Activity 3.5

Collaborative Planning MethodologyStep 3: Define and Plan

Activity 3.5: Initiate Execution Governance

Activity 3.4 marks the conclusion of the significant planning as the integrated plan and roadmap has been completed, the reviews have been done, and the plan is approved. It is at this point in almost all planning efforts that individuals involved with the planning celebrate the completion of the planning and reflect on lessons learned. It is also at this point in many planning efforts that it is most critical to maintain momentum towards implementation and to not allow the conclusion of the planning to mean the end of the efforts towards achieving the vision.

The role of governance has been an important part of the planning oversight and decision-making and governance needs to maintain a strong role as Phase 2 of the Collaborative Planning Methodology, Implement and Measure, gets underway. It is important to consider the type of governance that will be needed during Phase 2 of the CPM. The investment, implementation, and performance measurement activities in Phase 2 of the CPM are distinctly different in nature than the planning activities in Phase 1 of the CPM. Because of these differences, planners need to assist the sponsor to determine the best governance relationships for Phase 2 of the CPM.

The following visual illustrates the tasks within this activity.



Determine applicability of existing governance structure to execution

Most organizations have governance teams that cover a variety of investment and implementation activities. In many instances, there are teams that govern investments, other teams that govern projects, and still other teams that govern budget decision activities. As previously stated, it is imperative that the implementation effort involve governance throughout the implementation so that incremental decisions are agreed upon and the end result is in alignment with the expectations of the governance teams.

In this task, planners review the existing governance structure and specifically look at the charters of the existing teams to determine which, if any, teams are aligned to the investment and implementation effort at hand. Planners must leverage the integrated plan and roadmap to determine which governance teams are most closely aligned to the impending work. It is certainly possible that none of the existing governance teams are appropriate or fully cover governance responsibilities for the implementation effort at hand. In these instances, a new governance team might be an appropriate course of action. The recommendations for governance team alignment must be presented to the sponsor.

Engage existing governance team(s) to determine willingness to perform oversight of execution

The sponsor is the appropriate person, in most cases, to engage directly with the chairs of the governance teams in an effort to confirm that the recommended teams are in fact appropriate for the implementation effort at hand. The sponsor is seeking confirmation from the governance team chair that the governance team has appropriate charter authority and is willing to perform oversight throughout the implementation process. Of course, every organization is different in how governance boards operate; the objective in this task is to make a governance board aware of the project and confirm that they should have a part to execute the implementation.

It is important to prepare the sponsor with a solid understanding of the nature of the implementation and the types of activities in which governance will need to participate. The sponsor will want to ensure that the governance team chair is fully aware of the scope and level of commitment that is being requested of the governance team.

Formally engage existing governance team(s) or initiate new governance team(s) to oversee execution

Through the previous tasks, either planners will have not been able to identify appropriate governance teams, or they will have found appropriate governance teams and those teams have either accepted or rejected the invitation to govern the implementation at hand.

If the governance team has accepted the request to govern the implementation then it is important to meet with the complete governance team, at their next meeting perhaps, and walk them through what is being implemented, why it is being implemented, the milestones, and the risks.

If the governance team has not accepted the request or no appropriate governance team has been identified, then planners must support the sponsor in formulating a new, perhaps temporary, governance team for the implementation effort. The formation of new governance for implementation will depend on whether there is a temporary or ongoing need for this form of governance.

In some instances there is a recognized need for governance to oversee implementations on a continuing basis. In these instances, a governance team must be formed and chartered with responsibilities that cover not only the implementation at hand, but also to include other current and future implementation efforts. In other instances it is appropriate to simply stand up a temporary governance team with responsibilities only for the implementation at hand.

In either instance, it is important to meet with the complete governance team, at their next (or first) meeting perhaps, and walk them through the implementation details.

Activity Outputs:

Output Core FEA Layers
Governance Structure (Project Governance) N S

Key to FEA Layers: S = Strategy, B = Business, D = Data, A = Application, I = Infrastructure, SP = Security

Activity 3.1Activity 3.2Activity 3.3Activity 3.4Collaborative Planning MethodologyStep 4

Leave a Comment