the assumption that reliable data about the past is a good indicator of what will happen in the future – there’s no certainty in this processes but there is degree of probability that future outcomes will be similar to past outcomes if the circumstances are similar. ‘Punters’ know this from their ‘form guides’, insurance companies rely on this to calculate premiums and almost every prediction of some future outcome relies on an analogous interpretation of similar past events. Project estimating and risk management is no different.

Every time or cost estimate is based on an understanding of past events of a similar nature; in fact the element that differentiates an estimate from a guess is having a basis for the estimate! See:
–  Duration Estimating
–  Cost Estimating

The skill in estimating both normal activities and risk events is understanding the available data, and being able to adapt the historical information to the current circumstances. This adaptation requires understanding the differences in the work between the old and the current and the reliability and the stability of the information being used. Range estimates (three point estimates) can be used to frame this information and allow a probabilistic assessment of the event; alternatively a simple ‘allowance’ can be made. For example, in my home state we ‘know’ three weeks a year is lost to inclement weather if the work is exposed to the elements.  Similarly office based projects in the city ‘know’ they can largely ignore the risk of power outages – they are extremely rare occurrences. But how reliable is this ‘knowledge’ gained over decades and based on weather records dating back 180 years?

World-Temprature

Last year was the hottest year on record (by a significant margin) as was 2014 – increasing global temperatures increase the number of extreme weather events of all types and exceptionally hot days place major strains on the electrical distribution grids increasing the likelihood of blackouts.  What we don’t know because there is no reliable data is the consequences.  The risk of people not being able to get to work, blackouts and inclement weather events are different – but we don’t know how different.

Dealing with this uncertainty requires a different approach to risk management and a careful assessment of your stakeholders. Ideally some additional contingencies will be added to projects and additional mitigation action taken such as backing up during the day as well as at night – electrical storms tend to be a late afternoon / evening event. But these cost time and money…..

Getting stakeholder by-in is more difficult:

  • A small but significant number of people (including some in senior roles) flatly refuse to accept there is a problem. Despite the science they believe based on ‘personal observations’ the climate is not changing…….
  • A much larger number will not sanction any action that costs money without a cast iron assessment based on valid data. But there is no valid data, the consequences can be predicted based on modelling but there are no ‘facts’ based on historical events……..
  • Most of the rest will agree some action is needed but require an expert assessment of the likely effect and the value proposition for creating contingencies and implementing mitigation activities.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it???? 

The challenge facing everyone in management is deciding what to do:

  • Do nothing and respond heroically if needed?
  • Think through the risks and potential responses to be prepared (but wait to see what actually occurs)??
  • Take proactive action and incur the costs, but never being sure if they are needed???

There is no ‘right answer’ to this conundrum, we certainly cannot provide a recommendation because we ‘don’t know’ either.  But at least we know we don’t know!

head-in-sandI would suggest discussing what you don’t know about the consequences of climate change on your organisation is a serious conversation that needs to be started within your team and your wider stakeholder community.

Doing nothing may feel like a good options – wait and see (ie, procrastination) can be very attractive to a whole range of innate biases. But can you afford to do nothing?  Hoping for the best is not a viable strategy, even if inertia in your stakeholder community is intense. This challenge is a real opportunity to display leadershipcommunication and  negotiation skills to facilitate a useful conversation.

Is your steering committee costing $5000 per hour?

The loaded cost of running a committee of senior managers can easily exceed $5000 per hour once the opportunity costs are included.  Productive committees offset this by creating value, hopefully significantly greater than their running costs.  Project and program steering committees should be no different!

Steering_Committee

However, if the steering committee is simply focused on ‘governance’ it is highly unlikely to be generating any significant value.  At the management level where most steering committees operate there is very little governance decision making needed and conformance and assurance usually needs specialists.

