9 minute read · Original practice exercise included

Before you start: Identify the sponsor and the delivery team.

Read the lesson Explore tools and references

Next: Ethics, compliance and sustainability

Watch this lesson

Project Management Exam Prep / E03

Governance, roles and assurance

YouTube connects when you play a video or follow its links. Playback depends on the video’s availability on YouTube. Its own privacy and storage practices then apply. Voices are AI-generated.

Tools and references for this lesson

Use these resources to practise and extend the topic. Further applications may go beyond the lesson transcript; source pointers lead to the original author or publisher.

Calculators (1)
Conceptual models (4)
  • Compliance map

    A compliance map links applicable obligations to owners, delivery requirements and evidence. It helps distinguish a confirmed obligation from an assumption that needs expert review. · Guide

  • Ethical decision steps

    A structured ethical discussion makes competing obligations and affected people visible before a decision is justified solely by convenience or schedule. · Guide

  • Governance levels and escalation

    Governance makes decision rights explicit: who can approve what, which constraints apply and who must decide when a forecast crosses them. · Guide

  • RACI matrix

    A responsibility matrix connects deliverables and decisions to the people doing the work, approving it, advising on it and receiving updates. · Guide

Further applications (6)
Original framework and research sources (3)
  • Cynefin®

    Explore how the nature of a situation affects the way decisions are made. · Source pointer

  • PM² project management methodology

    Find a publicly available project methodology and its official resources. · Source pointer

  • CMMI®

    Explore a published approach to organisational capability improvement. · Source pointer

Check your understanding

Two managers both believe they can approve a scope change. What needs clarification?

Show answer and reasoning

Agree the decision owner, delegated limits, consultation and escalation route. A responsibility matrix helps expose the ambiguity; it cannot create authority by itself.

Apply the same reasoning to your own example. State one assumption you would need to check.

Chapters

Jump to the corresponding passage in the transcript.

  1. OpeningWatch on YouTube
  2. One topic, three lensesWatch on YouTube
  3. The core in plain wordsWatch on YouTube
  4. Models and methods: governance levelsWatch on YouTube
  5. Models and methods: the RACI chartWatch on YouTube
  6. Mid-level and SeniorWatch on YouTube
  7. Exam drillWatch on YouTube
  8. RecapWatch on YouTube

Study materials

Open the original practice sheet · print or save as PDF

Key terms

The series’ own explanations. Official sources and edition pointers are below.

Governance
Who holds authority over a project and who answers for what: who may decide, within which limits, how reports flow up, and who checks.
Sponsor
The senior person accountable for the business case and the benefits. Secures the funding, often chairs the board, and is the project manager's first point of escalation.
Steering board
Senior people who direct the project and take decisions beyond the project manager's limits. The ICB4 and PMI®: steering committee; APM: governance board or project board.
Tolerance and threshold
A preset limit within which the project manager may decide. APM: tolerance. PMI®: threshold (PMI® keeps ‘tolerance’ for the allowed variation of a quality requirement).
Assurance
Checks by people independent of the team, which give the sponsor and board confidence that the project will meet its objectives. Wider than quality assurance.
RACI
A common coding for a responsibility chart. Responsible: the people doing the work. Accountable: the one owner, who approves the result. Consulted: asked before. Informed: told after.

About the lesson’s level labels

Levels (this series' labels): Mid-level = moderately complex projects (IPMA Level C, PMI's PMP®); Senior = complex projects and people (IPMA Level B, APM's Chartered Project Professional).

These are the series’ teaching labels, not a declaration that the certifications are equivalent.

Read the transcript

Timed from the episode captions.

Open episode transcript

Sara: Welcome to Project Management Exam Prep.

This episode is about governance, roles and assurance: who decides what on a project,

within which limits, and who checks. Every project management exam tests it.

Leo: You will learn how the three bodies frame it, who does what, how escalation works,

and who checks. We finish with a drill, so keep a pen ready.

