Project governance: roles, decisions and a practical example
A rollout needs another €12,000 between stage gates. Follow who can approve the change, what evidence they need and how the decision reaches the delivery plan.
A project needs another €12,000 to finish the rollout. The project manager puts the request in the weekly report. Three people reply with different instructions.
The report is working. The authority arrangement isn't clear enough to act on.
Project governance sets how a project is directed and overseen: who can decide, what evidence they need and how unresolved matters are escalated. PMI's governance paper connects those decision rights with roles, reporting and assurance throughout the project.
It applies between formal reviews as well as at them. Waiting for the next monthly committee is a governance choice, with consequences for work that cannot wait.
Project governance vs project management
The project manager builds and follows a feasible delivery plan. Governance establishes the authority and oversight within which that work happens.
| Question | In this example |
|---|---|
| Who sequences installation and books the team? | Project manager, within the approved plan |
| Who may increase the approved budget? | Sponsor, within a stated delegation |
| Who decides whether a much larger investment still makes sense? | Steering group under the company's investment rules |
| Who checks readiness independently of the delivery team's claim? | The assigned assurance reviewer |
The project charter records the initial authority. A RACI matrix can allocate work. Neither automatically settles every later decision unless the limits and escalation route are clear.
A small governance structure with explicit limits
Our fictional company approves an €80,000 scanning rollout. These are its example delegations, not recommended thresholds for every organisation.
| Role | Authority in this project | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Project manager | Commit up to €5,000 per decision within approved scope and budget | Cannot increase the project budget or waive acceptance requirements |
| Sponsor | Approve a cumulative budget increase up to €20,000 within the agreed business purpose | Must escalate a larger increase or a change that threatens the investment case |
| Steering group | Decide larger funding or direction changes under company policy | Does not direct each installation task |
| Operations owner | Accept operating readiness against agreed criteria | Cannot approve a financial change merely by accepting the equipment |
| Assurance reviewer | Examine the evidence and report concerns | Advises the authorised decision-maker; does not replace them |
This could be a small group of people. Roles describe responsibilities; they do not require five new committees or job titles.
Follow the €12,000 request to a decision
The pilot reveals that the remaining stations need a different network installation. The additional €12,000 would take the total forecast from €80,000 to €92,000. There have been no earlier budget increases.
The manager cannot approve it: it exceeds the manager's per-decision limit and the approved project budget. The sponsor can consider it under the agreed €20,000 delegation.
The request needs the cause, proposed work, cost basis, schedule effect, alternatives and remaining risks. Include what happens if the request is refused. “Installation will be delayed” is less useful than a checked date and the commitments affected.
The assurance reviewer checks the estimate and readiness evidence. The operations owner checks whether the proposed installation supports the required service. The sponsor then approves, rejects or requests further work by an agreed decision date.
Approval becomes a change record and an updated authorised budget. It also reaches purchasing and the delivery team. A sponsor's informal support is not enough if the people placing the order cannot see what was approved.
Keep oversight proportional to the decision
A stage gate checks whether to proceed at a defined point. This funding request arises between gates, so it uses the ongoing escalation route. The next gate should see the decision and its effects.
PMOs can help maintain consistent reports, records and escalation arrangements. Their authority varies. A PMO that checks the paperwork may not be the body allowed to approve the money.
There is no universal three-pillar structure that makes this work by itself. For this project, check whether the right person receives a complete request in time, whether the decision stays within their authority and whether the team acts on the recorded result.
If those steps fail, adding another recurring meeting is unlikely to settle who can say yes.
Source and example notes
- PMI: Project governance, 2015 practitioner paper. Oversight, decision rights, escalation and tailoring governance to the project.
The organisation, project, money, delegations and request are fictional. Actual authority follows the organisation's policies and obligations. No role in this example can waive applicable safety or other mandatory requirements.