Category: Uncategorised

Clinical Commissioning vs. Procurement Practices: Understanding the Differences and Key Principles

In healthcare and business, the processes of clinical commissioning and procurement share similarities in terms of structured processes and objectives, yet they differ significantly in their focus, approach, and desired outcomes. Understanding these differences can help improve both healthcare service delivery and general procurement practices. Here’s a deep dive into clinical commissioning, its processes, and how it contrasts with traditional procurement.

What is Clinical Commissioning?

Clinical commissioning is a critical process within healthcare systems like the NHS. It involves planning, designing, and purchasing healthcare services to meet the needs of a population. The primary goal is to ensure that high-quality services are delivered in a way that improves health outcomes.

Key Steps in Clinical Commissioning:

1. Needs Assessment and Service Design:
Identifying Needs: Commissioners assess the health needs of the population they serve through data analysis, patient feedback, and engagement with healthcare professionals.
Service Specification: Once needs are identified, commissioners create detailed specifications for the required services, including expected outcomes.
Stakeholder Engagement: Collaboration with healthcare providers and the community ensures services are relevant and tailored.

2. Procurement and Contracting:
Bidding and Procurement: Providers bid for the service contracts, which are evaluated based on quality, cost-effectiveness, and ability to deliver the desired outcomes.
Contracting: Successful providers enter into contracts that define the service delivery terms, performance expectations, and payment mechanisms.

3. Outcome-Based Measures:
Performance Indicators: Clear metrics are established to monitor the success of services, including clinical outcomes and financial performance.
Outcome-Based Payment: Payments are often linked to the achievement of specific service outcomes, rewarding providers for meeting or exceeding targets.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation:
Ongoing Monitoring: Continuous performance checks ensure the service is delivered according to expectations. Tools like patient feedback and clinical audits are used.
Evaluation and Adjustments: Evaluation determines whether the desired outcomes have been met. Providers that fail to meet standards may be required to take corrective action.

Clinical Commissioning vs. Procurement Practices

While both clinical commissioning and procurement processes involve a structured approach to service delivery, they differ fundamentally in their focus and objectives.

Key Differences:

1. Purpose:
Clinical Commissioning focuses on delivering healthcare services that improve health outcomes, with a strong emphasis on quality and patient care.
Procurement, in contrast, focuses on acquiring goods or services at the best price, with more emphasis on cost-effectiveness and timely delivery.

2. Specification and Service Delivery:
In clinical commissioning, services are designed around the specific needs of a population, and there is a long-term relationship with providers to monitor and ensure service quality.
Procurement is often transactional, focusing on specific deliverables, and typically lacks the ongoing evaluation that clinical commissioning entails.

3. Contracting and Relationships:
Clinical commissioning tends to involve long-term, collaborative relationships with providers to ensure quality and service improvement.
Procurement, however, usually involves short-term contracts, focused on the delivery of specific goods or services within a set timeframe.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation:
Clinical commissioning involves continuous monitoring and outcome-based evaluations to ensure services meet the desired objectives.
Procurement tends to focus on whether the product or service was delivered according to the contract, with less emphasis on longer-term impacts or outcomes.

5. Risk Management:
In clinical commissioning, shared risk models ensure both the commissioner and the provider are accountable for service outcomes.
In procurement, risk is typically more transactional, focusing on whether goods or services meet the agreed-upon terms.

Top Tips for Effective Clinical Commissioning and Procurement

1. Clarify Needs and Expectations:
For clinical commissioning, conduct thorough assessments to understand the health needs of the population and design services accordingly.
In procurement, be clear on the specifications and outcomes you expect, ensuring providers are aligned with your goals.

2. Focus on Outcomes:
Clinical commissioning should always link payment to achieving health outcomes—whether it’s improving patient care, reducing waiting times, or enhancing recovery rates.
In procurement, while quality is important, it’s crucial to also consider long-term impact and service delivery beyond the contract’s completion.

3. Monitor and Evaluate Regularly:
Set up continuous monitoring systems in both clinical commissioning and procurement to ensure services and products meet expectations.
Evaluate performance regularly and make adjustments where necessary to improve outcomes or delivery.

4. Foster Collaboration:
Clinical commissioning should involve ongoing engagement with providers, patients, and stakeholders to build trust and facilitate service improvements.
In procurement, building strong supplier relationships can lead to better collaboration and service outcomes.

5. Adapt and Improve:
In clinical commissioning, regularly review service delivery against key performance indicators and be prepared to make adjustments to enhance care quality.
Procurement practices should stay flexible to allow for improvements in the product or service, even after initial delivery.

Self-Evaluation Checklist

Use this checklist to evaluate your organization’s approach to clinical commissioning or procurement.

For Clinical Commissioning:
Have you conducted a thorough needs assessment for the population you serve?
Are your service specifications clearly defined with outcome-based metrics?
Do you have mechanisms in place to regularly monitor and evaluate provider performance?
Are your contracts designed to foster collaboration and continuous improvement?
Are performance indicators aligned with the long-term health outcomes for the population?

For Procurement:
Have you clearly defined the goods or services you are procuring?
Do you focus on long-term outcomes, beyond just cost efficiency?
Is there a system in place for monitoring supplier performance and delivery timelines?
Are supplier relationships built on trust and collaboration, not just transactional terms?
Do you regularly evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the procured goods or services?

Understanding the principles of clinical commissioning and procurement can help organizations in both the healthcare sector and business make better-informed decisions. By focusing on clear outcomes, fostering collaboration, and maintaining rigorous monitoring processes, commissioners and procurement teams can ensure they meet their goals efficiently while driving improvements in service delivery.

Introduction

The idea that project problems are often a reflection of strategy and leadership issues within an organization is well-supported in both academic and professional literature. When a project fails, it’s frequently not due to the inherent complexities or challenges of the project itself but due to broader organizational dysfunctions, particularly in the areas of leadership, communication, and strategic alignment. This perspective underscores the importance of understanding that the project’s outcomes are a direct reflection of the organization’s broader health.

Leadership and Strategic Misalignment

Leadership and strategy are the backbone of any project. When an organization struggles with project execution, it is often because its leadership has failed to clearly define the strategy, communicate it effectively, or ensure it is implemented across all levels. A study by *Müller and Turner* (2007) found that project success is significantly influenced by the quality of project leadership and how well leaders align projects with strategic objectives. The leadership must not only set clear goals and expectations but also ensure that resources and teams are adequately prepared to achieve those goals. Leadership problems within the organization often manifest as unclear vision, lack of support, mismanagement of change, and failure to address risks—all of which impact project outcomes.

Moreover, *Pinto and Kharbanda* (1995) argue that project failure is often a result of “poor executive leadership” that leads to misalignment between the organization’s strategy and the project’s execution. A failure to connect the two means that projects are likely to deviate from their objectives or even fail outright. The strategic goals set by leadership must be aligned with the project goals; otherwise, discrepancies between them can lead to confusion, resource misallocation, and misdirection of efforts.