Sara: Let us start with the three lenses. What does IPMA® say?

Leo: IPMA®, the International Project Management Association, sets out its standard in

the Individual Competence Baseline, the ICB4.

Its element on governance, structures and processes asks you to work within the

organisation's decision and reporting lines and its support functions,

such as finance, and to tell what is compulsory from what is optional.

Sara: And PMI®?

Leo: PMI®, the Project Management Institute, publishes the PMBOK® Guide,

its guide to the project management body of knowledge.

The eighth edition makes governance a performance domain.

It contrasts structured governance, with a sponsor and a board,

with self-governance by the team. The outline of PMI®'s Project Management Professional

exam, the PMP®, has a task to establish governance, with escalation paths and thresholds.

Sara: And APM?

Leo: APM, the Association for Project Management, publishes the APM Body of Knowledge.

As it puts it, "Governance is about who is allowed to decide what." The syllabus

of APM's Project Management Qualification, the PMQ, has three objectives here:

governance arrangements, reviews and assurance.

Sara: Where do the words differ?

Leo: In three places. First, the board. The ICB4 and PMI® say steering committee.

APM says governance board, or project board.

In this series, we say steering board.

Sara: Second?

Leo: Your limits. APM calls them tolerances: the room you are given to vary from the

plan. PMI® speaks of thresholds, and keeps the word tolerance for quality.

The ICB4 speaks of decisions beyond your authority.

Sara: And third?

Leo: Assurance. For APM, it means independent checks that give the board confidence.

PMI®'s closest term is quality assurance: checking that processes and standards are

followed, with audits. The ICB4 asks you to fit the organisation's own forms of

assurance.

Sara: What is the core, whichever exam you take?

Leo: Three ideas. One: governance answers three questions.

Who decides what? Within which limits? And who checks?

Fit it to the project: too much slows the work, and too little loses control.

Sara: Two?

Leo: Clear roles. The sponsor is accountable for the business case and its benefits,

secures the funding, and is your first point of escalation.

The steering board, often chaired by the sponsor, speaks for the business,

the users and the suppliers, and decides beyond your limits.

You, the project manager, run the work within them.

A project management office, the PMO, sets standards, collects reports and offers

help. Users say what they need and accept the result, and suppliers deliver under

contract.

Sara: And where do team members come from?

Leo: In a functional organisation, their department directs them, and you coordinate.

In a project organisation, they report to you.

In a matrix, they have two bosses, so agree their time with their line manager,

in writing.

Sara: And three?

Leo: Independent checks. At each gate, a review looks back at what was delivered,

and forward at the business case. Assurance goes further: people outside the team

check that the project can meet its objectives, and report to the sponsor and the

board.

Sara: Does that change in agile work?

Leo: Governance gets lighter and more frequent.

The board sets goals, a budget and limits.

Within them, a product owner orders the work for the users, and the team steers

itself. Results are reviewed every iteration, and funding goes on only while the

value holds.

Sara: Now the models. Both model sheets are free in the description.

Leo: The first is our own picture of governance levels.

The organisation's executive sets the strategy and the largest limits.

A portfolio board ranks the projects and shares out scarce people and money.

A programme board comes next, if there is one.

Then the sponsor and the steering board, then you and your team.

Limits go down, and reports go up. Inside your limits, you decide and report.

A forecast that will break a limit goes one level up at once,

with options and a recommendation. That is management by exception.

Sara: Can we have numbers?

Leo: Say you may approve a change up to ten thousand euros, or one week of delay.

The steering board may approve up to one hundred thousand, or one month.

A change costs twenty-five thousand euros and three days.

The days are within your limit, but the money is not, so the steering board decides.

The rule: a decision goes to the lowest level whose limits cover all of it.

Sara: And the second model?

Leo: A responsibility chart, coded RACI: a common convention that the PMBOK® Guide and

the APM Body of Knowledge both use. Rows are deliverables or decisions,

and columns are roles. Responsible: the people who do the work.

