Project Governance In An Agile World – Part 4
Chapter 4 Recap: Governance for Programs and Portfolios: What Agile Teams Need to Know
This week, I’m diving into Chapter 4, which explores how organizations structure governance at the program and portfolio levels. The chapter breaks down four governance styles, examines how portfolios and programs are managed, and—most importantly—highlights why agile transformations often fall short when governance doesn’t evolve along with delivery methods.
Four Styles of Governance
Muller outlines four primary governance models:
- Portfolio of Projects – Resources are shared, but objectives are unrelated.
- Hybrid Organization – Resources are shared, and objectives are related.
- Multi-Project Organization – Resources are not shared, and objectives are unrelated.
- Program of Projects – Resources are not shared, but objectives are related.
From an agile perspective, not all these models are a good fit. For example, Portfolio of Projects and Hybrid Organizations often require teams to share resources, which runs counter to the self-managed, stable team structure at the heart of agile. Multi-Project Organizations may look promising, but the lack of synergy between projects doesn’t align with the collaborative, transparent nature of agile teams.
The Program of Projects model, where teams work toward common objectives but don’t share resources, best aligns with agile principles. Here, shared goals drive success, and teams can focus on delivering value without being pulled in different directions.
Why Governance Needs to Change in Agile Transformations
Muller’s book moves from enterprise-level governance down to the project level, highlighting the traditional reliance on leadership committees to make key decisions. In agile environments, this top-down approach is replaced by a system where teams receive a clear product or service vision and maintain a constant feedback loop with stakeholders. Instead of command-and-control, agile relies on guidance, transparency, and shared accountability.
The chapter acknowledges the importance of effectiveness and efficiency—core tenets of agile development. However, when the discussion turns to efficiency, it often defaults to cost-cutting. In practice, this can mean layoffs if leadership feels delivery isn’t fast enough, even if teams are adding value in other ways. I’ve seen organizations let go of high-performing teams, only to realize later that continuous improvement and value delivery suffered as a result. My advice to leadership in those situations? Imagine how much more could have been achieved if those teams had stayed.
Measuring Productivity: Surprising Findings
The book also discusses productivity across governance models. Projects scored below 50% productivity, while Hybrid Organizations reached nearly 70%. The ability to make quick decisions, to continue or drop projects, boosted Hybrid’s numbers. Ironically, this is a core benefit of agile: fail fast, address risks early, and adapt. Research consistently shows that agile teams improve productivity and value delivery (see the 14th Annual State of Agile Report and case studies from Berriault & Associates).
Portfolio Governance: Still Too Much Command and Control?
When it comes to portfolio governance, the chapter relies heavily on traditional models, including PMOs, middle management, and steering committees. While these structures aren’t inherently bad, they can add unnecessary layers of decision-making. In a mature agile environment, teams—including leadership—work together to maximize value, balance priorities, and align strategically. Servant leadership replaces hierarchy, empowering teams to make decisions.
Unfortunately, Muller’s approach still centers on hierarchy and minimal team involvement. This leaves the door open for old management habits to creep back in, undermining agile transformations. Steering committees can be helpful, but if they only oversee teams implementing “agile frameworks” (rather than being truly agile), they risk stifling innovation and value creation.
Key Takeaways
- Agile transformations require governance to evolve, not just delivery methods.
- The Program of Projects model best supports agile teams focused on shared objectives.
- Value maximization, strategic alignment, and team empowerment are critical for agile success.
- Traditional command-and-control structures can undermine agile transformations if not addressed.
Next week, I’ll tackle project governance—and see if there are any surprises in store. Stay tuned!
Do you have questions about governance, agile transformation, or team empowerment? Want to discuss how to build a governance model that actually supports agility?
Book a call. Let’s talk about creating a structure that helps your teams and your business thrive.
Book a call. Let’s talk about creating a structure that helps your teams and your business thrive.
"I help create ecosystems that become legacies.”
- Jeremy Berriault
Quick Links
Hours of Operation
Monday - Friday
9 am to 5 pm
Saturday - Sunday
Closed