Organizational Dysfunction

Organizational dysfunction, such as ineffective communication, lack of trust, and unclear roles, can also play a pivotal role in project failure. These dysfunctions can be traced back to leadership’s failure to establish a robust organizational culture and systems that support project success. *Senge* (1990) discusses the concept of “organizational learning” and how systems thinking can help in understanding the broader context in which projects operate. In dysfunctional organizations, leaders often fail to establish a culture of learning, which means that projects are doomed to repeat past mistakes and operate in a cycle of inefficiency.

When a project encounters challenges, it often reveals these deeper, systemic issues. For example, poor communication and unclear decision-making processes—both of which are rooted in organizational leadership—can lead to confusion about project objectives, delayed decision-making, and fragmented project execution. *Kotter* (1996) argues that effective leadership requires creating alignment around common goals and ensuring that the organization’s systems and structures are designed to support the achievement of these goals.

Project as a “Window” to Organizational Issues

The notion that projects serve as a “window” into the dysfunctions of an organization is akin to the idea that “projects are a mirror of the organization” (Müller and Turner, 2007). The issues faced in projects—be it scope creep, cost overruns, missed deadlines, or stakeholder dissatisfaction—are often symptoms of deeper organizational and leadership failures. Projects are microcosms of the organization as a whole, and the way they are managed often reflects the broader challenges that exist within the organization’s culture, governance, and strategy.

Research by *Gartner* (2020) confirms that a significant number of project failures stem not from the project itself but from poor leadership decisions, such as unclear strategic vision, lack of stakeholder engagement, or failure to manage risks effectively. These factors are symptoms of larger organizational issues, such as poor governance structures, inadequate resource allocation, and ineffective communication channels.

The Role of Strategic Leadership in Organizational Success

Strategic leadership, which involves aligning the organization’s vision with its operational capabilities, is crucial for long-term project success. Effective leadership helps ensure that the organization’s resources—financial, human, and technological—are aligned to achieve strategic goals. When leadership is poor, projects may not receive the necessary resources, or the strategic direction might shift frequently, causing confusion and lack of commitment. *Drucker* (1999) argues that the leadership’s role is to create clarity in direction and ensure that strategy and execution are tightly coupled, which is vital for project success.

In summary, project problems often stem from strategic misalignment, leadership failures, and organizational dysfunctions rather than being caused by project-specific issues. Leadership sets the tone for how projects are executed, and strategic clarity is key to ensuring that projects are well-supported and aligned with organizational goals. Leaders must take responsibility for not only the strategic vision but also for creating an organizational culture and structure that can support the successful execution of projects. Addressing these underlying leadership and strategic challenges is critical to improving project outcomes and overall organizational performance.

References:
Drucker, P. (1999). *Management Challenges for the 21st Century*. HarperBusiness.
Gartner (2020). *The Changing Face of Project Management*. Gartner Research.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). *Leading Change*. Harvard Business Press.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007). *The Influence of Project Managers on Project Success Criteria and Project Success by Type of Project*. *International Journal of Project Management*, 25(4), 317-325.
Pinto, J. K., & Kharbanda, O. P. (1995). *Project Management: A Managerial Approach*. Wiley.
Senge, P. M. (1990). *The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization*. Doubleday.

Outsourcing and Service Level Agreements: Defining Roles, Responsibilities, and Accountability

When outsourcing work or delegating tasks to a service provider, quango, or nominated delivery partner, it is crucial to maintain a clear division between policy-making, strategy, and the operational execution of tasks. This division ensures that each party understands its role and responsibilities, with appropriate mechanisms in place to manage performance, monitor progress, and address risks. The relationship between the policy/strategy teams and the operational teams needs to be governed by well-defined contracts and agreements to ensure accountability and alignment on both sides.

In this context, it’s important to focus on the master-servant dynamic in the contractual relationship. The “master” (policy-maker or commissioning body) defines the “what” and “why”—the objectives, goals, and scope of the project or service. The “servant” (outsourced provider, quango, or delivery partner) is responsible for the “how” and “when” — the execution and delivery of the services or tasks as defined in the contract.

This clear division, underpinned by a solid contractual framework, enables organizations to ensure that policies and strategies are effectively translated into actions, without unnecessary interference from those who are not responsible for execution.

The Contractual Framework: Defining Boundaries and Expectations

For successful outsourcing or delegation to external organizations, it is essential to establish a detailed contract that outlines both the responsibilities of the policy team and the service provider or partner. This contract should be comprehensive and cover all aspects of the relationship, including:

Scope and Deliverables: The contract should specify what is expected from the service provider or delivery partner, including timelines, milestones, and deliverables. The scope of work should be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity and potential disputes.

Performance Metrics: Clearly defined KPIs and performance metrics should be outlined in the contract to ensure the delivery partner remains accountable for the outcomes. These metrics could include efficiency, quality, cost-effectiveness, and adherence to deadlines.

Funding and Payment Terms: The contract should also detail the financial arrangements, including the agreed-upon budget, payment schedules, and how expenses are managed and monitored. If timesheets are involved, these should be defined clearly to ensure transparency.

Risk and Responsibility Allocation: The contract should establish who is responsible for managing specific risks, both operational and financial. Policy and strategy teams should be focused on monitoring and overseeing risks at the macro level, while the service provider handles operational risks at the implementation level.

Communication and Reporting Mechanisms: Establishing clear communication channels is critical. Regular reporting, including progress updates, risks, and issues, should be stipulated in the contract. This ensures that policy teams are informed about how well the service provider is meeting their obligations.

Change Management and Flexibility: The contract should also account for any necessary changes in scope, timelines, or other elements. There must be a clear process for managing change requests, adjustments to the contract, and how these are communicated to all stakeholders.

The Master-Servant Relationship in Outsourcing and SLAs

The master-servant relationship between policy/strategy teams and operational delivery partners must be clearly delineated. While the commissioning body or policy-makers set the overall direction, objectives, and strategic goals, they must resist the temptation to involve themselves in day-to-day operations.

The key to effective governance in this relationship is a balance between oversight and autonomy:

Policy-Makers (Master): They establish the high-level vision, define policies, allocate funding, and make key decisions. Their role is to ensure that the objectives and expectations are clear and align with broader organizational goals. This might include obtaining political or executive approval for key policy decisions.

Delivery Partner (Servant): The delivery partner is responsible for carrying out the work as agreed, without interference from policy teams. They manage day-to-day operations, handle risks and issues at the operational level, and deliver the services or projects on time and within budget. The operational team must report against the KPIs and maintain transparency with the policy team to ensure accountability.

To maintain this dynamic, it is important for both parties to agree on a log or policy decision log for tracking key decisions, approvals, and milestones. This provides clarity on when and how decisions are made and who is accountable for them. A separate log for risks, issues, and progress should be maintained at the operational level, which is regularly reviewed by both the operational and policy teams. This ensures that any challenges or risks are identified early and can be addressed in a timely manner.

