Note: I’ve written this in the context of digital service delivery in Government

Governance structures should enable teams to quickly and effectively deliver the right things whilst also operating within the standards set by the organisation. The structure should also evolve and adapt to changing conditions, allowing teams to stay agile and responsive to user or business needs.

Far too often this isn’t the case. Some teams can find themselves drowning in reporting packs and waiting long periods of time for a decision, whilst on the other end of the scale; some teams make progress but operate without any accountability, potentially making costly decisions in a vacuum. You have to find the balance between decision-making and accountability.

Teams operate in an environment of constant change, where priorities evolve based on user needs and feedback rather than being fixed from the outset. Because of this, governance should be an enabler rather than a blocker, ensuring teams remain focused on delivering outcomes while receiving the right level of oversight and support.

Done well, governance fosters a culture of trust and empowerment, ensuring teams can respond effectively to real-world challenges while delivering high-quality services at pace.

Current landscape

In previous roles, I worked with people across projects, programmes and services. People in practitioner roles i.e. PMOs, Delivery Managers, Programme Managers. People in leadership roles, i.e., CDOs, Directors, and Heads of Professions – Almost universally, I would hear that governance processes are not helping teams deliver or helping stakeholders get the confidence that things are okay.

In most government organisations, governance traditionally follows the Portfolio, Programme, and Project model, and the meetings, processes and artefacts associated with that approach. This is largely because the approach of managing and funding programmes in government means a level of control and assurance is expected.

In some cases, traditional governance structures are required. For example, large infrastructure programmes like drilling a new tunnel or transforming brownfield land to build new homes. These programmes are sequential in nature, you have a good idea of the deliverables, the steps you need to take, how long it will take and how much it will cost – particularly important in government, where funding of programmes happens upfront.

Funding is a challenge in itself, which many have called for reform, specifically the funding of modern, internet-era digital skills, infrastructure and services. Funding in government requires people to make up-front predictions and write detailed business cases (see The Green Book and the five-case model) – this is often based on unvalidated assumptions and is usually proved wrong at the first hurdle as plans change and evolve.

*As I write this, a new paper has been published following a government review looking at whether spending processes for digital spend maximise value for money. The review recognises the “need for a significant shift in how digital initiatives are funded”

However, over the last 15 years, departments right across government have made substantial investment and progress in digital transformation. Things like the Service Standard, UCD, Agile Delivery, DDaT and spend controls have totally transformed how digital departments operate and the services they provide – This should justify a different approach to governance (and funding) of digital change.

“Governance should be simple and supportive. It should trust individuals and give decision-making authority to teams so they can focus on delivering.”

– GOV.UK Service Manual

Digital service teams operating under traditional governance models face a myriad of challenges, including slow decision-making, limited autonomy, lack of flexibility, communication delays, and resource constraints, and are constantly juggling between extensive reporting and productivity.

Below is a table of meetings that I have personally attended, be it as the host, a stakeholder or to represent a team/service/project.

Portfolio	Programme	X-Gov	Team	Technical
Steering group	Change control	Spend controls	Stand ups	Technical design authority TDA
Stage gate review	Finance review	Service assessments	Retro	CAB
Monthly check-in	Cross programme planning	Internal assessments	Review	Business design authority
	Dependency planning		Planning	Design crits
			Show & Tell

Without making any judgments on any of the meetings above, this table illustrates the point that teams can spend a lot of time in meetings providing updates, or seeking approval.

The other thing the table highlights is teams are often sitting under multiple layers of governance. Even if teams are working in ‘Agile’ ways, they sometimes operate in a wrapper in one or more sequential (or waterfall) processes.

The large Steering Group meetings for example, feel like you’re waiting one by one outside the headteacher’s office, waiting to present. Not knowing how people will react or what questions they will ask. It’s not pleasant for anyone. You can also tie yourself in knots with reporting cycles where things have moved on since the packs were created and distributed.

Sometimes teams are required to meet with multiple groups representing different areas of the same organisation. Inevitably different audiences need different views or representations of the same information with varying degrees of detail. The whole process just becomes a regurgitation of the same information.

What month are we reporting on? What RAG status do we share? Who reads this stuff before the meeting? What happens next? Did we resolve the issue? Are we all on the same page? How much did these meetings cost?

