SERVICES
Governance & Oversight
When delivery is happening without visibility - and problems surface too late to fix.
The Challenge
Many large organisations run multiple concurrent programmes with no single point of visibility. Status is self-reported, inconsistently, up fragmented reporting lines. By the time leadership sees a problem, it is already a delay.
Diagnostic first. We assess existing programme activity, reporting habits, and decision rights before designing anything.
Right-sized governance. A PMO for a 40-person government department looks nothing like one for a listed enterprise — we do not deploy a template.
Built for adoption. Governance that programme teams route around achieves nothing. We design for the reporting burden delivery teams will actually sustain.
Handover, not dependency. The PMO is built to run without us — our role ends at capability transfer, not at indefinite retainer.
FAQ
How long does it take to stand up an enterprise PMO?
Typically 6–10 weeks for design through initial launch, depending on organisation size and how many programmes are brought under governance in the first phase.
Do you provide the PMO staff, or just the design?
Both models are available — we can design the governance structure for your existing team to run, or provide PMO staff on an ongoing basis (see PMO as a Service).
Will this add reporting burden to already-stretched programme teams?
Correctly designed, it should reduce burden — replacing scattered, inconsistent status updates with one structured process, not adding a second one on top.
Is this suitable for government entities specifically?
Yes — a significant share of our PMO design work is for government and semi-government organisations, where governance requirements differ from private enterprise.
The Challenge
Not every organisation needs — or can justify — a permanent internal PMO function, particularly where programme volume fluctuates or where in-house expertise doesn’t yet exist. Building that capability from scratch takes time most transformation timelines don’t allow.
Senior resourcing. PMO leads assigned are former programme directors, not junior analysts.
Scaled to need. Engagement scales up during peak programme activity and down between major initiatives — you are not carrying fixed headcount for variable demand.
Integrated, not parallel. Our PMO team reports into your governance structure, not a separate external process.
Knowledge transfer built in. Where the intent is to eventually bring the function in-house, we build toward that from day one.
FAQ
How is this different from hiring a PMO team directly?
You get senior-level oversight without the fixed overhead, recruitment time, or the risk of key-person dependency on one hire.
Can this scale down if programme volume drops?
Yes — the engagement is structured around actual programme load, not a fixed annual contract.
Do you replace this with an internal team eventually?
Where that’s the client’s goal, we structure the engagement to transfer capability over time rather than create long-term dependency.
The Challenge
Organisations running many projects simultaneously often lack a consistent way to compare them, prioritise resourcing, or see where the same capital or capability is being contested across programmes.
Unified prioritisation criteria. A consistent scoring model across all projects, so resourcing decisions aren’t made project-by-project in isolation.
Capacity-aware sequencing. Portfolios are sequenced against actual organisational capacity, not just business case attractiveness.
Single reporting layer. One dashboard view across the full portfolio, rather than a different report format from each project.
Governance cadence, not just a tool. Portfolio management is a decision-making rhythm, not a piece of software — we design the former, not just implement the latter.
FAQ
What’s the difference between this and an Enterprise PMO?
A PMO governs how individual projects report and are controlled. Portfolio management governs prioritisation and sequencing across projects — they work together, and are often implemented in parallel.
Do we need existing project management maturity for this to work?
No — we frequently introduce portfolio discipline to organisations still building basic project governance, and sequence the two accordingly.
The Challenge
Steering committees frequently exist on paper without functioning as real decision-making or escalation bodies — leaving major risks unaddressed until they become unavoidable.
Decision rights, mapped explicitly. Who can approve what, at what threshold — removed from ambiguity.
Escalation paths that get used. Designed so raising a problem is procedurally easy, not something a project lead has to fight for.
Steering committees with teeth. Meeting cadence and reporting formats built to force real decisions, not status theatre.
Independent of any one sponsor. Governance structured to survive a change in executive sponsorship without losing authority.
FAQ
Isn’t governance just bureaucracy that slows projects down?
Poorly designed governance does. Well-designed governance shortens the time between a problem occurring and leadership knowing about it — which saves time overall.
Can this be applied to a project already in progress?
Yes — governance redesign is one of the most common mid-programme interventions we’re brought in for.