Accountable: the one person who owns the result and signs it off.

Consulted: asked before, both ways. Informed: told after, one way.

Sara: What are the rules?

Leo: Exactly one A in each row, and at least one R.

Few Cs, or decisions slow down. In each column, many Rs mean overload,

and an empty column asks why that role is there.

Add the governance decisions too, such as who decides to go live.

Sara: How does this change between Mid-level and Senior?

Leo: First, the two levels. They are this series' own labels.

Mid-level means leading moderately complex projects, the level of IPMA® Level C and

PMI®'s PMP® exam. Senior means leading complex projects and people,

the level of IPMA® Level B and of APM's chartered status, Chartered Project Professional.

At Mid-level, you work well inside the governance you are given.

Take Parking Permits Online, a city project that moves resident parking permits

online in eight months. The project manager, Anna, reports to a steering group that

includes the sponsor, the head of parking services.

Only the steering group may release the money set aside for changes,

so each change goes to them with options.

Sara: And at Senior level?

Leo: You design the governance for others. Take One City Account, a thirty-month city

project that brings fourteen online services under one login,

led by Anna some years later. Anna may commit up to forty thousand euros of reserve

per decision. Larger ones go to the steering board, then the city's chief executive.

She plans assurance in three lines: the team's own checks, an independent review

before each phase gate that reports to the board, and the city's internal audit.

APM calls this the three lines of defence.

Sara: So the Senior answer designs the system.

Sara: Now the drill. A city is moving resident parking permits online,

and most residents renew in January. The steering group gave the project manager

a schedule tolerance of two weeks: any bigger slip goes back to the group.

Six weeks before go-live, the supplier says the payment work will be three weeks

late. The sponsor, who chairs the steering group, says: just agree the new date

with the supplier. Who decides, and what do you do?

Leo: Pause and write your answer. You have forty-five seconds.

Sara: First, the numbers.

Leo: The slip is three weeks. Your tolerance is two, so the slip is outside your authority

by one week. And a three-week slip moves go-live into the January renewals.

Sara: So who decides?

Leo: The steering group, not you and not the sponsor alone.

The sponsor chairs the group, but the group set the tolerance,

so the group decides. Raise an exception report now.

Give the facts, the cause and the options: accept the new date;

pay for extra supplier staff to win back a week and stay inside tolerance;

or go live with card payments at the service desk until online payment is ready.

Recommend one, with its cost and risk, and record the decision.

Sara: What lifts that to Senior?

Leo: Governance and people. Ask why the slip surfaced so late, and add an early warning.

Check what the contract says about delay before anyone agrees a new date.

Give the sponsor a clear role: to champion the decision in the group,

not to bypass it. And set tolerances for time, cost and scope,

and who may approve each, at the start.

Sara: How do the exams ask this?

Leo: IPMA®'s exams ask for open answers. IPMA®'s certification also includes an interview,

where assessors ask about your own projects, so note one decision you escalated,

and who took it. The PMP® exam uses scenarios, and PMI®'s outline adds questions built

on a case study or a chart: practise reading a RACI chart.

APM's PMQ asks for short written answers, for example how the sponsor's duties differ

from the project manager's.

Sara: Let us recap.

Leo: One. Governance says who decides what, within which limits, and who checks.

Sara: Two. The sponsor answers for the business case; the steering board decides beyond

your limits.

Leo: Three. Limits go down and reports go up.

Beyond a limit, escalate at once, with options.

Sara: Four. Gate reviews and independent assurance give the board confidence.

In a RACI chart, each row has one A.

Leo: And five. Steering committee or governance board, threshold or tolerance:

learn the moves, then your exam's words.

Sara: The model sheets and the study handout are linked in the description.

Next time: ethics, compliance and sustainability.

Sources & further reading

Consult the original publications and authoritative references below. For certification requirements, use the current official documents. Edition-specific page references are included only when verified.

Original and technical references for the related tools