I should add, that this isn’t just a pain for the team, layers of governance and restrictive sequential phases can also frustrate stakeholders, meaning there isn’t a tangible working outcome for a significant period of time.

We often ask teams to be agile and respond to change, there is no reason why governance shouldn’t be as equally flexible.

If we approach this with user needs in mind, with the users here being service teams and stakeholders, we can break it down into 3 parts:

Lightweight governance principles

Whilst I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to governance as each organisation will be unique; communicating clearly, working in the open and trusting teams to make decisions locally are at the heart of this.

Empowered multidisciplinary teams

The first, and arguably the most important step towards local decision-making is to ensure the core service team has all the skills, expertise and people needed to design, build, run and continuously improve the product or service they are responsible for.

I’ve always found the people building a service deeply care about it so trust and empower them to make decisions regarding the delivery of digital services. Provide them with the authority and resources needed to execute their tasks effectively.

Define clear boundaries on what decisions teams can make independently and document them. Provide clarity on who is responsible for decisions outside of these boundaries.

Being multi-disciplinary shouldn’t stop there, stakeholder and support groups at all levels should also be multi-disciplinary and diverse.

Utilise regular team meetings

It’s everyone’s responsibility to stay informed on progress. This includes the team delivering and also key people supporting the team.

To make that process pain-free, integrate assurance into delivery rather than treating it as a separate activity by leveraging stand-ups, planning and review sessions. These are existing places the team use to govern delivery.

Reduce formal, static reporting and instead focus on meaningful discussions that drive action. Stakeholders should be actively engaged in delivery, not just reviewing reports.

If you have dependencies across teams, encourage direct communication between teams through small, focused meetings that bring the right people together at the right time – rather than relying on governance bodies to coordinate.

Work in the open

Dedicate time to set up open digital tools and information radiators so people can see how the team is doing when they want rather than in a highly pressurised steering group meeting. Instead of waiting for formal reports, dashboards and real-time metrics can provide ongoing visibility, allowing teams to address issues before they escalate.

Embrace iterative delivery approaches. Delivering functionality in small increments, allows teams to establish continuous feedback loops with users and stakeholders to quickly validate assumptions, gather insights, and prioritise features. This iterative approach ensures that the digital service remains aligned with user needs and expectations.

Encourage everyone to ‘see the thing’, you’ll learn more than from reading a status report. They also give people the chance to hear different perspectives.

Good governance should not just provide oversight but also create an environment where different perspectives can be heard and constructively challenged. When teams and stakeholders only engage with like-minded voices, they risk operating in an echo chamber, reinforcing assumptions rather than testing them.

Clear objectives and measures

Real value for the user or organisation is based on achieving outcomes. So measure success based on those, not process adherence.

Jointly define clear objectives and priorities aligned with user needs and/or organisational goals. Everyone should have a shared understanding of what ‘done’ looks like and how it contributes towards the bigger picture.

Value for teams (and their users) is rarely ever passing an assurance gate or meeting an arbitrary deadline. Give teams clear guidance on the end goal and wider context (why) but trust them on what, who and how.

Crucially, setting clear measures of success and using the right data also helps governance be proactive rather than reactive. This includes setting clear, measurable objectives that reflect user needs, service performance, and overall impact. By using data to guide governance, teams can move away from anecdotal updates and focus on meaningful insights that drive better outcomes.

Proportional oversight

Governance should be proportionate to the size, complexity or sensitivity of the project or service. Tailor governance to the nature of the work, not all projects require the same level of oversight. Proportional oversight also means focusing scrutiny where it adds value.

Move away from a “one-size-fits-all” governance model. Provide guidance rather than imposing rigid rules, allowing teams to adapt their approach based on context. The key is to ensure that governance scales appropriately, adapting as a service evolves rather than being rigidly fixed from the outset.

This approach helps teams maintain momentum while still providing stakeholders with the necessary confidence that services are being delivered effectively.

For low-risk or well-established services, oversight can be minimal – focusing on transparency through open dashboards and lightweight check-ins (or any of the other recommendations above).

For higher-risk, strategic, or complex projects, where more structured oversight may be necessary, think about who needs to attend (cross-functional and small) and implement good meeting practices like setting a clear purpose, time-boxing discussions and having clear actions.

Useful reading:

1. Governance principles for agile service delivery
2. Digital front door
3. Fixing Digital Funding in Government
4. The Green Book