Steering committees, governance, and decision making. Why good governance is essential to project success

In our earlier blogs about the Quilyx VERDER method, we wrote about predictability, ownership, calm, objective, and result. We also showed how instruments such as the Quilyx one-pager help make projects manageable.

But no overview, however sharp it may be, has real value if the governance of the project is not properly set up.

That is why this blog focuses on the steering committee. What is a steering committee, why is it needed, which roles belong in it, and why good decision making is so critical to the success of a project or program.

What is a steering committee

A steering committee does exactly what its name suggests: it steers.

Where the project manager or program manager is responsible for the day-to-day management of the project, the steering committee sits, in a way, in the driver’s seat. It can correct course, confirm direction, reset priorities, and apply the brakes when needed.

A useful comparison is a learner car. The project manager drives the car and is responsible for the day-to-day driving. The steering committee acts as the instructor. It has its own brake and can intervene if necessary. Pressing the accelerator remains, in practice, an instruction to the project manager, but braking, redirecting, and forcing a different course are exactly what the steering committee is there for.

A steering committee is therefore not a discussion group that only listens to updates. It is the decision-making body that gives direction to the project within the agreed boundaries.

Why a steering committee is needed

A project needs a formal line of governance.

Without clear governance, delays will eventually occur. Not because people are not working hard, but because decisions get stuck, mandate is unclear, escalations have no defined route, and everyone starts waiting for everyone else.

That is exactly why a steering committee is needed. It ensures that important decisions are not made by accident or in a fragmented way, but in the right place, by people with the right authority.

That matters greatly for the progress of the project, but also for the confidence of stakeholders. A project in which it is clear who decides what, and how decisions are made, feels manageable. A project in which that is unclear quickly starts to feel slow, political, and unpredictable.

Governance or control

In practice, people often use the word governance. In English, that is also the most natural term.

By governance, we mean the way a project or program is directed, how responsibilities are assigned, how decisions are made, how escalations are handled, and how oversight is maintained on progress, risks, budget, scope, and results.

Good governance ensures that everyone understands:

• who decides
• what is decided
• within which boundaries decisions are made
• when escalation is needed
• and how decisions are prepared and recorded

That clarity is crucial to project success.

Why decision making matters so much

One of the main reasons projects succeed or fail is decision making.

When a project manager can quickly follow the right route to get a decision, the project keeps moving. When decisions linger for too long, dependencies grow, teams get stuck, and risks become issues.

In the field, we often see projects delayed by unclear decision making. The root cause is usually already present at the start. The steering committee was not properly positioned, roles and responsibilities were not clearly embedded, or the mandate was not made explicit enough.

In the pressure and pace of daily project life, it can feel almost impossible to fix that once the project is already running. Still, that is exactly the moment when it becomes necessary to step back and look again at the governance of the project. That effort often pays off later in the project many times over.

The minimum roles in a steering committee

PRINCE2 works with three core roles in project governance. That structure is still highly useful in practice.

The three core roles are:

• Executive
• Senior User
• Senior Supplier

In our own projects, we increasingly choose terms that better fit today’s context.

The term Senior User can feel dated. That is why we more often use the term business owner. And instead of Senior Supplier, in IT projects we often use IT owner. The role and responsibilities do not fundamentally change, but the language is more aligned with how organizations speak today.

Ideally, the steering committee remains small and consists of three people, each holding one of these roles. That is what keeps it effective.

The Executive

The Executive is one of the most important roles for the project manager.

This role is responsible for ensuring that the project remains justified, that the investment continues to make sense, and that the project still contributes to the intended objective. The Executive therefore looks not only at progress, but also at legitimacy, priority, and organizational commitment.

Good sponsorship and client leadership are disciplines in themselves. The Executive should not only approve documents, but also provide direction, take decisions when needed, remain available, and visibly stand behind the project.

A project with weak Executive sponsorship quickly becomes directionless. Not because the project manager is not doing the work, but because the project lacks real governance support.

The business owner

The business owner represents the part of the organization for which the change is ultimately intended.

This role ensures that the right needs, priorities, and interests from the business are taken into account. The business owner helps determine which results are truly needed, which trade-offs are acceptable, and whether the change will actually be usable and workable in practice.

