There are four boards, three working groups and a weekly meeting to align the meetings. The supplier still does not know who can approve the change.
More governance has somehow produced less authority.
The short answer: a programme governance framework defines who makes which decisions, within what limits, using what evidence and escalation route. Design the decisions first and the meetings second.
Start with the decisions that can block delivery
List funding, scope, cross-project priorities, material risks, release readiness and benefits correction. Identify which decisions can be delegated and which need the sponsor or another accountable authority.
The APM description of programme management emphasises coordination of projects and operational activity for beneficial change. Governance must support that coordination, not simply collect project status reports.
A programme manager may coordinate the recommendation without holding the authority to approve it. Make that distinction explicit so nobody mistakes a well-run meeting for a decision.
Define the core responsibilities
| Role | Practical responsibility |
|---|---|
| Sponsor | Owns the case for change and resolves decisions beyond delegated authority |
| Programme manager | Coordinates delivery, dependencies, evidence and escalations |
| Project or workstream lead | Delivers a defined component and exposes constraints |
| Business change or benefit owner | Makes operational changes and owns benefit evidence |
| Technical or specialist authority | Assesses relevant architecture, security or other constraints |
| Service owner | Accepts and sustains the operational result |
Small organisations may combine roles, but the responsibilities still exist. Record conflicts where the same person proposes, assesses and accepts consequential work.
Set thresholds rather than escalating everything
Define the boundaries of delegated scope, budget, schedule and risk. Use the organisation’s actual authority arrangements. Do not copy a monetary threshold from another programme because it looks suitably official.
When a decision crosses a boundary, specify the receiving authority, required evidence and response expectation. Include an urgent route for incidents or time-critical decisions. The normal monthly board may be too slow.
A decision request should state the problem, options, recommendation, consequence of delay and latest useful decision date. It should not require the sponsor to excavate the answer from a hundred-slide pack.
Use a small, purposeful meeting rhythm
An operational review can address dependencies and near-term blockers. A sponsor decision meeting can handle matters beyond delegated authority. A benefits review can test whether the intended outcomes are emerging.
Combine forums where the same people and decisions genuinely overlap. Cancel meetings with no decision or coordination purpose. Written updates can carry routine status, provided someone is responsible for reading and acting on them.
For UK–UAE programmes, agree a usable decision window and deputies. A cross-border team should not wait a day because the only approver has finished work and no delegation exists.
Keep a decision log that survives the meeting
Record the decision, authority, date, evidence considered, conditions and resulting actions. Retain the options rejected where they explain the trade-off. Distinguish a recommendation from an approved decision.
Link decisions to the RAID log and the roadmap. If an accepted risk changes or a condition is not met, bring it back to the appropriate authority.
Do not retrospectively rewrite a decision to match what happened. The record is useful partly because it shows what was known at the time.
Test the framework with a difficult scenario
Imagine two projects need the same specialist next week and both claim a critical deadline. Who decides the priority, what evidence do they use, and who accepts the effect on the other project?
If the answer is “we would arrange a meeting”, the framework is incomplete. Name the authority and the route. Then test a funding change and an operational release with unresolved risks.
Good governance makes responsibility easier to exercise. If it merely gives everyone another place to describe a problem, simplify it until decisions can actually move.
Sources and scope
Reviewed 1 November 2026. The examples and worksheets are my suggested working methods, not measured client results or official standards.
