This refers to the general tendency for groups to minimise conflict and move towards consensus decisions. However this is contradicted by our understanding of the occurrence of groupthink. The effect is magnified in instances where a dual-sponsorship model is used, which I always discourage.Ī logical assumption could be that having a broader group involved in decision making would improve the breadth of ideas and the quality of decisions. This serves to dilute responsibility and reduce the personal commitment that each steering committee member feels in relation to the project outcome. This can be a political necessity in a siloed environment, however such variations can result in steering committees with upwards of 10 members. A common practice in large, federated organisations is to split the senior user role across an executive from each impacted business unit.
A senior supplier, who represents those who will design, build and implement the product.A senior user, who represents those who will use the product and.A single project sponsor, who holds overall responsibility for the success of the project business case and who has a veto on decision making.I'm an advocate of the PRINCE2 model for a project steering committee, which suggests that such a group should be composed of, at a minimum: The primary role of a project steering committee is to establish a clear direction for the project team and to give support (moral and financial) for getting that done. However, this and other developments do not appear to have had a significant impact on rates of project success and failure. So what other ways can we go about improving project success? One way is to consider tweaking the composition of project steering committees. In particular, the spread of agile methodologies has been intended to allow projects to be more adaptive to changing circumstances. This is a surprising result given the heavy focus on disciplined project management over the last few years. These figures have not changed materially since 2011, when 29% were successful, 49% were challenged and 22% failed, respectively (source: Standish Group). Project success rates are not improving. Only 29% of projects in 2015 were considered to be 'successful' (on time and on budget, with a satisfactory result), with 52% 'challenged' and 19% considered to have failed entirely.
0 kommentar(er)
