The Swiss Project Management Journal
Young PM
All things are created twice; first mentally; then physically. The key to creativity is to begin
with the end in mind, with a vision and a blue print of the desired result. STEPHEN COVEY
Steering Committee Best Practices
Guidelines for Project Managers. By Alex Bilal Husein
What is the most effective way to escalate issues? If
you answer, “the Steering Committee”, you are on
the right track.
How do Project Managers get key decisions made
for their project? What are their options to create
cross-organizational awareness?
T
he following guidelines are based on
best practices identified by a survey
performed with 26 Project Managers
(PMs) and 16 Steering Committee (SC)
members in an inhouse IT infrastructure
department of a large company. During
the interviews, these professionals
outlined their most significant concerns,
shared their expectations and provided
advice about how to optimize the process.
There was common agreement that a
Steering Committee should be a small and
empowered team that steers an initiative
or project. The Steering Committee is a
powerful organ to practice a certain level
of oversight and control over projects.
The survey determined that regular SC
meetings definitely contribute to the
success of projects.
However, it is also possible for the SC
meetings to go wrong, even to the extent
of experiencing how SC members try to
sabotage the project! “But what went
wrong here?” wonders the PM. To avoid
some of the common pitfalls associated
with this particular form of collaboration,
let’s take a look at some of the best
practices that the survey revealed.
Why would a PM need SC best practices?
There is one answer to this question that
both PMs and SC members agree on: The
SC does not meet the expectations they
had from it. The PMs were especially
disappointed when
the meetings were onedirectional;
some content was discussed repeatedly
without visible progress;
regular status update reports sent via
email were not read and understood in
preparation;
SC members did not follow through on
their actions between meetings or
failed to show interest in the project.
On the other hand, the SC members were
equally disappointed when
Meetings were onedirectional and
boring;
they were surprised at the meeting
because they were not briefed upfront;
Committees were too large slowing
down decision making;
Meetings were planned for decisions
that can be made offline;
The roles and decisions to be made were
not clearly defined;
Meetings were set up for status
updates instead of for decision making
So, how can PMs and SC members improve the quality of this necessary collaboration?*
First of all, the SC steers. And the most
efficient way to steer is to clarify every
member’s role and decision making
power. For that PMs should nominate a
chair for their SC. The chair is *the person
with the most at stake in the project*,
accountable for building the SC with the
PM. The chair can be the sponsor or a key
stakeholder, based on the nature of the
project. S/he also supports defining which
key decisions most probably have to be
taken throughout the lifecycle of the
project.
Project Management Institute
SWITZERLAND Chapter
16
This exercise will help identify the right
members for the SC, identify accountable
decision makers, and reduce the committee to the minimum by avoiding redundant or excessive representation.
Members of the SC must have something
at stake, otherwise you are wasting their
time. If you are familiar with the RAC
matrix, which defines stakeholders as being responsible, accountable, consulted
or informed, never have stakeholders sit
on your SC that only have the role to be
informed.
Furthermore, compile a list of mandatory
participants for each meeting and only
invite the others optionally depending on
the topics you want to discuss. Some
members’ attendance might be irrelevant
for some meetings, and saving their time
increases their satisfaction.
Once the SC has been formed, the first
meeting is the opportunity to share each
member’s specific role in relation to the
project, specifically the role of the PM as
well as the one of the chair are very
important to explain.
This might require some soft skills from
the PMs side, as you will have to make
sure that your standards of commitment
are accepted by everyone. For example,
*make clear that you will avoid meetings
of informative nature*, but also that you
expect your members to read and
understand the status updates. Do not
hesitate to open the door for them to
assign delegates if they feel they are not
the right level of representation for the
topics that will be discussed. Keep in mind
that the delegate *should be empowered
and have the knowledge to take decisions*.
Big SCs should be avoided: 4-8 members
sounds about right for any size of project.
In case of a project with a huge user
community, or impacting independent
areas, you might consider also building a
*Sounding Board* (SB). The SB should be
an operational/expert level board with a
2016 Edition