Answer extracted from the Beyond The Plan podcast — listen to the full episode below.
How should governance scale across projects of different sizes and risk profiles?
Governance must be proportional to the risk you're managing. A $200 million infrastructure program building an airplane or critical infrastructure demands extensive oversight because failure means loss of life and severe reputational damage to government. A small website for a local shop requires far less. The same governance processes should never be forced onto both a quarter-million-dollar low-risk project and a half-million-dollar high-risk project.
Risk determines the governance weight
The fundamental principle is simple: governance should enable delivery, not hinder it. When organizations apply identical governance structures across projects of vastly different scales and risk profiles, they waste resources feeding the process rather than accelerating outcomes.
As explained in this episode of Beyond The Plan, the cost of misaligned governance becomes particularly visible in the gap between projects at $250,000 and $500,000 in value—both sitting in the middle zone where organizations often cannot decide whether to deploy heavy-duty governance or keep it light.
This confusion stems from a deeper misunderstanding. Many organizations treat governance as a binary choice: either you have it or you do not. In reality, fit-for-purpose governance scales the decision-making structure to match the consequences of failure. When human life or national reputation is at stake, you invest in robust oversight. When the stakes are operational or modest financial loss, you can afford leaner structures.
Minimum viable governance is not the same as no governance
Isabel Grae Garaway clarifies a critical distinction discussed throughout the full podcast: minimum viable governance does not mean cutting corners or abandoning accountability. It means designing governance precise enough to catch real risks without creating bureaucratic overhead.
The real framework asks: What structures and systems enable the right people to make the right decisions at the right time? For a small project, that might mean one sponsor and a clear escalation path. For a major program, it means multi-layered committees, formal change control, and auditable decision logs. The process itself should reflect the stakes.
"Governance always precedes delivery failure. You can tell a project that's going to fail before it's even started."
Isabel Grae Garaway — Governance Expert. Beginning her career in defence, she developed deep expertise in robust governance frameworks and risk management across large-scale infrastructure and complex programs. She is a recognized thought leader on fit-for-purpose governance, specializing in how organizational structures enable or prevent project delivery success.
The reason Garaway can predict failure so early is that weak governance signals precede delivery breakdown by months or years. Missing executive accountability, absent clear sponsorship, or misaligned decision rights show up immediately—long before a single missed deadline.
To hear specific examples of how the New South Wales Investor Assurance Framework applies this principle across its four-tier risk classification system, and how organizations can diagnose governance misalignment in real time, listen to the full episode.
Key takeaways
- Governance should always be proportional to the risk profile—a $200 million infrastructure program requires far more oversight than a small local website.
- Forcing identical governance processes onto projects of different sizes wastes resources and slows delivery without adding value.
- Fit-for-purpose governance means creating structures that enable the right decisions at the right time, tailored to the consequences of failure.
- Weak governance structures (missing accountability, absent sponsorship) can be detected early—well before delivery failure occurs.
See also
What is the difference between minimum viable governance and minimum governance?
Minimum viable governance is not minimum governance—it is the amount of governance that is just right to get the required outcome. It means creating structures and systems that enable the right people to make the right decisions at the right time to manage project risk.
How can governance structures be designed to prevent project delivery failure before a project even starts?
Clear sponsorship with executive accountability is the foundation. If you do not have a clear sponsor and clear executive accountability, the project is doomed to fail before delivery even begins.
Why must collaborative working culture be designed to be enduring beyond individual relationships?
Personal relationship-based collaboration is fragile because it depends on individuals remaining in their roles and understanding the underlying culture. By designing collaboration as a structural element, organizations ensure delivery success persists regardless of personnel changes.