Ensuring Consensus, Ownership, and Accountability

Effective governance hinges on ensuring that both the policy-makers and operational teams understand their roles, and that the contract holds both parties accountable to the agreed terms. Clear ownership is essential for project success:

Policy Teams: These teams must focus on strategic decisions, aligning the work with broader organizational objectives, and ensuring that the resources allocated are adequate. They may also be involved in ensuring political or executive approval for decisions or key changes in scope.

Operational Teams: Operational teams must be empowered to implement the strategy and policy without interference, but they should be held accountable for the results. This can be achieved by ensuring that performance metrics are well defined and that regular progress updates are shared, including addressing any risks or issues that arise.

By setting up a comprehensive contract, maintaining clear communication and reporting mechanisms, and tracking progress against agreed-upon KPIs, organizations can ensure that both parties work effectively towards shared objectives. The result is a partnership where policy and strategy are executed efficiently, with the necessary checks and balances to manage risks and maintain accountability.

Top Tips for Effective Outsourcing and SLA Management

1. Clearly Define Scope and Expectations: Ensure that the contract specifies deliverables, timelines, and performance metrics, leaving no room for ambiguity.

2. Establish a Robust Governance Framework: Set up regular reporting systems to track progress and ensure transparency, including maintaining logs for decisions, risks, issues, and progress.

3. Agree on Funding and Payment Terms: Ensure that both parties agree on payment schedules, budgets, and financial management before the project begins to avoid disputes later.

4. Define Risk Management Roles: Identify who is responsible for managing specific operational and financial risks. This clarity prevents confusion and ensures risks are mitigated appropriately.

5. Allow Operational Autonomy: While policy teams should provide oversight, ensure that operational teams are empowered to carry out the work independently, without micromanagement.

6. Agree on Change Management Processes: Have a clear process in place for managing changes to scope, budgets, or timelines. This ensures flexibility while maintaining accountability.

Self-Evaluation Checklist

1. Role Clarity: Are the roles of policy-makers, operational teams, and service providers clearly defined in the contract?

2. Governance Structure: Is there a governance framework in place that ensures regular monitoring without micromanaging?

3. Risk Allocation: Have operational and financial risks been clearly assigned and managed?

4. Budget Agreement: Is the budget and payment schedule clearly defined and agreed upon by both parties?

5. Performance Metrics: Are KPIs and OKRs clearly outlined in the contract, and is performance being tracked?

6. Communication Protocol: Are there defined communication channels for reporting risks, issues, and progress?

7. Change Management: Is there a formal process for managing changes to scope, timelines, or costs?

By addressing these questions and ensuring that the contractual relationship is clear and well-governed, organizations can ensure a successful outsourcing or service-level agreement process. This provides the necessary structure to hold all parties accountable, reduce risks, and maintain alignment with strategic goals.

#Outsourcing #Governance #Strategy #Accountability #SLA #RiskManagement #ProjectManagement #ServiceDelivery #ContractManagement

The Importance of Clear Division Between Policy, Commissioning, Strategy, and Operations

In any organization, understanding the division between policy development, strategy setting, commissioning, and the operational implementation of plans is essential. This separation ensures that roles and responsibilities are well-defined and that risks, budgets, resources, and performance metrics are managed appropriately.

While policy makers, strategists, and commissioners focus on the “what” and “why,” operational teams are responsible for the “how” of execution. This clear delineation helps avoid confusion, reduces the potential for micromanagement, and ensures that both parties operate efficiently and effectively within their defined roles.

Responsibilities in Policy and Strategy vs. Operations

1. Policy Makers, Strategists, and Commissioners: These groups are responsible for setting the vision, developing policies, and allocating resources. Their job is to define the objectives, scope, and direction of projects or initiatives, and to ensure that there is a clear understanding of what needs to be achieved.

2. Operational Teams: These teams are tasked with executing the policies and strategies outlined by the commissioners and policy-makers. They are responsible for managing day-to-day operations, implementing plans, and achieving the desired outcomes within the defined parameters.

Implications of Dividing Policy and Strategy from Operations

Risk Management

The division between policy and operational teams is critical in managing risks. Policy and strategy teams define the objectives, scope, and overall direction but should not be involved in the day-to-day management of risks that arise during implementation. These operational risks include the potential for delays, cost overruns, or failure to meet objectives. By assigning these risks to operational teams, organizations can ensure accountability for execution while policy teams focus on maintaining strategic oversight.

It is crucial that risks are clearly identified in the commissioning phase, with specific roles assigned for managing operational and financial risks. Clear definitions of who handles what in terms of risks ensure that the right people are accountable for specific issues.

Budget and Resources

One of the most important aspects of the division between policy and operations is how budgets and resources are allocated. Policy-makers and strategy teams should establish the budget and provide the necessary resources for execution. However, the operational teams are the ones responsible for managing those resources efficiently and delivering results within the allocated budget.

A clear agreement on costs, funding, and payment terms should be established at the outset. This includes outlining what is covered under the project budget, agreeing on timesheets, payment schedules, and any other financial terms. By maintaining this clear structure, organizations can avoid disputes over funding and ensure that resources are used effectively to meet project goals.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)

For successful project execution, both policy-makers and operational teams need a clear framework for measuring performance. This is where Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) come in.

KPIs: Policy teams should define the broad success metrics of the initiative, such as delivery timelines, cost-effectiveness, and overall performance. These KPIs should focus on outcomes and align with the organization’s strategic goals.

OKRs: Operational teams should define their own OKRs, focusing on specific, actionable results within the scope of their role. This allows them to track progress more precisely and ensure that they are on track to meet the broader KPIs.

The key is that these performance metrics should be agreed upon at the start of the project and regularly monitored throughout the implementation phase, with clear responsibility for tracking performance delegated to the operational team.

The Governance Framework: Ensuring Clear Agreements

Scope, Remit, and Agreement on Deliverables

Having a clear agreement on the scope, remit, and deliverables at the outset is critical. Policy-makers and strategy teams should clearly define the project’s scope and objectives. This includes agreeing on specific deliverables, timelines, and performance targets.

Once the scope and remit are defined, they must be included in the commissioning contract or agreement, such as Service Level Agreements (SLAs), contracts, or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). These documents ensure that there is no ambiguity about the expectations for both the policy and operational teams.

Clear Contracts and Legal Agreements

Clear agreements on funding, payments, and timelines should be documented in legally binding contracts. This helps to avoid disputes regarding what was agreed upon and ensures both policy-makers and operational teams understand their obligations.

Contracts should also outline specific milestones for performance and payment, timesheet requirements, and other financial and operational terms that will govern the project. These terms must be understood and agreed upon before any work begins to ensure a smooth relationship between the policy and operational sides of the project.

Top Tips for Effective Management of Policy and Operations

1. Ensure Clear Role Definitions – Distinguish between policy-making, strategy development, and operational execution. Clearly define each group’s responsibilities to prevent overlap and confusion.

2. Set Up Robust Governance Systems – Establish governance frameworks with clear oversight structures. Ensure that regular reviews and audits are in place to track progress without micromanaging.

