Program Management

Who decides what in strategic programmes?

7/09/2026

In many organisations, decision-making structures have evolved over the years. People know who is responsible for what, reporting lines are clear, and everyone generally has a good understanding of which decisions they can make themselves and when something needs to be escalated. But when an organisation embarks on a strategic transformation or an ambitious change programme, you often notice that this clarity disappears. What’s needed? But more importantly: who decides what?

Below, our CSO, Anouk Devriese, shares 4 insights on creating a clear governance structure for strategic programmes.

“When clarity disappears, suddenly new interdependencies arise between departments. Decisions no longer fit neatly within existing areas of responsibility. And managers, who are used to a predictable flow of reporting from day-to-day operations, get the feeling that a lot is happening without it being clear which decisions require their attention and at what point.

That is why I like to start strategic programmes with a simple question: Who decides what?

That question seems obvious, but the answer often isn’t. Yet a clear governance structure forms the basis for rapid decision-making, ownership and successful implementation.

Because if it is not clear who makes which decisions, even the best strategy becomes difficult to implement”.

1. A detailed plan is only part of the answer

When embarking on a major transformation, organisations spend time determining why the change is necessary, what needs to change, how they intend to achieve it, and who needs to be involved.

These are fundamental questions. After all, strategic ambitions must be translated into concrete objectives, priorities and a workable step-by-step plan. However, particularly for game changers, even the strongest roadmap cannot anticipate every decision that will need to be made along the way.

Dependencies arise. Resources become limited. Assumptions change. New risks come to light. A choice that initially seemed minor can become crucial to a key milestone or have a greater impact on the entire organisation than initially thought.

At that point, the quality of the original plan is only part of the story. The organisation must also know how it will respond when reality deviates from the plan.

This is where governance comes into play.

“For me, good governance is first and foremost about creating clarity around decision-making. What decisions can the programme team take? When should the sponsor be involved? What requires a steering group or a mandate from management? And what happens if an issue exceeds the remit of the people currently working on it?”

A team may fully understand a problem and yet be unable to make further progress because the decision-making authority lies elsewhere in the organisation.

Good governance clarifies that process.

Consequently, the importance of a well-composed steering group that meets regularly is often underestimated. If the programme is running smoothly and on schedule, these meetings may seem like a mere formality – a time-consuming exercise involving too many highly paid experts. If the steering group does not exist or does not have the correct mandate, a decision to be taken – one with more ramifications than expected – can lead to a great deal of time being wasted or, worse still, create a sense of mistrust amongst stakeholders who should have been involved.

2. Governance should facilitate decision-making,
not lead to more meetings

The fact that a steering group is on the agenda does not automatically mean that the programme’s governance is functioning effectively. If every issue is passed up to a higher level, decision-making slows down. If the steering group mainly receives status updates but is rarely asked to make a decision, it becomes an additional layer of reporting.

The value lies in bringing together the people whose expertise, responsibility or mandate is actually required, which becomes even more important when a programme cuts across the organisation.

A milestone may depend on the capacity of another department. The programme team can identify the problem, understand its impact and propose solutions. But to resolve it, it may be necessary for HR to adjust priorities, for finance to release additional budget, or for a manager to accept a strategic trade-off.

The problem has not necessarily become more difficult. It simply falls outside the programme team’s remit.

Without a clear governance structure, valuable time can be wasted discussing an issue at a level where nobody can actually resolve it.

Thinking about the governance structure in advance does not mean that you have to predict every decision the programme will face. It means ensuring there is sufficient clarity regarding the types of decisions that may arise, who has the authority to make them, and how an issue is escalated to a higher level when that authority is exceeded.

“Proper governance is not just about decision-making, but also about providing the right stakeholders with accurate information, including on potential risks. If you do this in a structured manner and at fixed intervals, the significance of rumours circulating in the corridors diminishes”.

Let me give you an example:

A suspicious sponsor, who wanted full control over the narrative to be presented to other C-level stakeholders in the steering group, did not wish to organise steering group meetings.

Processes within the programme’s scope overlapped with processes in other departments. A key risk was the aversion to change in those other departments. As there was no formal forum for discussing this with executive stakeholders, this risk was not reported transparently.

When the relevant heads of department used their informal network within the organisation to block the programme’s achievements, the senior managers concerned had no formal programme communication to fall back on. They were therefore much more susceptible to the one-sided narrative that reached them via the informal network.

Providing a formal forum to identify and discuss risks before they occur and trigger various emotions ensures better risk mitigation and prevents a programme from lurching from one ad hoc crisis to the next. Proper governance ensures such a formal forum exists at various levels within the organisation.

3. Ensure predictability for senior management

Governance is also important from the perspective of senior management.

A CEO or executive sponsor does not need to be aware of every operational detail of a transformation. Expecting them to monitor everything closely would, in fact, defeat the very purpose of a programme organisation.

However, a major programme must not become a ‘black box’ either.

With established RUN activities, managers usually know how information reaches them. There are reporting cycles, responsibilities are clear, and they know what decisions are expected of them.

A game changing programme often must build that predictability from scratch.

The aim should therefore not be to provide C-level executives with insight into everything. The aim should be to ensure that the information and decisions requiring their mandate reach them at the right time, with the right level of detail and context.

This also changes the purpose of reporting to senior management.

“A useful update for senior management is not simply a condensed version of everything that is happening in the programme. It must make clear where attention or a decision is required, why this is important, and what is expected of those receiving the information.”

When that structure is clear, senior leaders do not need to constantly delve into the programme to ensure that nothing important is being overlooked. They know when and why they will be involved.

A programme or project manager who produces useful executive updates bears in mind that the sponsor bears ultimate responsibility.

Particularly when implementing a game changer, this means that accountability must be demonstrated in the boardroom. Given that game changers often have ramifications throughout the organisation, other board members also have information about the programme relating to their department or areas of responsibility. Useful executive reporting focuses primarily on topics that have an impact on those areas and ensures that the sponsor is not taken by surprise by unknown information, viewpoints or interests.

4. Preparation is part of implementation

Spending time on governance before a strategic programme gets underway can feel like an extra workload during the preparation phase. There is always pressure to get started as quickly as possible and to deliver results.

Carefully building a well-supported governance framework is more than worth that extra lead time at the start. Even though governance is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Governance ensures…

that, when difficult decisions arise, the programme’s implementation is not jeopardised. It creates a safe space that feels familiar before it is actually needed. This safe space makes it possible to discuss unpleasant or difficult information transparently and openly, and to take difficult decisions in a structured manner.
that teams know what they can decide for themselves. Sponsors understand when their mandate is required. Senior leaders know when an issue reaches them and why. Risks and dependencies are escalated to the people who can actually do something about them.
predictability.

Not because everything will go according to plan. Game changing programmes will always involve uncertainty. But because the organisation knows how it will respond if something does not go according to plan.

Next up:

A clear governance structure clarifies who makes the decisions. But what if a risk requires action from someone who isn’t at the table? That’s a question I often see coming up, and one I’ll explore in my next article.