Especially in projects with multiple workstreams or multiple departments, this role is of great value because it helps keep the outcome of the project connected to operational reality.

The IT owner or Senior Supplier

The IT owner, or more broadly the supplier-side representative, safeguards the feasibility, quality, and deliverability of the solution.

In IT projects, this may concern technical constraints, vendor dependencies, stability, security, supportability, and the question of whether the chosen route can actually be built and operated in practice.

This role helps prevent business ambition from drifting too far away from technical reality.

The sponsor above the steering committee

Above the steering committee sits the sponsor.

The sponsor holds the ultimate mandate. This person is also the highest escalation point within the project or program. When the steering committee cannot resolve an issue, when hard choices have to be made outside the agreed tolerances, or when there is a major budget increase, a significant change in direction, or an organization-wide conflict, the sponsor becomes involved.

In addition, the sponsor has an important ceremonial and connecting role. The sponsor demonstrates at the highest levels of the organization that the project matters. That often makes it easier for the layers below to cooperate and make time and capacity available.

So the sponsor does not sit in the seat of day-to-day governance, but supports, legitimizes, and intervenes when the limits of the steering committee have been reached.

Why steering committees sometimes fail

Steering committees run the risk of turning into endless and ineffective meetings when too many people, too many interests, and too little clarity come together.

That often happens when too little has been delegated or when many fragmented departments all want their own seat at the table.

The best solution is usually to elevate the change initiative to a higher level. If that is not possible for whatever reason, our approach is to create an advisory group.

An advisory group consists of representatives from the involved departments and has, in principle, an advisory role. In practice, however, we often see that the steering committee gives significant weight to the opinion of the advisory group and that the advice strongly influences the decisions.

From that advisory group, one representative can then attend the steering committee meeting. Ideally, that role rotates. That creates two benefits. Every department gets the chance to sit in that chair once, and the steering committee receives insights from more than one single perspective. In practice, however, organizations often choose one fixed representative because of time and availability.

A small steering committee is usually more effective

The larger the steering committee, the greater the chance that decision making slows down.

That does not mean interests should be ignored. It does mean that not everyone needs a seat at the actual governance table. A small steering committee with clear mandate, supported by a well-organized advisory group or other coordination structures, usually works better than a large governance meeting where everyone wants a voice.

Governance requires sharpness, not maximum representation.

Role descriptions must be explicit

We often see that steering committee members have little or no prior experience in the role they are expected to fulfill. That is why it is important to begin with a clear role description for each role.

That description should not only define the role formally, but also make clear what is expected in practice:

• which decisions the role needs to take
• which information the role must provide
• what level of availability is required
• which escalations the role should pick up
• and which responsibilities come with that seat

Once that is made explicit, the quality of decision making often improves immediately.

Decisions need to be prepared

Decision making remains a sensitive topic. Many people do not like to put their head above the parapet or choose openly between options when the trade-off is politically difficult.

That is exactly why the steering committee is such a valuable vehicle. The steering committee takes the decision, not one single individual acting alone. That makes the process safer and often more careful.

But that does not mean decisions should only be thought through during the meeting itself.

On the contrary.

A good project manager prepares decisions in such a way that the steering committee does not need to discover the direction for the first time in the room. The relevant options have already been discussed. Interests have been explored. The impact is clear. And the preferred route has already been prepared from a governance perspective.

In that case, an item can pass as a consent item. That means the formal decision is still made in the meeting, but the substantive direction has already been prepared and aligned in advance.

That makes decision making faster, calmer, and more effective.

What good governance delivers

For a project, well-designed and well-executed governance is crucial.

It enables quick and well-founded decision making. It prevents delays caused by ambiguity. It ensures that escalations do not happen by chance. And it helps keep the project moving in the right direction, even when pressure increases.

Good governance therefore contributes directly to predictability, ownership, and calm.

And that is exactly why a strong steering committee is not an administrative formality, but a fundamental part of project success.

What we want this blog to show

With this blog, we want to make clear how important it is for a project to have a properly positioned steering committee and for the members of that steering committee to understand and live their roles, responsibilities, and expectations.

Not as a paper model, but as a living governance structure that genuinely helps the project succeed.