3. Agree on Budget and Payment Terms – Have clear agreements in place regarding budgets, timesheets, and payment schedules to prevent financial misunderstandings.

4. Define KPIs and OKRs Early – Align the policy team’s broad KPIs with the operational team’s specific OKRs to ensure both are on the same page in terms of objectives and deliverables.

5. Maintain Transparent Communication – Foster an environment where both policy and operational teams communicate openly. Regular reporting helps to identify challenges early and maintain focus on the agreed goals.

6. Respect the Boundaries – Ensure that policy and strategy teams stay focused on setting direction while operational teams manage implementation. Avoid the temptation to micromanage or blur the lines.

Self-Evaluation Checklist

1. Role Clarity: Are roles and responsibilities clearly defined for both policy-makers and operational teams? Is there any overlap in responsibilities that could cause confusion?

2. Risk Management: Have operational and financial risks been clearly assigned to the appropriate parties? Are there systems in place to monitor these risks?

3. Budget Agreement: Have clear agreements been made regarding the budget, payment terms, and timesheet management? Is everyone on the same page regarding resource allocation?

4. Performance Metrics: Have KPIs and OKRs been defined? Are these performance indicators being monitored regularly?

5. Governance Framework: Is there a governance system in place to ensure oversight without micromanagement? Are there checks and balances in place?

6. Scope and Deliverables: Is the scope and remit of the project clearly defined? Are deliverables, timelines, and performance targets agreed upon and understood?

By establishing these clear agreements and frameworks, organizations can effectively manage the separation of policy, strategy, and operations, ensuring that projects are executed efficiently while minimizing risks and maintaining accountability.

#Leadership #Strategy #Governance #RiskManagement #Operations #ProjectManagement #KPI #OKR #Efficiency

Mastering Communication: How to Keep Your Team Informed Without Overload

Information v Overload

Effective communication is essential for successful collaboration and coordination within teams, organizations, or any collective effort. However, striking the right balance between sharing important information and avoiding information overload can be a challenge. There is a fine line between keeping people informed and overwhelming them with too many messages, emails, or updates, to the point where they may disengage or stop reading altogether. This balance is critical for ensuring that communication remains productive and does not become counterproductive.

Inclusivity

One of the key aspects of communication that I value deeply is open and transparent communication. I believe that collaboration and co-production are central to achieving meaningful outcomes. I tend to lean towards sharing knowledge, information, and insights freely, welcoming contributions from others, and encouraging different perspectives. In my experience, involving everyone who is affected by or participates in a particular issue helps create a more comprehensive understanding and fosters inclusivity.

One-on-one conversations

That said, I also recognize that not everyone shares this preference for mass communication. Some individuals may prefer personalized, one-on-one conversations where information is tailored to their specific role, needs, or concerns. This type of communication is often seen as more personal and can be valuable, especially when dealing with sensitive or complex matters. However, this approach presents its own challenges.

One-to-one communication runs the risk of creating silos within the organization. When communication is not shared openly or transparently, misunderstandings and miscommunications can arise. Individuals may interpret their conversations differently, leading to misalignment and coordination issues. While one-on-one connections offer a sense of human interaction and personalization, they can inadvertently fragment the message, causing some people to be left out of crucial conversations or missing important details.

Microsoft Teams

Fortunately, modern communication tools can help mitigate these issues. For example, platforms like Microsoft Teams allow teams to create shared channels where all relevant information is stored. This ensures that everyone has access to the same content, reducing the risk of miscommunication. Team members can also be tagged in specific conversations, ensuring that they are notified about information directly relevant to them while maintaining the overall transparency of the communication process. This hybrid approach allows for personalized, one-on-one conversations, while still preserving a collective, open dialogue where information is easily accessible and traceable.

The benefit of this approach is twofold: it allows for personal connections and tailored communication, while also providing a transparent and shared space for all to stay aligned. It also enables people to revisit previous discussions, as all communication is recorded, allowing for continuity and clarity. This ensures that everyone is on the same page, reducing the potential for misunderstandings and ensuring that no one feels excluded from important updates.

Top Tips on Communication:
1. Be Clear and Concise: Avoid unnecessary jargon or lengthy explanations. Stick to the core message to ensure clarity.
2. Use the Right Medium: Choose the communication tool that best suits the message and audience (e.g., emails for formal updates, instant messaging for quick discussions, shared channels for group information).
3. Encourage Transparency: Keep communication open and available to everyone involved to avoid silos of information.
4. Personalize When Necessary: Recognize that some individuals may need one-on-one communication for sensitive topics, while still maintaining overall transparency.
5. Be Consistent: Regular updates and reminders help to keep everyone aligned and reduce confusion.

Self-Evaluation Checklist:
Are you communicating in a way that ensures everyone has the same understanding of the message?
Is your communication clear, concise, and free of unnecessary detail?
Are you using the right communication channels for the appropriate message?
Do you balance personalized communication with transparency and inclusivity?
Are you ensuring there is alignment across all team members on key goals and tasks?
Do people feel well-informed, included, and engaged in discussions?
Are there any recurring issues with miscommunication or missed messages?

Answering these questions will help you assess whether your communication is effective and if there is alignment among your team or organization. By continuously refining your approach and embracing modern communication tools, you can create a more cohesive, collaborative, and aligned environment.
#Communication #Collaboration #Leadership #Teamwork #Transparency #WorkplaceEfficiency

Building a Robust Data Strategy: A Step-by-Step Guide

In today’s data-driven world, having a well-defined data strategy is crucial for the success of any organization. A comprehensive data strategy can help you make informed decisions, streamline operations, and drive business performance. Here’s how you can approach building a data strategy that serves your business needs effectively.

1. Understand Your Current Data Landscape

The first step in building a data strategy is understanding the data you already have. Conduct a thorough audit of your existing data assets across systems, departments, and processes. A useful tool to begin with is your Data Protection Register of Processing Activities. Although this register primarily deals with personally identifiable information (PII), it can be a helpful starting point for mapping out your data landscape. It will give you insight into the types of data you have, where they reside, and how they are used.

Top Tip: Begin with a complete inventory of data to identify gaps, redundancies, and opportunities for improvement.

2. Define Your Data Needs

Once you understand your current data environment, the next step is to determine what data you need to achieve your business objectives. This will likely involve revisiting your organization’s strategic goals and key performance indicators (KPIs). What data will be required to measure progress against these KPIs? For example, if you’re tracking the performance of a service, you need specific data points to evaluate its success.

Your data needs should align with the goals of your organization and support your decision-making processes. For instance, consider how your data can feed into a real-time dashboard, helping you make faster and better-informed decisions.

Top Tip: Map out the data you need to monitor key objectives and create a clear link between data and outcomes.

3. Assess Your Data Systems and Capabilities

Understanding the systems where your data resides is critical. Do you have the necessary infrastructure to manage this data, or are you simply able to extract it for reporting purposes? Systems vary in complexity—from basic reporting tools to more advanced systems that offer full control over data inputs and outputs.

Evaluate your organization’s capability to interact with and manage these systems. Do you need to implement more sophisticated tools or increase your data governance to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the data?

