BIG Components – Organisation and Governance

On 2nd March, the BIG CIC ran its next Book club session which focused on the first BIG Components – Organisation and Governance. Referneced material can be accessed here:

• Overview of Components
• Organisation
• Governance

The session was facilitated by Veronica Edward Smith, supported by David Dunning and Alex Shapley.

There was a very brief introduction to components – then the discussion was opened up:

The following points emerged from discussion:

Organisation – Key Points

1. Clarity of the Organisation Itself Is Often Weak

A recurring observation was that many organisations cannot quickly produce a clear, agreed view of:

• Their current organisation structure (it is not that there is no organisation structure – it is that there are multiple definitions of it)
• All meaningful entities (permanent and temporary)
• Who is accountable for each entity

The “30-second test” – can you show the current organisation including major temporary structures – often fails.

Hidden teams, unclear reporting lines and informal power structures undermine governance before it even starts.

2. Organisation Entities Must Be Real, Not Nominal

BIG defines an entity as a permanent, temporary or semi-permanent unit with:

• A clear purpose
• A named accountable role
• Defined operating model
• Clear authority

In practice:

• Terms of reference often exist but are outdated or ceremonial
• Membership accretes without clarity on voting rights or purpose
• Roles are unclear about decision authority

Better organisations revisit and refresh this deliberately. Weaker ones let governance forums drift.

3. BAU vs Change – A False Dichotomy

This was one of the richest discussions.

Key tensions:

• “Business as usual” is rarely static – change happens continuously and as part of BAU
• Tactical improvement inside functions often delivers benefits that are never formally tracked – but do they need to be if the function head is content?
• Informal or functional change often sits outside portfolio governance
• Formal change (e.g. cross functional / strategic) is tightly governed via projects/programmes
• Double counting of benefits can occur when benefit management is fragmented

Editors note: In the discussion on organisation we drifted into the distinction between local change and strategic change. Local improvements may or may not be managed formally, whereas strategic initiatives normally are, with explicit benefit management.

Several people raised a related concern. Local change was delivering benefits, but those benefits were not visible to the strategic change teams.

This raises a useful reflection point. Is the underlying issue really benefits tracking, or something more structural?

If local initiatives change processes, systems or ways of working but the “as-is” enterprise architecture is not updated, then the strategic portfolio has no visibility of what has already changed. From that perspective:

– Benefits may appear to be double counted:

– Outcomes and impacts from local initiatives are not visible to the strategic portfolio.

– Risks that local change was intended to mitigate may remain on central risk registers because no one has visibility that they have already been addressed.

In other words, the problem may not be the absence of benefits management, but the absence of a shared operational picture of the organisation.

A strong theme emerged that separating “run” and “change” creates artificial silos, especially in digital or product-led environments.

The emerging view from larger enterprises is to apply governance visibility across the entire operating cost base, not just formal change budgets.

Editors note: The implication is to attempt to formalise more change entities that might otherwise be allowed to remain informal within function level management. It is up to the organisation as to the level of control it wants to apply.

4. Transparency Precedes Governance

A powerful insight from practice:

Rather than imposing governance, start by exposing total spend and total investment.

When leaders can see the full cost base – run plus change – they often pull for governance themselves.

Transparency creates demand for control.

This reverses the traditional “PMO pushing governance” dynamic.

Editors note: A key aspect of BIG is to PULL information needed to manage Accountability and Operate Governance

5. Granularity and Accountability for Governance

A key design tension:

• Too granular – governance becomes bureaucratic
• Too loose – money and decisions drift

The group emphasised:

• Accountability must sit with a role, not a forum
• Accountability cannot be delegated downward
• Responsibility can cascade – accountability cannot

This distinction was strongly reinforced.

6. Fair Accountability

Important caution raised:

Accountability must be fair.

It must include:

• Authority
• Resources
• Skills
• Cover to act

Without this, accountability becomes risk transfer rather than leadership.

This was particularly acute in public sector contexts where statutory duties override strategic preference.

Governance – Key Points

1. Governance = Decision Making

A critical framing.

Governance bodies are not reporting theatres.

If a forum is not making decisions, it is not governance.

BIG distinguishes between:

• Governance bodies – decision and accountability
• Management teams – coordination and delivery
• Assurance bodies – checking and advice

In reality, these are frequently blurred when clarity is needed.

2. Consultation vs Decision

Confusion often exists between:

• Being consulted
• Having an opinion
• Having voting rights
• Being accountable

Introducing RACI clarity often provokes resistance:

• Some do not want accountability
• Some expect decision rights they do not formally hold

Rule by committee remains common in both public and private sectors.

3. Terms of Reference – Real or Ceremonial?

Common failure modes:

• ToRs written once and never reviewed
• Forums losing clarity of purpose
• Participants unaware of their formal authority

Strong organisations revisit ToRs and clarify:

• Purpose
• Scope
• Decision rights
• Escalation routes

Weak ones drift into ritualised status review.

4. Individual vs Forum Accountability

An important debate emerged:

• Forums dilute accountability
• Individuals create clarity
• Over-concentration on one named individual creates fragility (unless delegation routes are bult in)

The preferred model discussed:

• Accountability sits with a role
• Forums support and inform
• Decision authority must be explicit

This balances clarity with resilience.

5. Siloed Governance vs Integrated Governance

Fragmentation is common:

• Different governance forums track similar things
• Statutory functions operate separate regimes
• Portfolio governance and operational governance are disconnected

In public sector contexts, statutory inspection regimes create structurally separate governance models.

This makes integration difficult but not optional.

The need identified:

Governance must operate as an integrated system, not a collection of micro-empires.

6. Culture and Behaviour Matter More Than Paper

Repeatedly reinforced:

• Written structures are insufficient
• Culture determines whether governance works
• People must feel accountable
• Meeting discipline matters
• Information must be shared in advance

Governance failure is often behavioural, not structural.

There is a saying that Culture eats Strategy for breakfast – however, in BIG, we see Culture as something to be developed – not accepted as a limiting factor.

7. AI and Governance

A forward-looking insight:

AI can:

• Derive data from documents
• Extract actions and issues from meetings
• Highlight risks and constraints
• Surface interdependencies and truths humans cannot spot

But without clear accountability:

AI outputs are pointless and meaningless

Governance infrastructure becomes more important, not less, in an AI-enabled environment.

Historically – preparing information for decision making has been time consuming and unreliable. With organisation and clear governance, and effective information technology supplemented with AI insights – the speed and cost of reliable information comes down and becomes accessible. The wish organisations have to operate more granular governance becomes feasible

Overall Themes Emerging

1. Many organisations appear governed but lack clear accountability.
2. Governance without decision rights is theatre.
3. Transparency creates demand for governance.
4. Accountability must sit with roles, and must be fair.
5. Fragmentation between run and change undermines strategy execution.
6. Culture is as important as structure and should be managed
7. BIG’s distinction between organisation and governance is practical, not academic.

Final Editors note: Most people are not unwilling to be accountable. They are unwilling to be personally exposed in environments where accountability is ambiguous, leadership reactions are unpredictable, and raising concerns carries more risk than reward. In that context, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is not dysfunction but self-protection. We should not dismiss this instinct, but we can design systems that replace fear with fairness. Clear organisation and governance are the starting point