Answer extracted from the Beyond The Plan podcast — listen to the full episode below.
What is the difference between minimum viable governance and minimum governance?
Minimum viable governance is not about doing less—it's about doing exactly what's needed. It means creating structures and systems that enable the right people to make the right decisions at the right time to manage project risk, calibrated precisely to the project's actual risk profile, not its budget.
The core misconception: less is not the goal
The term "minimum viable" often gets confused with "minimal," but as Isabel Grae Garaway explains in the episode, they are fundamentally different. Minimum viable governance is about fitness for purpose—creating governance that fits the actual needs of the project, not creating the least governance possible.
Think of it this way: a quarter-million-dollar project and a half-million-dollar project may require different governance structures entirely, not simply less governance. The difference lies in understanding what risk actually exists and what decision-making architecture is required to manage it effectively.
Governance scaled to risk, not to budget
The critical principle is that governance should be relative to risk. If the risk is low, governance ideally should be low to reflect that. If the risk is high, governance must rise to meet it. The mistake most organizations make is either applying one-size-fits-all governance or stripping it away entirely because they think it slows delivery.
What minimum viable governance prevents is the trap of doing work to feed the process rather than to enable delivery. As discussed in this podcast episode, bureaucratic governance becomes a barrier when it exists without a clear purpose. Minimum viable governance, by contrast, is lean because every structure and system exists for one reason: to ensure the right decision is made by the right person at the right time.
"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. Grae Garaway began her career in defence, where she developed deep expertise in robust governance frameworks and risk management across large-scale infrastructure and complex programs. She is recognized as a thought leader on fit-for-purpose governance, specializing in how organizational structures enable or prevent project delivery success.
The real insight here—one that becomes clear when you listen to the full conversation—is that governance frameworks like the New South Wales Investor Assurance Framework use a four-tier risk classification system precisely because different projects need different levels of oversight. Minimum viable governance is not a single template; it's a principle applied thoughtfully to each context.
Key takeaways
- Minimum viable governance is fit-for-purpose governance, not minimal governance—it's calibrated to the actual risk profile of the project.
- Governance structures should enable decision-making, not hinder it by creating bureaucracy that feeds itself rather than serves delivery.
- Risk and governance levels must be aligned: low-risk projects need proportionally lower governance, high-risk projects need robust structures.
- Without clear sponsor accountability and executive governance, projects fail before they start—governance precedes delivery failure, not the reverse.
See also
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, you are doomed to fail.
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. By embedding collaboration into governance structures, organizations ensure effectiveness persists regardless of personnel changes.
How should teams respond to emergent complexity discovered during project execution?
In a collaborative environment, when new complexity or problems arise—whether contaminated ground discovered during excavation or corroded equipment—the governance framework must enable rapid, informed decision-making.