Top Tip: Regularly assess the capability of your data systems and ensure your team has the skills to manage them effectively.

4. Identify the Right Tools for Data Interaction

Once you have a clear understanding of your data, systems, and capabilities, the next step is to consider the tools at your disposal. Do you have the necessary tools for reporting, data extraction, and analysis? These tools should not only help with basic data reporting but should also support statistical analysis and deeper insights, enabling you to make data-driven decisions.

Top Tip: Invest in tools that allow you to go beyond basic reporting and enable deeper data analysis to drive better decision-making.

5. Data Quality Is Crucial for AI Success

AI and machine learning are powerful tools that rely on data to generate insights and automate processes. However, AI can only be as effective as the data it’s built upon. If your data is flawed, poorly classified, or inconsistently managed, your AI systems will produce unreliable results. Therefore, ensuring high-quality, accurate data is a prerequisite for leveraging AI effectively.

Top Tip: Invest time and resources into improving your data quality before implementing AI solutions.

Summary: Best Tips for Building a Data Strategy

Conduct a comprehensive audit of your data to understand what you currently have.
Align your data needs with your strategic goals and KPIs.
Assess your data systems and ensure you have the capacity to manage them.
Ensure you have the right tools for reporting, analysis, and statistical work.
Prioritize data quality as it is the foundation for any AI initiatives.

Self-Evaluation Checklist for Your Data Strategy

1. Data Inventory: Have you conducted a full audit of the data you currently have across all systems?
2. Strategic Alignment: Does your data strategy align with your organization’s strategic goals and KPIs?
3. Data Systems: Do you have control over your data systems, or are you limited to basic reporting?
4. Data Quality: Have you implemented data governance practices to ensure the quality and accuracy of your data?
5. Tools and Capabilities: Do you have the necessary tools for reporting, extraction, and analysis?
6. AI Readiness: Is your data quality sufficient to support AI and machine learning initiatives?

By following these steps and using the checklist to assess your data strategy, you can ensure that your organization is equipped with the right data and systems to meet its operational and strategic needs.
#DataStrategy #DataManagement #AI #DataQuality #BusinessIntelligence #DigitalTransformation #DataGovernance #DecisionMaking #BusinessPerformance

Co-Production: Harnessing the Power of Collaboration for Better Outcomes

Co-production, the process of involving individuals in the creation and delivery of services that affect them, is an increasingly popular approach to solving complex societal problems. By engaging people who will directly benefit from the services in their design and implementation, co-production aims to create solutions that are more tailored, effective, and inclusive. This collaborative process is rooted in the idea that the combined expertise of a diverse group—whether they are professionals, service users, or community members—can lead to more innovative and sustainable outcomes.

Drawing inspiration from Ray Dalio’s concept of a meritocracy, where the best ideas rise to the top regardless of their source, co-production thrives when all ideas are considered and scored based on merit rather than seniority or qualifications. In a truly collaborative environment, the focus is on merit and the value of each perspective, not on who holds the highest qualifications or seniority.

The Challenge of Listening to All Ideas

A central challenge in co-production is balancing different voices, particularly when people’s opinions vary widely. This is where the famous quote from Henry Ford comes to mind: *“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”* Ford’s insight into innovation challenges the idea of simply asking people what they want, especially when they may be uninformed or non-specialized. If we always listen to the uninformed or non-expert, we risk building solutions that may feel good on the surface but fall short in practice.

On the other hand, it may also seem counterintuitive to say that the opinion of a highly qualified expert should hold less weight than that of someone who has no formal training or experience. After all, experts have a depth of knowledge and experience that should logically make their input more valuable. However, this hierarchical thinking can limit the possibilities for creative, user-centered solutions. The unqualified, unprofessional individual—the one with no credentials or years of experience—is often the best person to define the type of service that would benefit them most. After all, they are the ones who will ultimately experience the outcome.

This presents a critical paradox. We know that qualifications, expertise, and experience carry weight, but in the context of co-production, those elements must be balanced with a genuine understanding of the needs and desires of those who will be directly impacted. This means that we must be willing to meet people where they are—actively listening, engaging with their lived experiences, and building solutions that are both feasible and beneficial.

The Importance of Feasibility, Acceptability, and Collaboration

In co-production, it’s crucial to ask: *Is this solution suitable? Feasible? Acceptable? Beneficial?* These are not just theoretical questions but practical considerations that shape the direction of the co-production process. It’s important that co-production is not seen as a paternalistic, top-down approach. Rather, it should be a truly collaborative process, built on mutual understanding and respect. It’s about understanding both needs and opportunities, working together in synthesis to create something better than either side could achieve on their own.

However, achieving this level of collaboration is not easy. When individuals feel they already have the right answers, it can be hard to accept that others may have valuable contributions. In a truly collaborative environment, if you feel you know the answer but others resist it, it may be time to reconsider. The more you push your solution, the more resistance you may encounter. No matter how brilliant your ideas seem to you, if they don’t make sense to the people you’re working with, you risk losing their support, engagement, and ultimately the success of the project. Brilliant ideas that are not implemented are, after all, not really brilliant—they’ve achieved nothing.

The Role of Facilitation in Co-Production

Given the complexity of co-production, strong facilitation is crucial to its success. Bringing together different perspectives, knowledge, skills, and experiences requires someone with the ability to guide discussions, ensure all voices are heard, and help the group find common ground. A skilled facilitator will foster a sense of trust, collaboration, and understanding, helping people to work through their differences and arrive at solutions together.

In situations where consensus is necessary, the role of the facilitator becomes even more critical. They must help bridge gaps between differing views, navigate disagreements, and ensure that everyone feels included in the process. Without effective facilitation, it’s easy for the conversation to stall or for individuals to feel sidelined, undermining the co-production process.

Balancing Risks and Responsibilities

A key challenge in co-production is the potential for developing processes that don’t necessarily follow the expert’s path but are more acceptable to the majority. When this happens, it’s important to acknowledge the inherent risks of deviating from the ideal solution. If a suboptimal approach is adopted for the sake of broader buy-in, it’s essential to be honest about the costs, risks, and efficiency of that approach. Even a less-than-ideal solution may be better than nothing if it has the support of the group and is seen as a collaborative effort.

This honest evaluation of trade-offs—between ideal solutions and the compromises that might be necessary to gain consensus—is an important part of co-production. It’s about balancing the desire for the best possible outcome with the reality of working within a diverse, collaborative environment. Sometimes, a solution that isn’t perfect can be more effective if it’s embraced by those it’s designed for.

Why Co-Production is So Important

Co-production offers tremendous potential for creating more effective, user-centered solutions, but it also comes with challenges. It’s not always easy to work in a truly collaborative environment, especially when you feel certain that your solution is the right one. Yet, by embracing the principles of co-production, we can build services and systems that are more reflective of the people they are meant to serve.

Ultimately, co-production is about harnessing the collective knowledge, experience, and creativity of everyone involved—whether they are experts, service users, or community members. It’s a process that demands humility, openness, and a willingness to learn from others. The best ideas are often the ones that come from collaboration, and co-production provides the ideal framework for turning those ideas into real-world solutions.