The first four functions of governance defined in The Functions of Governance are:

  • Determining the objectives of the organisation: this is done by the organisation’s governing body and implemented through the strategic plan. The project should have been selected because it contributes to achieving the strategic plan, a function of portfolio management, but once the project has started it is rather too late.
  • Determining the ethics of the organisation: this is done by the organisation’s governing body; it is a duty of every manager to support the organisation’s ethical standards and ensure the people they are managing conform. But you do not need a committee to ensure this occurs, just the project manager’s line manager (usually the Sponsor).
  • Creating the culture of the organisation: again this is done by the organisation’s governing body; it is a duty of every manager to support the organisation’s cultural standards and ensure the people they are managing conform. But you do not need a committee to ensure this occurs, just the project manager’s line manager (usually the Sponsor).
  • Designing and implementing the governance framework for the organisation: this should be done before the project is started and include delegations of authority for expenditure and decision making and escalation paths. If it has not been done, one half hour meeting of the sponsor and a few key managers can set the delegations.

In summary, the aspects of governance that determine the way the organisation operates and how the project or program will fit into the overall governance framework does not need a monthly meeting of any type.  There are management responsibilities but these are vested in the responsible line manager, typically the Sponsor (see more on the role of a Sponsor).

The final two functions of governance are ensuring accountability by management and conformance by the organisation.  A steering committee can certainly focus on these aspects of governance but if they do, they are largely wasting their time and most of the $5000 per hour.  There are two fundamental reasons for this:

  1. It is extremely poor governance for a managing entity to seek to provide assurance that the people it is managing are conforming. Assurance oversight should be provided by an independent body.
  2. Most aspects of project surveillance and assurance require high levels of technical skill. It is highly unlikely any of the managers on a steering committee posses these skills (see more on project surveillance).

The organisational entity best suited for the work of surveillance and assurance is a PMO with appropriate support from management. If there is an effective PMO structure in place with the ability to identify shortcomings, backed up by responsible line management there is no need for another committee to second guess the process a few weeks later (see more on PMOs).

Dilbert-committee

Some of the completely unproductive ‘governance’ functions undertaken by ‘steering committees’ include:

  • Validating correct procedures have been followed (properly resourced PMOs are a better and cheaper option).
  • Discussing negative variances and allocating blame (management action is needed not committee discussions).
  • Second guessing management decisions after the event and interfering in the day-to-day running of the project (project professionals are not helped by interference from amateurs – even if they are senior managers).
  • Listening to lengthy reports on what has happened during the last month (effective reporting is all that is needed).

Being involved in this type of activity may make the steering committee members feel important but contributes little or nothing of value in a well governed and structured organisation; if the organisation is not well governed and structured the committee members would be far better off focusing on fixing the real problems.

 

Steering Committees can be highly valuable!

The constitution of most steering committees creates a real opportunity to add value to the overall management of a project or program, but only if the committee focuses on helping craft success. Steering committees typically include members from a range of areas within the organisational affected by the project and its deliverables. Therefore as a group its members are uniquely placed to assist the project manager and sponsor deliver a successful project by helping them steer a path through the organisational politics and stakeholder issues that confront any project or program.

This objective can be achieved by making the members of the steering committee personally responsible for the realisation of value from the organisation’s investment in project, and in particular for dealing with the organisational change and stakeholder issues that are outside of the project manager’s responsibilities. Some of the key responsibilities allocated to the steering committee may include:

  • Responsibility for preparing the organisation for the changes needed to make use of the project’s deliverables and the realisation of value.
  • Managing the interface between the project and the organisational change management work
  • Being available to assist in the management of stakeholder issues escalated from the project and/or identified in areas outside of the direct influence of the project.
  • Ensuring effective benefits management is in place for the life of the initiative (ie, it continues after the project is closed).
  • Dealing with any other aspect of organisational politics that may affect the work of the project or the on-going change initiative.
  • Making value based decisions on complex change proposals, including contributing positively to the resolution of intractable problems, to optimise the value outcome for the organisation.

Obviously the steering committee also needs to take an interest in the project its steering to success. The problem is these are all management activities, not governance activities (for more on this see Does organisational governance exist?).

Effective steering committees work with the project manager and sponsor to identify the external influences causing problems and help the project successfully navigate the organisational stakeholder environment. They also resist the urge to interfere in the actual running of the project or program. There is a world of difference between a collaborative and supportive approach focused on success and the negative approach adopted by so many steering committees that seems to translate ‘governance’ into giving the project manager a ‘hard time’ to ensure compliance with ‘due process’ even if this adds to the existing problems.

Are your organisation’s steering committees worth their hourly running costs?

Does organisational governance exist?

