Into the wild: Building a business case for a new enterprise technology project

We’ve all heard stories about organizations spending thousands on software projects, such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Electronic Health Record (EHR), or Student Information Systems (SIS) that take longer than expected to implement and exceed original budgets. One of the reasons this occurs is that organizations often don’t realize that purchasing a large, Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) enterprise system is a significant undertaking. If the needs aren’t sufficiently defined, there can be many roadblocks, including implementation delays, increased cost, scope creep, and ultimately, unsatisfactory results (delayed or unfinished projects and cost overruns).

These systems are complex, and implementation efforts impact both internal and external stakeholders. Procurement often requires participation from different departments, each with unique goals and perspectives. Ignore these perspectives at your own peril. Here are key questions to consider for making the best buying decision:

1. Should we purchase software that similar organizations have purchased?
   As vendor consolidation has diminished the number of distinct COTS systems available, this question is increasingly common. Following this approach is similar to deciding to buy the car that your neighbor did, because they seem satisfied. How can you be sure that the systems purchased by similar organizations will meet your needs, particularly if your needs are undefined? One way to identify your organization’s needs—and to avoid costly mistakes down the road—is to identify requirements during the procurement process.

2. What are the functional and technical requirements of the system?Requirements are details that help describe a software system. There are two types of requirements and you need to understand and review both:
   
   Functional requirements. These define specific functions of a system to meet day-to-day needs of an organization or department. They describe the necessary system capabilities that allow users to perform their jobs. For example, “The vendor file must provide a minimum of four (4) remit-to addresses.” Functional requirements may also define the mandated state or federal capabilities required of a system, such as the ability to produce W-2 or 1099 forms.
   
   Technical requirements. These requirements identify criteria used to judge the operation of a system, rather than specific behaviors. They can be requirements that define what database the system must support. For example, “The system must support use of the client preferred database.” They may also describe security capabilities of the system, the ability to import or export data, or the ease of use and overall end-user interface.

3. Who should help define and document requirements for the new enterprise system?
   
   When it comes to documenting and revising requirements, work with your IT staff; incorporating technology standards into a set of requirements is a best practice. Yet it is also necessary to seek input from non-IT individuals, or business process owners from multiple departments, those who will use and/or be affected by the new software system.
   
   Help these individuals or groups understand the capabilities of modern software systems by having them visit the sites of other organizations, or attend software industry conferences. You should also have them document the current system’s deficiencies. As for those in your organization who want to keep the current system, encourage their buy-in by asking them to highlight the system’s most valuable capabilities. Perspectives from both new system supporters and those not so eager to change will help build the best system.
    
4. When do you revise enterprise system requirements? 
   It is always important to begin the software procurement process with a documented set of requirements; you need them to identify the best solution. The same goes for the implementation process where vendors use the requirements to guide the setup and configuration of the new system. But be prepared to revise and enhance requirements when a vendor solution offers an improved capability or a better method to achieve the results. The best way to approach it is to plan to revise requirements constantly. This enables the software to better meet current needs, and often delivers enhanced capabilities.

Be sure to document system requirements for an efficient process

There may be thousands of requirements for an enterprise system. To make the procurement process as efficient as possible, continually define and refine requirements. While this takes time and resources, there are clear benefits:

• Having requirements defined in an RFP helps vendors match the capabilities of their software systems to your organization’s needs and functional expectations. Without requirements, the software procurement and selection process has little framework, and from a vendor perspective becomes a subjective process — making it hard to get consistent information from all vendors.
• Requirements help determine specific tasks and activities to address during the implementation process. While applications can’t always meet 100% of the requested functionalities, it’s important to emphasize the requirements that are most important to users, to help find the system that best meets the needs of your organization.
• Requirements prove valuable even after implementation has begun, as they can help you test your system to make sure the software meets your organization’s particular needs before production use of the new system.

Our experienced consultants have led many software procurement projects and have firsthand knowledge about the challenges and opportunities associated with purchasing and implementing systems large and small. BerryDunn maintains an active database of requirements that we continually enhance, based on work performed for various clients and on technological advancements in the marketplace. Please contact us and we can help you define your requirements for large software system purchases.

Read this if your organization is planning on upgrading or replacing an enterprise technology system.

It can be challenging and stressful to plan for technology initiatives, especially those that involve and impact every area of your organization. Common initiatives include software upgrades or replacements for:

• Financial management, such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems
• Asset management systems
• Electronic health records (EHR) systems
• Permitting and inspections systems

Though the number of considerations when planning enterprise technology projects can be daunting, the greatest mistake you can make is not planning at all. By addressing just a few key areas, you can avoid some of the most common pitfalls, such as exceeding budget and schedule targets, experiencing scope creep, and losing buy-in among stakeholders. Here are some tips to help you navigate your next project:

Identify your IT project roles and resources

While most organizations understand the importance of identifying project stakeholder groups, it is often an afterthought. Defining these roles at the outset of your project helps you accurately estimate the work effort.