Key Takeaways for Successful Co-Production:

1. Balance Expertise with Lived Experience: Recognize the value in both professional expertise and the insights of non-specialized individuals.
2. Foster True Collaboration: Work together with diverse stakeholders, valuing each perspective equally.
3. Utilize Strong Facilitation: Effective facilitation helps to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard and consensus is built.
4. Manage Risks Transparently: Acknowledge the trade-offs and risks associated with co-production solutions, and be honest about the potential outcomes.
5. Meet People Where They Are: Understand the needs of those you are working with and ensure that solutions are both suitable and feasible.

Co-production is a powerful tool for creating solutions that truly meet the needs of individuals and communities. By embracing a collaborative, inclusive approach, we can foster innovation and ensure that services and systems are better aligned with the real-world challenges people face.

The Importance of Clear Accountability in Project Management: Best Practices for Steering Committees and Delivery Teams

Introduction

In any project, clear accountability is the cornerstone of successful execution. Without it, projects can quickly derail due to miscommunication, missed responsibilities, and lack of follow-through. A defined framework for accountability, such as the RACI matrix, helps ensure that everyone knows their role in decision-making and delivery. This article explores the impact of unclear accountability, the roles of steering committees and delivery teams, and best practices for maintaining clarity throughout a project lifecycle.

The Consequences of Unclear Accountability

When accountability is not clearly defined in a project, confusion often reigns. A lack of a RACI matrix means that it is unclear who is responsible for each task, who needs to be consulted, and who should be informed about decisions. This can result in:

Delayed Decisions: Without clear ownership of decisions, critical project milestones can be delayed.
Duplication of Effort: Multiple people may work on the same task, wasting valuable time and resources.
Missed Deadlines: If people don’t know who is accountable for what, tasks can slip through the cracks, leading to missed deadlines and an incomplete project.
Frustration and Inefficiency: Ambiguity causes frustration among team members and stakeholders, leading to disengagement and lower morale.

The Role of the Steering Committee

The steering committee is a strategic group responsible for overseeing the project, ensuring it aligns with organizational goals, and providing high-level decision-making. They should focus on:

Setting the project’s vision and ensuring it aligns with broader organizational objectives.
Providing oversight by monitoring the project’s progress, resolving issues that arise, and making high-level decisions regarding scope, direction, and risks.
Ensuring accountability at the top level and that key stakeholders are engaged and informed.
Approving major milestones and allocating resources where necessary.

Steering committee meetings are typically held at set intervals to review the project’s progress, address strategic challenges, and make high-level decisions. Minutes from these meetings should be clear and action-oriented, ensuring everyone is aligned on major decisions and next steps.

The Role of the Delivery Team

The delivery team is responsible for the hands-on execution of the project, ensuring the work gets done according to the set objectives. Key functions of the delivery team include:

Task Execution: Managing day-to-day project activities and completing the work as outlined in the project plan.
Progress Tracking: Monitoring progress, identifying issues early, and taking corrective action to ensure the project stays on track.
Communication: Keeping everyone informed through regular updates, meetings, and proper documentation of actions and decisions.

Delivery team meetings should be operational and focused on immediate tasks. These meetings should ensure everyone knows their responsibilities and that actions are clearly documented in minutes and action logs. Regular meetings help maintain focus and momentum, ensuring alignment and minimizing misunderstandings.

The Advantage of Structured Meetings and Documentation

While emails and informal discussions are part of any project, relying solely on them for decision-making and task assignments can lead to confusion and misalignment. Here’s why structured meetings with clear documentation are essential:

Centralized Information: A single meeting with all relevant people ensures everyone is on the same page, with a clear record of decisions made, actions taken, and next steps.
Transparency: Minutes and decision logs create a transparent record that can be referred back to at any time, ensuring that nothing is lost in email chains or informal communications.
Accountability: With clear minutes and action logs, everyone knows who is responsible for what and when tasks need to be completed. This fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the project’s success.

Having structured meetings for both the steering committee and the delivery team ensures clarity and accountability, reducing the risk of missed deadlines, wasted effort, and poor communication.

Best Practice Tips for Clear Accountability in Projects

To ensure your project is well-managed and accountable, follow these best practices:

1. Define Roles and Responsibilities Early: Use tools like the RACI matrix to clearly define who is responsible for what decisions and tasks.
2. Hold Regular Steering Committee and Delivery Team Meetings: Schedule regular meetings to review progress, make decisions, and ensure alignment across teams.
3. Document Everything: Ensure all meetings have minutes, action logs, and decision registers. These documents should be shared with all relevant stakeholders and referred back to when necessary.
4. Communicate Effectively: Use structured communication channels for decisions, actions, and updates. Avoid relying on scattered emails or informal discussions that lack a clear record.
5. Ensure Accountability: Regularly review who is accountable for specific tasks and decisions. Hold team members accountable to ensure that milestones are met on time.

Self-Evaluation Checklist

Use this checklist to evaluate whether your project is adhering to best practices for accountability:

Have we defined roles and responsibilities using a RACI matrix?
Are we holding regular steering committee and delivery team meetings?
Are meetings documented with clear minutes and action logs?
Are decisions and actions communicated through formal channels, not scattered emails?
Are team members held accountable for their assigned tasks and decisions?
Are there clear, documented next steps after each meeting?

If you answered “no” to any of these questions, it may be time to implement better systems for accountability and communication in your project.

Conclusion

Clear accountability is essential to the success of any project. By defining roles, ensuring regular meetings, and documenting decisions and actions, you create a transparent and efficient project environment. Structured meetings and clear documentation ensure that everyone is aligned, accountable, and working toward the same goals. By adhering to these best practices, you can avoid the common pitfalls of confusion, miscommunication, and inefficiency, ultimately leading to more successful project outcomes.

Post 4: Integrating Projects, Programmes, and Steering Committees – Achieving Organizational Success

This is the final post in a series exploring the interconnected roles of projects, programmes, and steering committees. If you missed the previous posts, we covered the foundations of project management, how programmes align multiple projects with strategic objectives, and the critical role of steering committees in governance. In this post, we’ll focus on how to integrate these components effectively to drive organizational success.

As we’ve seen throughout this series, projects, programmes, and steering committees each play a unique but interconnected role in driving organizational success. However, the true value comes from how these elements work together seamlessly to ensure that projects contribute to larger strategic goals, are managed efficiently, and that stakeholders receive the right information at the right time.

In this final post, we’ll explore how to integrate projects, programmes, and steering committees effectively, ensuring they work as a cohesive unit to achieve organizational success.

Aligning Projects with Strategic Goals

One of the most important aspects of successful integration is ensuring that projects are aligned with the overall strategic goals of the organization. The programme management structure provides the perfect platform for this alignment by grouping related projects that share common objectives. Here’s how to ensure that projects remain strategically focused:

1. Start with Clear Objectives:
Ensure that all projects have clearly defined goals that are directly linked to the organization’s strategic priorities. This could be business growth, innovation, cost reduction, or any other overarching objective. The programme’s role is to ensure that all projects within it are working toward these common goals.