Governance99Governance and governing have historically was associated with the role of the Sovereign governing his (or occasionally her) ‘sovereign state’. Over the last five or six centuries the exclusive power of the Sovereign has largely been devolved to governments of one form or another but the functions of making laws, authorising the collection of taxes and providing direction to the citizens of the state remain fundamentally unchanged.

The concept of corporate (or organisational) governance grew out of this overarching concept; to imply there was a similar role within an organisation for a ‘governing body’ to take responsibility for the governance of the organisation. This concept of a governing body setting the ‘rules’ by which an organisation operates and providing guidance on the organization’s objectives has many parallels with the functions of a government.  A government may choose to declare war on another country and provide resources and directions to its military but, at least for the last 2 or 3 centuries, governments have learned not to interfere in the actual conduct of the military campaigns – fighting the war is the responsibility of the professional military. Similarly the governing body of an organisation can set the objectives for the organisation and define the rules by which members of the organisation should operate but is wise to refrain from becoming actively involved in managing the actual work.

The paramount reason for separating governance and management is the simple fact it is almost impossible to take an objective view of work you are actively involved in! With these thoughts in mind, I started to consider the functions and purpose of governance to contrast with the functions and purpose of management.

The functions of management were quite easy to define, the work was done 100 years ago by Henri Fayol in his 1916 book Administration Industrielle et Generale, while there has been some academic argument about the syntax of Fayol’s five functions of management, they have basically stood the test of time. These are outlined in The Functions of Management.

Defining the functions of governance was much more difficult. Almost all of the standard texts describing governance either define:

  • The objectives of ‘good governance’; for example Cadbury’s ‘holding the balance between economic and social goals and between individual and communal goals’;
  • The principles of ‘good governance’; for example the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (2004 and the 2015 update); or
  • Elements of defined or required practice such as the ASX listing rules and the AICD Governance framework.

None of these sources actually describe what the governing body does or the extent of the governance processes within an organisation.  These are the questions I’ve been focusing on for the last couple of years.

The functions of governance have been described in The Functions of Governance, so far there has been no significant disagreement, that I’m aware of, that would indicate the need for change.  The functions of governance are also mapped to the functions of management and suggest a clear difference in purpose between governance and management that can be summarised as ‘governance sets the objectives and rules for the organisation, management works within the rules to achieve the objectives’.  A closely coupled, symbiotic relationship.

The responsibility for governance seems to be clearly defined by law makers and regulatory authorities.  The governing body is held accountable for the actions of the organisation it governs; this is the Board of Directors in most commercial organisations, in others the person, group or entity accountable for the performance and conformance of the organisation.

Having established the functions of management and governance, the fundamental question posed in this post is does organisational governance exists as a separate entity or is it simply an extension of ‘good management’.  To a degree this is a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.  Does the functioning of an effective governing body lead to ‘good management’ or does ‘good management’ embody the elements of good governance as an integral element in the overall functions of management (ie, Fayol’s five functions need expanding to include governance).

The consequence of the first option is the presence of a governing body which has as its primary function the oversight of the organisation’s management.  The consequence of the second is so-called ‘governing bodies’ such as a Board of Directors, are in effect simply the first, and most senior level of management.

There are a lot of writings that suggest the second option is at least considered viable by many commentators, a view I strongly disagree with.  However, this month’s magazine published by the Australian Institute of Company Directors  contained a number of articles on ‘cloud technology’ and ‘big data’ suggesting Directors should be making management decisions on a daily basis based on current sales information, etc.  Similarly there are numerous publications describing various mid-to-low level management committees such as project steering committees as ‘governing bodies’ responsible for the ‘governance of’ a project. However, a project steering committee is in essence no different to any other management committee responsible for overseeing the work of a management entity; therefore under this scenario, every management committee responsible for the oversight of a management function is a ‘governing body’. The consequence of this line of argument is the proposition that governance and management are integral and there is no significant difference in the entities that undertake the work. Every level of management from the Board down is responsible for delivering good management which incorporates governance.

