In other words, the problem may not be the absence of benefits management, but the absence of a shared operational picture of the organisation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nA strong theme emerged that separating \u201crun\u201d and \u201cchange\u201d creates artificial silos, especially in digital or product-led environments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The emerging view from larger enterprises is to apply governance visibility across the entire operating cost base, not just formal change budgets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
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<\/span> as to the level of control it wants to apply. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n4. Transparency Precedes Governance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A powerful insight from practice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rather than imposing governance, start by exposing total spend and total investment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When leaders can see the full cost base – run plus change – they often pull for governance themselves<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nTransparency creates demand for control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This reverses the traditional \u201cPMO pushing governance\u201d dynamic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Editors note: A key aspect of BIG is to PULL information needed to manage Accountability and Operate Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n5. Granularity and Accountability for Governance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A key design tension:<\/p>\n\n\n\n