2. Use Programme Backlogs:
A programme backlog serves as a consolidated list of all project deliverables, milestones, and goals. This helps project managers and steering committees see the bigger picture and ensures that all projects are working in tandem to meet the organization’s objectives.

3. Prioritize Projects Based on Strategic Value:
Not all projects are of equal importance. The steering committee plays a critical role in ensuring that projects are prioritized based on their contribution to organizational goals. This is especially important when resources are limited, and you need to decide where to allocate time, talent, and budget.

Coordinating Between Projects and Programmes

When multiple projects are running in parallel, interdependencies between them are inevitable. Coordinating these projects within a programme ensures that one project’s delays or issues don’t negatively impact others. Effective coordination requires clear communication, robust planning, and regular reviews.

1. Identify and Manage Dependencies:
Identify interdependencies early in the planning stage to prevent surprises down the line. For example, a delay in one project could affect another project’s timeline or resource requirements. By managing these dependencies, you reduce the risk of bottlenecks or disruptions across the programme.

2. Centralized Risk Management:
As discussed in previous posts, managing risks at both the project and programme levels is crucial. However, when integrating projects into a programme, it’s important to view risks holistically. A centralized risk register that tracks risks across all projects within the programme will allow the steering committee to address issues more effectively.

3. Regular Communication Between Project Teams:
Regular meetings or check-ins between project teams within the programme will keep everyone aligned. This is especially important in a hybrid environment where some projects may be agile and others waterfall. Each project’s progress should be tracked against programme-level objectives, ensuring that all projects are on the same page.

Ensuring Steering Committees Provide Effective Oversight

Steering committees play a pivotal role in overseeing the integration of projects and programmes. To do so effectively, they must ensure that the right information is provided in a timely manner, decision-making is transparent, and the strategic alignment is maintained. Here’s how to enhance the steering committee’s role:

1. Regular, Focused Meetings:
Steering committee meetings should be held regularly but kept focused on strategic decision-making. These meetings should review the overall health of the programme, monitor progress, track risks, and make key decisions about project priorities and resource allocation. Use dashboards and visual reports to facilitate quick and informed decision-making.

2. Clear Accountability and Governance:
Define roles clearly so everyone knows their responsibilities. The steering committee should not be bogged down in operational details but should maintain oversight on the strategic direction. Likewise, project managers should focus on execution, reporting back on status and issues that require committee attention.

3. Escalation Processes for Issues:
Establish clear escalation processes so that project issues are flagged to the steering committee in a timely manner. These could include issues related to scope, resources, or risks that need a higher-level decision. The earlier problems are identified, the easier they are to resolve.

4. Stakeholder Communication:
Steering committees must ensure effective communication with key stakeholders, both internal and external. This includes ensuring stakeholders are kept informed of major milestones, risks, and changes to project scope or timelines. This transparency helps manage expectations and builds trust.

Best Practices for Integrating Projects, Programmes, and Steering Committees

To maximize the effectiveness of projects, programmes, and steering committees, consider these best practices for integration:

1. Unified Strategic Planning:
At the outset of a programme, ensure that all projects have a shared vision and objectives. This means working closely with key stakeholders to define the programme’s goals and ensuring each project’s objectives are clearly aligned with them.

2. Use Agile Practices for Flexibility:
Even in a structured programme environment, incorporate agile principles where appropriate. This can allow for quicker adaptations when unforeseen challenges arise, particularly in complex or novel projects. Having a flexible, iterative approach can ensure projects stay relevant and aligned with business needs.

3. Coordinate with Stakeholders Regularly:
Stakeholder engagement should be a continuous process throughout the life of the programme. Steering committees should regularly engage with stakeholders to ensure that the programme is meeting their needs and that any changes or issues are addressed promptly.

4. Establish a Programme Office (PMO):
A Programme Management Office (PMO) can centralize the administration and support of programmes. This office acts as the backbone for monitoring progress, managing risks, and ensuring resource allocation is efficient. It ensures that projects are aligned, resources are shared, and performance is tracked.

5. Implement Continuous Improvement:
Regularly assess the performance of your projects and programmes. After each programme phase or project completion, conduct post-project reviews or lessons learned sessions. This feedback loop ensures that each subsequent project benefits from insights gained, improving future outcomes.

Conclusion

The integration of projects, programmes, and steering committees is critical for organizational success. By aligning projects with strategic objectives, ensuring effective coordination between them, and providing strong oversight through steering committees, organizations can achieve their long-term goals more efficiently.

The collaboration between projects, programmes, and steering committees forms the foundation for a well-managed, high-performing organization. As projects become more complex, and as organizational goals evolve, this integrated approach will help ensure that resources are used effectively, risks are managed, and outcomes are successfully delivered.

This concludes our series on projects, programmes, and steering committees. We hope these insights help you create more cohesive, aligned, and successful management practices within your organization.

Summary Tips for Integrating Projects, Programmes, and Steering Committees:

1. Align Projects with Strategic Goals: Ensure that all projects contribute to the overall strategy.
2. Coordinate Project Interdependencies: Identify and manage interdependencies to prevent delays or disruptions.
3. Keep Steering Committees Focused on Strategy: Maintain regular, high-level oversight and decision-making.
4. Engage Stakeholders Continuously: Ensure regular communication with all stakeholders throughout the programme.
5. Leverage Agile Practices for Flexibility: Use agile methodologies where appropriate to adapt to changing needs.

This wraps up the series. Thank you for following along! We hope you can implement these best practices and enhance the way you manage projects, programmes, and steering committees in your organization.

About the Author:

My name is Tim Rogers. I am a coach, consultant, and change manager. My experience includes the corporatization of harbors and airports in a business capacity. In a sporting context, I’m a former Commonwealth Games triathlete and a four-time GB gold medalist (Coastal Rowing). I’m a rowing coach but also help people as a business and life coach. My immediate focus at the moment is on delivering technology solutions for a wealth management firm and, for another client, addressing the Health Protection needs for an Island Community. My more generalized interest is in helping people and organizations with change, with a real focus on the practical aspects of getting things done and achieving goals.

@timhjrogers.bsky.social
MBA Management Consultant | Prince2 Project Manager, Agile Scrum Master | AMPG Change Practitioner | BeTheBusiness Mentor | ICF Trained Coach | Mediation Practitioner | 4 x GB Gold Medalist | First Aid for Mental Health | Certificate in Applied Therapeutic Skills
Link to other articles by Tim http://www.thinkingfeelingbeing.com/tools/WP_ALL_200.html

Post 3: Steering Committees – Governance and Strategic Oversight

This is the third post in a series exploring the interconnected roles of projects, programmes, and steering committees. If you missed the first two posts, we covered the fundamentals of project management and the role of programme management in aligning projects with strategic goals. In this post, we’ll focus on the crucial role of steering committees in overseeing and guiding projects and programmes.