Your stakeholder groups may include:

• An executive sponsor
• A steering committee
• A project manager
• Functional leads
• A technical team

Once you’ve established the necessary roles, you can begin reviewing your organization’s resources to determine the people who will be available to fill them. Planning for resource availability will help you avoid delays, minimize impact to regular business processes, and reduce the likelihood of burnout. But this plan won’t remain static—you can expect to make updates throughout the project.

Establish clear goals and objectives to keep your technology project on track

It’s important that an enterprise technology project has established goals and objectives statements. These statements will help inform decision-making, provide benchmarks for progress, and measure your project’s success. They can then be referenced when key stakeholders have differing perspectives on the direction to take with a pending decision. For example, if the objective of your project is to reduce paper-based processes, you may plan for additional computer workstations and focus technical resources on provisioning them. You’ll also be able to measure your success in the reduction of paper-based tasks.

Estimate your IT project budget accurately

Project funding is hardly ever overlooked, but can be complex with project budgets that are either underestimated or estimated without sufficient rationale to withstand approval processes and subsequent budget analysis. You may find that breaking down estimates to a lower level of detail helps address these challenges. Most technology projects incur costs in three key areas:

• Vendor cost: This could include both one-time software implementation costs as well as recurring costs for maintenance and ongoing support.
• Infrastructure cost: Consider the cost of any investments needed to support your project, such as data center hardware, networking components, or computing devices.
• Supplemental resource cost: Don’t forget to include the cost of any additional resources needed for their specialized knowledge or to simply backfill project staff. This could include contracted resources or the additional cost of existing resources (i.e., overtime).

A good technology project budget also includes a contingency amount. This amount will depend on your organization’s standards, the relative level of confidence in your estimates, and the relative risk.

Anticipate the need for change management

Depending on the project, staff in many areas of your organization will be impacted by some level of change during a technology implementation. External stakeholders, such as vendors and the public, may also be affected. You can effectively manage this change by proactively identifying areas of likely change resistance and creating strategies to address them.

In any technology implementation, you will encounter change resistance you did not predict. Having strategies in place will help you react quickly and effectively. Some proven change management strategies include communicating throughout your project, involving stakeholders to get their buy-in, and helping ensure management has the right amount of information to share with their employees.

Maintain focus and stay flexible as you manage your IT project

Even with the most thought-out planning, unforeseen events and external factors may impact your technology project. Establish mechanisms to regularly and proactively monitor project status so that you can address material risks and issues before their impact to the project grows. Reacting to these items as they arise requires key project stakeholders to be flexible. Key stakeholders must recognize that new information does not necessarily mean previous decisions were made in error, and that it is better to adapt than to stick to the initial direction.

Whether you’re implementing an ERP, an EHR, or enterprise human resources or asset management systems, any enterprise technology project is a massive undertaking, involving significant investment and a coordinated effort with individuals across multiple areas of an organization. Common mistakes can be costly, but having a structured approach to your planning can help avoid pitfalls. Our experienced, objective advisors have worked with public and private organizations across the country to oversee large enterprise projects from inception to successful completion.

Contact our software consulting team with any questions.

Federal contractors with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have begun performing Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) reviews under the Final Rule issued in July 2017—a rule that many states may not realize could negatively impact their Medicaid budgets.

PERM is a complex process—states must focus on several activities over a recurring three-year period of time—and states may not have the resources needed to make PERM requirements a priority. However, with the Final Rule, this PERM eligibility review could have financial implications. 

After freezing the eligibility measurement for four years while undergoing pilot review, CMS has established new requirements for the eligibility review component and made significant changes to the data processing and medical record review components. As part of the Final Rule, CMS may implement reductions in the amount of federal funding provided to a state’s Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs based on the error rates identified from the eligibility reviews. 

Since the issuance of the Final Rule in July 2017, Cycle 1 states are the first group of states to undergo a PERM cycle, including reviews of the data processing, medical record, and eligibility components. These states are wrapping up the final review activities, and Cycle 2 states are in the early stages of their PERM reviews.

How can your state prepare?

Whether your state is a Cycle 1, Cycle 2, or Cycle 3 state, there are multiple activities your Medicaid departments should engage in throughout each three-year period of time during and between PERM cycles: 

• Analyzing prior errors cited or known issues, along with the root cause of the error
• Identifying remedies to reduce future errors
• Preparing and submitting required questionnaires and documents to the federal contractors for an upcoming review cycle
• Assisting federal contractors with current reviews and findings
• Preparing for and undergoing Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) planning and required reviews
• Corrective action planning

Is your state ready?

