Project Governance In An Agile World – The finally

Here we are, ready to dive into the last two chapters: Integrated Governance Models and the overall summary.

This section examines how governance can be integrated seamlessly from the portfolio level down to programs and individual projects, utilizing various models and organizational roles. The closest agile analogy is SAFe®, which introduces concepts like release trains and layers of roles spanning teams to portfolios.

Despite the promise of agile, many still claim it’s failing to deliver real results. Throughout this series, we’ve uncovered why: traditional governance models are deeply ingrained, making them second nature for most organizations. For agile delivery to succeed, a significant shift in behaviour, especially around governance, is required. That doesn’t mean agile is anti-governance; it just approaches it from a different angle.

Another factor complicating governance in agile environments is what’s known as institutional theory. As Müller explains, this theory utilizes the concept of legitimacy as a core component of project governance. Paraphrasing Suchman (1995), legitimacy is about ensuring actions align with the accepted norms of a system. If an organization’s norms and standards don’t evolve, attempts at agile transformation will always feel like they’re swimming upstream.

This may be the root cause of so many failed agile transformations: organizations cling to old standards and behaviours, making it nearly impossible for agile delivery to realize its full potential.

The 14th Annual State of Agile Report indicates that only about 5% of organizations are truly succeeding with agile methodologies. Clearly, agile can work, but there are plenty of obstacles—mostly cultural and behavioural—that stand in the way.

Project governance is everywhere, whether you’re building software or planning a major event. Every framework, whether it’s waterfall, agile, or something else, is just a tool. The real driver is legitimacy, understanding and aligning with the “why” behind your governance approach.

If the book I reviewed had started with institutional theory—exploring the “why” behind governance—then moved into traditional and agile models, it might have made the journey smoother. The ideas are solid, but they lean heavily on conventional perspectives. While there’s some agile discussion, it doesn’t fully connect the dots between frameworks and governance. Here’s hoping the next edition takes a deeper dive into this integration.

After all these years, this book has helped me clarify and confirm my own theories on why agile delivery fails, and what to watch out for.