In any organization, steering committees are pivotal to ensuring that projects and programmes align with broader strategic objectives. These committees provide the necessary governance and decision-making oversight, ensuring that projects are moving in the right direction, risks are managed, and stakeholders are engaged effectively.

A well-structured steering committee ensures that all projects under its purview are not only on track but are delivering the expected value to the organization. Let’s dive into the role of steering committees, their composition, responsibilities, and best practices for ensuring they provide effective governance.

What is a Steering Committee?

A steering committee is a group of senior executives or stakeholders who oversee and guide the strategic direction of projects or programmes within an organization. They provide the governance structure needed to ensure that projects align with organizational goals and that issues or risks are addressed in a timely manner.

Steering committees typically do not manage day-to-day project tasks, but they are responsible for ensuring the right resources are allocated, project priorities are aligned with business objectives, and key decisions are made to keep the programme moving forward.

Key Responsibilities of Steering Committees

A steering committee plays several crucial roles in ensuring the success of projects and programmes:

1. Providing Strategic Direction:
Steering committees are responsible for setting and reviewing the strategic objectives of the projects or programmes they oversee. They ensure that the projects align with the organization’s broader goals and adjust priorities when necessary. This alignment ensures that the investment in projects is directed toward achieving business outcomes.

2. Decision-Making and Approvals:
The committee approves major decisions regarding project scope, timelines, and budgets. This could include approving project plans, changes in direction, or the reallocation of resources to meet evolving priorities. Their decision-making ensures that projects remain focused on their objectives and are not derailed by unexpected challenges.

3. Risk Oversight:
Steering committees play a critical role in monitoring and mitigating risks at the programme level. They review the project risk registers, track the status of key risks, and ensure appropriate actions are taken to address them. By providing a high-level view of the programme’s risk landscape, they help ensure that risks are identified early and that mitigation strategies are in place.

4. Performance Monitoring and Reporting:
The steering committee is responsible for monitoring the performance of projects and programmes. They review regular progress reports, key performance indicators (KPIs), and status updates. This ensures that projects are on track to meet their goals and provides the committee with the information necessary to make informed decisions about priorities and next steps.

5. Stakeholder Management:
Steering committees often serve as the primary interface between project teams and external stakeholders. This includes engaging with senior leaders, external partners, or customers who have a vested interest in the project’s success. Steering committees ensure that stakeholder expectations are managed and that the project aligns with their needs.

Composition of a Steering Committee

The effectiveness of a steering committee is often determined by its composition. A strong, diverse committee brings together individuals with varied expertise, ensuring that all aspects of the programme are adequately addressed.

Senior Executives: The committee typically includes senior leaders from key functions such as finance, operations, IT, and strategy. These individuals are responsible for providing strategic direction and ensuring alignment with business goals.

Project or Programme Managers: Although steering committees typically don’t manage day-to-day tasks, they rely on the expertise of project or programme managers to provide updates, highlight issues, and offer insights into project progress.

Subject Matter Experts: Depending on the nature of the programme, the committee may also include subject matter experts (SMEs) who can provide specific knowledge about the areas in which the projects operate. These could be technical experts, business analysts, or regulatory specialists.

Stakeholder Representatives: In some cases, external stakeholders or client representatives may be included to ensure their interests are represented at the decision-making table.

Best Practices for Steering Committees

For a steering committee to be effective, it’s important to follow certain best practices that ensure governance is strong and strategic objectives are achieved:

1. Clear Governance Structure:
Establish clear roles and responsibilities within the committee. Define how decisions will be made, the frequency of meetings, and the process for escalating issues. This structure helps the committee function smoothly and efficiently.

2. Regular and Structured Meetings:
Hold regular, structured meetings with clear agendas. These meetings should focus on high-level strategic discussions, with a focus on reviewing progress, addressing risks, and making decisions. Steering committee members should receive timely reports prior to meetings to ensure they are well-informed.

3. Focus on Strategic Issues, Not Operational Details:
Steering committees should concentrate on strategic oversight, not the operational details of project execution. Their role is to ensure that projects are aligned with business goals and that risks are managed. It’s essential for project managers to provide concise, high-level updates to facilitate focused decision-making.

4. Use Dashboards and Reporting Tools:
Implement dashboards or status reports to give the committee a clear, visual summary of project performance. These tools should include key metrics such as project health (RAG status), budget adherence, milestones achieved, and risk levels. Clear, at-a-glance reports enable the committee to make quick, informed decisions.

5. Effective Communication with Stakeholders:
Ensure that the committee communicates regularly with key stakeholders to maintain alignment and manage expectations. This communication should be transparent and proactive, addressing issues early to prevent misunderstandings or delays.

6. Escalation Process:
Establish a clear escalation process for project risks or issues that require steering committee attention. This ensures that problems are addressed in a timely manner and prevents them from escalating into major roadblocks.

Conclusion

Steering committees are the backbone of governance and strategic oversight in projects and programmes. They ensure that projects align with organizational goals, make critical decisions, manage risks, and maintain stakeholder engagement. A well-functioning steering committee provides the strategic direction necessary to drive successful outcomes.

In the next post in the series, we will look at how projects, programmes, and steering committees come together to form a cohesive, efficient management structure. We’ll discuss how to integrate these elements for maximum impact, ensuring your projects and programmes are not only successful but also aligned with your organization’s long-term strategy.

Stay tuned for the next post in the series on integrating projects, programmes, and steering committees!

Summary Tips for Steering Committees:

1. Define Clear Governance: Establish roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes.
2. Keep Focus on Strategy: Steering committees should focus on high-level strategic direction, not day-to-day operations.
3. Regular and Structured Meetings: Hold frequent meetings with clear agendas and actionable outcomes.
4. Use Dashboards for Reporting: Provide clear, visual summaries of project performance and risk.
5. Maintain Effective Communication: Ensure proactive and transparent communication with stakeholders.

This post wraps up the crucial role of steering committees in providing governance and oversight. In the next post, we will explore how to integrate projects, programmes, and steering committees effectively to ensure alignment and success across your organization.

About the Author:

My name is Tim Rogers. I am a coach, consultant, and change manager. My experience includes the corporatization of harbors and airports in a business capacity. In a sporting context, I’m a former Commonwealth Games triathlete and a four-time GB gold medalist (Coastal Rowing). I’m a rowing coach but also help people as a business and life coach. My immediate focus at the moment is on delivering technology solutions for a wealth management firm and, for another client, addressing the Health Protection needs for an Island Community. My more generalized interest is in helping people and organizations with change, with a real focus on the practical aspects of getting things done and achieving goals.

@timhjrogers.bsky.social
MBA Management Consultant | Prince2 Project Manager, Agile Scrum Master | AMPG Change Practitioner | BeTheBusiness Mentor | ICF Trained Coach | Mediation Practitioner | 4 x GB Gold Medalist | First Aid for Mental Health | Certificate in Applied Therapeutic Skills
Link to other articles by Tim http://www.thinkingfeelingbeing.com/tools/WP_ALL_200.html