Governance of large workplace projects: who decides what, when.
On workplace investments from one million euros up, governance — who decides what, at what moment, with what mandate — is almost always the deciding factor between success and strategic loss. This article covers what governance means in this context, when setting it up becomes critical, the mistakes boards typically make, and what a workable decision model looks like.
What it is
Governance, in this context, is the decision model around a workplace project: which decisions are taken, at what level, in what order, and who holds what mandate. It's not an org chart and not a RACI table — it's the agreement that prevents a project from sinking into recurring debates and revisited assumptions.
Good governance makes three things explicit: which decisions are irreversible, which can still be adjusted later, and which forum takes which type of decision. Without that clarity every decision becomes a board decision — and that doesn't scale.
When it matters
Explicit governance becomes necessary the moment a project combines three traits: an investment above one million euros, a duration of more than twelve months, and involvement of multiple board members or steering committees. For projects like a major headquarters refurbishment in a prime business district, all three apply.
At that point, improvising is no longer an option. The cost of a wrong or delayed decision — in money, time and political capital — quickly exceeds the cost of setting up a proper decision model.
What typically goes wrong
In the trajectories we analyse, these patterns recur:
- There's a steering committee, but no clear decision authority. The committee advises, the board decides, but what that separation means in practice is unclear — leading to duplicated work and endlessly revisited decisions.
- The CFO is brought in too late. Financial commitment is requested after strategic choices are made, instead of having the financial dimension inside decision-making from the start.
- There's no separation between strategic and operational decisions. Material choices and colour palettes land on the same agenda as the decision between relocation and transformation.
- The role of external parties — architect, contractor, project manager — isn't clear relative to internal governance. External parties end up with de facto decision power because internally nobody claims it.
- Decisions are not recorded in a form that's later auditable. Three months on, nobody agrees what was actually decided.
How to do it strategically
A workable governance model rests on four elements. First, a three-tier decision model: board (strategic, irreversible decisions), steering committee (tactical decisions within strategic frame), project team (operational decisions within tactical frame). Second, clear mandates per tier, fixed before kickoff. Third, a fixed cadence: board monthly, steering committee bi-weekly, project team weekly. Fourth, a decision register where every decision is captured with date, frame and owner.
In our approach to workplace strategy, governance is part of the trajectory from day one — not a by-product but a design choice. For organisations weighing a major office transformation in a strategic location, this is the difference between a project that takes over the board's agenda and one that lets the board steer strategically without being buried.
The role of an independent process director
An external process director — independent from architect, contractor and internal departments — guards the governance, schedules the right decisions at the right level, and maintains the decision register. Not to take decisions, but to prevent them from falling into a vacuum. For boards facing this scale for the first time, an independent process director is often the first investment that pays itself back.
Frequently asked questions
Isn't governance just project management?
+
No. Project management organises execution. Governance organises decision-making. Good project management without governance delivers an efficient trajectory toward the wrong decision.
When in the trajectory should governance be set up?
+
Before the strategic exploration starts. Not later. The first strategic decisions are almost always the most defining ones — and those are the decisions most often made before governance is in place.
Who should design the governance?
+
The board, advised by an independent party. The internal project lead is usually too close, and external suppliers (architect, contractor) have an interest in keeping governance loose.
How do you stop the steering committee from becoming a second board meeting?
+
By explicitly bounding the steering committee's mandate to tactical decisions within a strategic frame, and by reserving strategic decisions strictly for the board's agenda.
Total Cost of Occupancy: beyond the construction cost of a headquarters
Construction costs are only part of what a headquarters really costs over a decade. A TCO model exposes the actual investment decision — and stops boards from fixating on the build budget.
Workplace strategy vs. office design: why the order decides everything
Two terms often used interchangeably — and one choice in their order that separates a workplace that fits from one that's merely beautiful.