T14: Governance | Domain 2 | PMP Study Guide

📖 Project Governance Framework

🇺🇸 English

Project governance defines the decision-making framework, accountability structure, and oversight mechanisms for a project. It answers: who decides, who approves, who oversees, and who escalates to whom.

Key governance structures:

Project Sponsor: Highest authority. Approves charter, major scope changes, final acceptance. Resolves issues beyond PM's authority.
Steering Committee: Senior stakeholders who review project health, approve major decisions, provide strategic guidance. Typically monthly.
PMO (Project Management Office): Provides standards, templates, oversight, and sometimes resources across multiple projects.
Change Control Board (CCB): Reviews and approves/rejects change requests.
PM: Day-to-day decision authority within delegated boundaries. Escalates beyond authority.

Phase gates / Stage gates: Formal review points between project phases. Go/No-Go decisions. Common in predictive projects.

Reference: PMI — Project Governance

🇻🇳 Tiếng Việt

Project governance định nghĩa framework ra quyết định, cấu trúc trách nhiệm, và cơ chế giám sát cho dự án. Trả lời: ai quyết định, ai phê duyệt, ai giám sát, và ai leo thang đến ai.

Project Sponsor: Quyền hạn cao nhất. Phê duyệt charter, thay đổi scope lớn, chấp thuận cuối cùng.
Steering Committee: Senior stakeholders review project health, phê duyệt quyết định lớn.
PMO: Cung cấp tiêu chuẩn, templates, oversight cho nhiều dự án.
CCB: Review và phê duyệt/từ chối change requests.
PM: Quyền quyết định hàng ngày trong giới hạn được ủy quyền.

🏗️ PMO Types

PMO Type	Role	Authority Level	When Used
Supportive PMO	Provides templates, training, best practices, lessons learned. Consultative role.	Low — advisory only	Mature organizations where PMs need support, not control
Controlling PMO	Enforces compliance with PM frameworks, methodologies, and tools. Audits projects.	Medium — compliance authority	Organizations that need methodology consistency
Directive PMO	Directly manages projects. PMs report to PMO, not to functional managers.	High — direct control	Strategic programs, portfolio management, large organizations

📋 Decision Rights & Escalation

Decision Rights Matrix (RACI variant)

DECISION | PM | Sponsor | Steering | CCB | PMO Daily task priorities | D | I | - | - | - Resource allocation | D/R | I | - | - | C Minor scope clarif. | D | I | - | - | - Change request <$5K | D | I | - | R | C Change request >$5K | R | D/A | C | R | C Budget increase | R | D/A | A | - | C Project termination | R | D | A | - | I Phase gate approval | R | D | A | - | I Contract award | R | - | A | - | C D=Decide A=Approve R=Recommend C=Consult I=Inform ── ESCALATION PATH ───────────────────────────────────── Team member → PM → Project Sponsor → Steering Committee → Org Leadership Rule: Escalate when decision is outside your authority level or requires organizational trade-offs

🎯

Exam Tips — Governance

Sponsor is NOT PM's boss in terms of day-to-day authority — but is the ultimate project authority
PM escalates to sponsor when: issue is beyond PM authority, budget exceeded, scope significantly changed, or when PM needs organizational resources
Phase gate = Go/No-Go decision — project may be stopped, redirected, or continued
PMO type on exam: Supportive (low control), Controlling (medium), Directive (high) — know the authority level of each
Steering Committee provides strategic oversight — not operational management
Good governance: decisions at the right level, not always pushed up or always handled at PM level

💼 Thực chiến / Scenario

🏢

FinTech Company X — Governance in a Critical Decision

Situation: Sprint 10. PM discovers that the go-live date will slip by 3 weeks due to accumulated technical debt that requires an unplanned refactoring sprint. This was not in the original plan. Options: (1) Skip refactoring and go live with risk, (2) Delay 3 weeks, (3) Descope low-priority features to absorb the sprint.

PM's authority check: The 3-week delay affects a contractual commitment with Bank Partner A (penalty clause: $10,000/week delay). This is beyond PM's authority to decide alone.

Governance response:

PM documents all 3 options with impact analysis (cost, risk, quality, partner relationship)
PM escalates to Project Sponsor with recommendation: Option 3 (descope) — 1 sprint absorbed, 0 delay, minimal risk
Emergency CCB called to review scope reduction. Sponsor approves.
Partner Bank A informed same day of descoped items (moved to Phase 2) — no delay, contract maintained

PMP lesson: Good governance means knowing when to escalate vs when to decide. The PM recognized this decision exceeded their authority and processed it appropriately — fast but through the right channels.

✏️ Practice Questions

Question 1

A project manager needs resources from another department but the department manager refuses to cooperate. The PM has already tried to resolve the conflict directly. What should the PM do NEXT?

A. Hire contractors to replace the needed resources
B. Document the refusal and continue without the resources
C. Escalate to the project sponsor for resolution
D. Ask the PMO to resolve the conflict

✅ Answer: C — When a PM cannot resolve an issue within their authority, the correct escalation path is to the Project Sponsor. The sponsor has organizational authority to resolve cross-department resource conflicts that the PM cannot. Option A is a workaround that bypasses governance and adds cost. Option B accepts failure without escalation. Option D may be valid if the PMO is Directive type, but sponsor escalation is the primary governance path.