The alternate view which I support is based largely in corporate regulations and laws suggests the functions and responsibilities the governing body and its management team are discrete and different. The governing body (singular) represents the owners of the organisation and is responsible for governing the organisation to achieve sustained superior performance. The governing body accomplishes this by:

  • Defining the objectives of the organisation;
  • Determining the desired ethical, cultural and other standards they expect the organisation to work within (‘the rules’);
  • Appointing management to accomplish the objectives, working within ‘the rules’; and then
  • Ensuring the conformance and performance of their management and the organisation as a whole.

The primary advantage of this approach to governance is the functions of management are separated from the functions of governance. It is virtually impossible to have an impartial view of the work you are actively engaged in and one of the key responsibilities of the governing body is to oversight the performance of its management; the law says so!

Therefore, I suggest good governance requires a clear separation of the management and governance functions for no other reason than the need for the governing body to be able to objectively oversight the performance of it management. But this raises practical issues.

It is virtually impossible for the governing body to meaningfully oversight the work of 100s of managers and 1000s of staff, contractors and suppliers. Some aspects of governance have to be delegated to the organisation’s management.  This requires the following:

  • A carefully designed governance framework. Roles, responsibilities, decision limits and escalation paths need to be defined.
  • Clear rules for managers to follow in the performance of their management responsibilities. Managers should be personally responsible for following ‘the rules’ and for ensuring the people they manage follow ‘the rules’. Complying with, and conforming to, the objectives, ethics and culture of the organisation should be a condition of employment and a clearly defined management responsibility.
  • Ensuring any governance function is separated from the management function being governed. Assurance and conformance cannot be in the same place as management responsibility for performance. For example, a project steering committee should be responsible for providing direction and support to the project management team to ensure the performance of the project and the achievement of the project’s objectives (a management function) – ensuring conformance with ‘the rules’ is also part of this management responsibility. Assurance that these objectives have been achieved is a governance function that has to sit in a separate reporting line. In many organisations the PMO may be the entity tasked with this responsibility.

However, while the governing body by necessity has to devolve aspects of its responsibilities to people and entities within the overall management structure, the governing body remains responsible for the design of the governance framework and accountable to the organisation’s owners and other external stakeholder for the performance and conformance of the organisation and the validity of any assurances provided by the organisation to regulatory authorities.

So where does this leave questions such as the use of ‘big data and ‘the cloud’? I would suggest the responsibility of the governing body is to understand the technologies sufficiently to be able to set sensible objectives and ethical parameters for the organisation’s management to work within and then to ensure their management are working to achieve these objectives. It is no more the responsibility of the governing body to ‘manage big data and use it to make decisions on a daily basis’ than it is the responsibility of a steering committee to ‘govern’ a project. The responsibility of the governing body is to govern; the responsibility of a management committee is to manage.

This concept of separate functions and focus is not intended to imply an antagonistic relationship. In the same way every high performance soccer team blends people with different skills and responsibilities into a tight unit, a goal keeper needs very different capabilities to a striker; a high performance organisation needs a blend of capabilities: effective governance, effective management and committed staff. Certainly members of a performing team support each other and will help to correct deficiencies and errors by others within the team (high performance organisations are no different); but if the team start to mix up the skills and responsibilities the overall team performance will suffer (the consequences of steering committees pretending to be governance bodies is discussed in a 2012 post Management -v- Governance).

In conclusion, the answer to the opening question is YES, I believe governance and management are different and their functions are different:

A high performance organisation that is capable of achieving sustained superior performance combines both governance and management in a clearly delineated governance framework, supported by a clearly delineated management structure.

The100 Most Inspiring People in Project Management

RecognitionTimeCamp, the developers of TimeCamp online time tracking software that measures time spent on projects and tasks has created a list of the 100 Most Inspiring People in Project Management; congratulations to many friends and colleagues who’ve made the list.

While we’re not sure of the process used to develop the list (the links are mainly to Twitter), it’s great to see Lynda at #12!  And it’s good to know her work promoting stakeholder engagement, effective communication and team development is being recognised globally.

Defining Stakeholder Engagement

Two earlier posts have discussed the concepts of stakeholder engagement.

Stakeholder Engagement GroupThis post builds on these foundations to look at the tools and techniques of proactive stakeholder engagement. Effective stakeholder engagement is a mutually beneficial process designed to enable better planned and more informed policies, projects, programs and services.

For stakeholders, the benefits of engagement include the opportunity to contribute as experts in their field or ‘users’ of the deliverable, have their issues heard and participate in the decision-making process. This should lead to:

  • Greater opportunities to contribute directly to the development of the outputs from the work;
  • More open and transparent lines of communication, increasing accountability and driving innovation;
  • Improved access to decision-making processes, resulting in the delivery of better outcomes;
  • Early identification of synergies between the stakeholders and the work, encouraging integrated and comprehensive solutions to complex issues.

For the ‘organisation’, the benefits of stakeholder engagement include improved information flows, access to local knowledge and having the opportunity to try out ideas or proposals with stakeholders before they are formalised. This should lead to:

  • Higher quality decision-making;
  • Increased efficiency in and effectiveness of delivery;
  • Improved risk management practices – allowing risks to be identified and considered earlier, thereby reducing future costs;
  • Streamlined development processes;
  • Greater alignment with stakeholder interests – ensuring outputs are delivered in collaboration with stakeholders and provide outcomes which meet their needs;
  • Enhanced stakeholder community confidence in the work being undertaken;
  • Enhanced capacity to innovate.

As with any stakeholder management process, ‘not all stakeholders are equal’ some stakeholders should be engaged because they are important to the work being undertaken, others simply need to be kept informed by appropriate levels of communication (for more on this see The three types of stakeholder communication).

The various levels of stakeholder communication, management and engagement are:

  • Inform: You provide the stakeholder with an appropriate level of communication, generally either PR or reporting.
  • Manage: You direct your communication to achieve a desired change in the attitude of the stakeholder or to manage an emerging situation.
  • Consult: You invite the stakeholder to provide feedback, analysis, and/or suggest alternatives to help develop a better outcome.
  • Involve: You work directly with stakeholders to ensure that their concerns and needs are consistently understood and considered; eg, the business representative involved in an Agile sprint).
  • Collaborate: You partner with the stakeholder to develop mutually agreed alternatives, make joint decisions and identify preferred solutions; eg, typical ‘alliance’ and ‘partnering’ forms of contract.
  • Empower: You place final decision-making in the hands of the stakeholder. Stakeholders are enabled (but also need to be capable) to actively contribute to the achievement of ‘their’ outcomes.

Stakeholder CollaborationThe first three bullets above are Stakeholder Management activities, the last three various levels of Stakeholder Engagement. Deciding which level of interaction is appropriate is a key driver of success, in any project, program or other work, some stakeholders will be best managed by simply keeping them informed, whereas the higher levels of engagement such as collaboration and empowerment require stakeholders with sufficient skills and knowledge to be able to actively participate in the endeavour, and importantly the desire to be involved!

The Stakeholder Circle® methodology provides the foundations needed to understand your stakeholder community and decide on the appropriate level of engagement for the ‘high priority’ stakeholders affected by the work. When you get to ‘Step 4 – Engagement’ the additional questions that need answering include:

  • What is the purpose and desired outcomes of the engagement activity?
  • What level of engagement is required to achieve this outcome – consult, collaborate, empower?
  • What method of engagement will you use?
  • What are the timing issues or requirements?
  • What resources will you need to conduct the engagement?
  • Who is responsible for engagement?
  • What are the risks associated with the engagement?

Finally, as with any stakeholder management process, the success or otherwise of the overall process needs to be reviewed regularly and appropriate adaptation made to optimise outcomes (step 5 in the Stakeholder Circle® methodology)

Summary:

Stakeholder engagement is not a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to managing stakeholders and needs to be planned into the overall development of the work:

  • Some of the questions outlined above need asking at the very earliest stages of a project or program during the ‘strategic planning phase’ and will affect the way the whole of the work is planned and undertaken.
  • The culture of the organisation undertaking the work will determine how open it is to inviting stakeholder collaboration or engagement, a degree of ‘culture change’ may need to be planned into the work.
  • Stakeholder engagement is always a two-way process, the skills, capability and culture of the key stakeholders will also be a constraint on what is feasible or desirable. You may need a strategy to ‘get the stakeholders on-side’.

Overall time and effort spent on stakeholder engagement will pay dividends (see: Valuing Stakeholder Management), stakeholder engagement is simply the most proactive way of helping your stakeholders to help you deliver their requirements successfully.