Question 2

A PMO provides standardized templates, training, and best practices but does not have authority to direct project decisions. This PMO type is:

A. Directive PMO
B. Controlling PMO
C. Supportive PMO
D. Oversight PMO

✅ Answer: C — A Supportive PMO has low control authority. It provides value through consulting, sharing templates, training, and best practices — but PMs and project teams retain decision-making authority. A Controlling PMO (B) requires compliance with specific frameworks and reviews. A Directive PMO (A) has the highest authority and actually assigns and manages PMs. "Oversight PMO" (D) is not a standard PMI classification.

Question 3

A phase gate review finds that a project's current trajectory will exceed budget by 25% with no clear path to recovery. The steering committee's MOST appropriate action is:

A. Approve continuation since the project is already past the midpoint
B. Evaluate the options: continue with revised budget, descope, or terminate the project — a phase gate is explicitly a Go/No-Go decision point
C. Ask the PM to find a way to recover without additional budget
D. Replace the PM

✅ Answer: B — Phase gates exist precisely to make Go/No-Go decisions based on current project health and business case viability. A 25% budget overrun with no recovery path is a serious governance signal that requires structured evaluation of all options: proceed with revised budget, reduce scope to fit budget, or terminate to stop further investment. The sunk cost of being "past the midpoint" (A) is a cognitive bias — not a governance rationale. Replacing the PM (D) may be warranted eventually but is not the immediate governance response.

🤖 AI Tools for PMs

🤖

How AI Augments This Process

AI helps PMs design governance frameworks, create escalation matrices, generate RACI charts, and draft governance documentation for steering committees and PMOs.

Sample Claude Prompts

Project governance framework design Help me design a project governance framework. Project: [name, scale, duration] Organizational context: [PMO type — Supportive / Controlling / Directive] Stakeholder complexity: [single department / cross-functional / external partners] Risk profile: [high / medium / low] Reporting requirements: [weekly / monthly / milestone-based] Decision-making culture: [consensus-driven / top-down / delegated] Design a governance framework with: 1. Governance structure (Steering Committee, CCB, PMO touchpoints, team-level decisions) 2. Decision rights matrix: who decides what at each level 3. Escalation path and triggers (what gets escalated and to whom) 4. Meeting cadence: governance meetings, their purpose, attendees, frequency 5. Reporting structure: what reports, to whom, at what frequency 6. Performance thresholds that trigger escalation (schedule/budget variance %, quality gates) 7. Audit and review checkpoints Make it proportionate to the project size — avoid bureaucracy overload for smaller projects.

RACI matrix for project governance Help me create a RACI matrix for project governance and key decision points. Project roles: - Sponsor: [name / authority level] - PMO Director: [name / role] - Project Manager: [me] - Tech Lead: [name] - Product Owner: [name] - Functional Manager: [name] - External Partner/Vendor: [name] - Legal/Compliance: [name] Key governance activities to assign: 1. Project charter approval 2. Baseline scope approval 3. Budget approval (>$X threshold) 4. Change request approval (major vs. minor) 5. Risk escalation decisions 6. Go/no-go release decision 7. Vendor contract approval 8. Resource allocation decisions 9. Project closure approval 10. Lessons learned sign-off Create the RACI matrix and flag any: - Activities with no single Accountable (A) — governance gap - Activities with too many Consulted (C) — decision bottleneck - Activities where the PM is over-assigned as R (capacity risk)

PMO reporting package I need to create a monthly PMO reporting package for my project portfolio / single project. PMO type: [Supportive / Controlling / Directive] Projects to report on: [list 3-5 projects with brief status] PMO audience: [C-suite / department heads / portfolio managers] Key metrics PMO tracks: [schedule adherence, budget variance, risk count, milestone hit rate] Reporting period: [month name] Generate a PMO monthly report package with: 1. Portfolio dashboard (RAG status per project in a table) 2. Executive summary (3 key insights across the portfolio) 3. At-risk projects deep dive (top 1-2 that need attention) 4. Resource utilization overview 5. Key decisions needed from leadership this month 6. Next month outlook Format: suitable for a 10-minute leadership review meeting.

Jira / Confluence Template

Confluence — Governance Framework

── CONFLUENCE: PROJECT GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK ───────────── Project: [Project Alpha] | PM: [name] | Approved by: [Sponsor name] ── GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ────────────────────────────────── Steering Committee: [Members] | Meets: Monthly | Purpose: Strategic direction Change Control Board: [Members] | Meets: Bi-weekly | Purpose: Approve changes PMO Review: [PMO contact] | Meets: Monthly | Purpose: Compliance + oversight Team Level: Daily standup + sprint ceremonies | Purpose: Execution ── DECISION AUTHORITY ──────────────────────────────────── Decision | Team | PM | Steering | Sponsor ─────────────────────────|──────|──────|────────|───────── Sprint scope (within cap) | R/A | I | — | — Budget change (<5%) | — | R/A | I | — Budget change (>5%) | — | R | A | I Scope change (minor) | — | R/A | I | — Scope change (major) | — | R | A | A Go-live decision | R | A | A | A ── ESCALATION TRIGGERS ─────────────────────────────────── SPI or CPI < 0.85 → Immediate sponsor notification + recovery plan Critical risk materialized → CCB emergency session within 48h Team conflict unresolved in 5 days → PM escalates to functional manager

Establish Project Governance Structure