We’ve compiled a few basic questions to gauge your state’s readiness for the PERM review cycle:

• Do you have measures in place to ensure all eligibility factors under review are identifiable and that all federal and state regulations are being met? The eligibility review contractor (ERC) will reestablish eligibility for all beneficiaries sampled for review. This process involves confirming all verification requirements are in the case file, income requirements are met, placement in an accurate eligibility category has taken place, and the timeframe for processing all determinations meets federal and state regulations. 
• Do you have up-to-date policy and procedures in place for determining and processing Medicaid or CHIP eligibility of an individual? Ensuring eligibility policies and procedures meet federal requirements is just as important as ensuring the processing of applications, including both system and manual actions, meet the regulations. 
• Do you have up-to-date policy, procedures, and system requirements in place to ensure accurate processing of all Medicaid/CHIP claims? Reviewers will confirm the accuracy of all claim payments based on state and federal regulations. Errors are often cited due to the claims processing system allowing claims to pay that do not meet regulations.
• Do you have a dedicated team in place to address all PERM requirements to ensure a successful review cycle? This includes staff to answer questions, address review findings, and respond to requests for additional information. During a review cycle, the federal contractors will cite errors based on their best understanding of policies and/or ability to locate required documentation. Responding to requests for information or reviewing and responding to findings in a timely manner should be a priority to ensure accurate findings. 
• Have you communicated all PERM requirements and updates to policy changes to all Medicaid/CHIP providers? Providers play two integral roles in the success of a PERM review cycle. Providers must understand all claims submission requirements in order to accurately submit claims. Additionally, the medical record review component relies on providers responding to the request for the medical records on a sampled claim. Failure to respond will result in an error. Therefore, states must maintain communication with providers to stress the importance of responding to these requests.
• Have you begun planning for the MEQC requirement? Following basic requirements identified by CMS during your state’s MEQC period, your state must submit a case planning document to CMS for approval prior to the MEQC review period. After the MEQC review, your state should be prepared to issue findings reports, including a corrective action plan as it relates to MEQC findings.

Need help piloting your state’s PERM review process?

BerryDunn has subject matter experts experienced in conducting PERM reviews, including a thorough understanding of all three PERM review components—eligibility, data processing, and medical record reviews. 

We would love to work with your state to see that measures are in place that will help ensure the lowest possible improper payment error rate. Stay tuned for upcoming blogs where we will discuss other PERM topics, including MEQC requirements, the financial impacts of PERM, and additional details related to each phase of PERM. For questions or to find out more, please email me. 
 

As the Project Management Body of Knowledge^® (PMBOK^®) explains, organizations fall along a structure and reporting spectrum. On one end of this spectrum are functional organizations, in which people report to their functional managers. (For example, Finance staff report to a Finance director.) On the other end of this spectrum are projectized organizations, in which people report to a project manager. Toward the middle of the spectrum lie hybrid—or matrix—organizations, in which reporting lines are fairly complex; e.g., people may report to both functional managers and project managers. 

Problem: Weak Matrix Medicaid System Vendors

This brings us to weak matrix organizations, in which functional managers have more authority than project managers. Many Medicaid system vendors happen to fall into the weak matrix category, for a number of different reasons. Yet the primary factor is the volume and duration of operational work—such as provider enrollment, claims processing, and member enrollment—that Medicaid system vendors perform once they exit the design, development, and implementation (DDI) phase.

This work spans functional areas, which can muddy the reporting waters. Without strong and clear reporting lines to project managers, project success can be seriously (and negatively) affected if the priorities of the functional leads are not aligned with those of the project. And when a weak matrix Medicaid system vendor enters a multi-vendor environment in which it is tasked with implementing a system that will serve multiple departments and bureaus within a state government, the reporting waters can become even muddier.

Solution: Using a Project Management Office (PMO) Vendor

Conversely, consulting firms that provide Project Management Office (PMO) services to government agencies tend to be strong matrix organizations, in which project managers have more authority over project teams and can quickly reallocate team members to address the myriad of issues that arise on complex, multi-year projects to help ensure project success. PMOs are also typically experienced at creating and running project governance structures and can add significant value in system implementation-related work across government agencies.

Additional benefits of a utilizing a PMO vendor include consistent, centralized reporting across your portfolio of projects and the ability to quickly onboard subject matter expertise to meet program and project needs. 
For more in-depth information on the benefits of using a PMO on state Medicaid projects, stay tuned for my second blog in this series. In the meantime, feel free to send your PMO- or Medicaid-related questions to me. 
 

Best practices for financial institution contracts with technology providers

As the financial services sector moves in an increasingly digital direction, you cannot overstate the need for robust and relevant information security programs. Financial institutions place more reliance than ever on third-party technology vendors to support core aspects of their business, and in turn place more reliance on those vendors to meet the industry’s high standards for information security. These include those in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Sarbanes Oxley 404, and regulations established by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).

On April 2, 2019, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter (FIL) 19-2019, which outlines important requirements and considerations for financial institutions regarding their contracts with third-party technology service providers. In particular, FIL-19-2019 urges financial institutions to address how their business continuity and incident response processes integrate with those of their providers, and what that could mean for customers.

Common gaps in technology service provider contracts

As auditors of IT controls, we review lots of contracts between financial institutions and their technology service providers. When it comes to recommending areas for improvement, our top observations include:

• No right-to-audit clause
  Including a right-to-audit clause encourages transparency and provides greater assurance that vendors are providing services, and charging for them, in accordance with their contract.
• Unclear and/or inadequate rights and responsibilities around service disruptions
  In the event of a service incident, time and transparency are vital. Contracts that lack clear and comprehensive standards, both for the vendor and financial institution, regarding business continuity and incident response expose institutions to otherwise avoidable risk, including slow or substandard communications.
• No defined recovery standards
  Explicitly defined recovery standards are essential to ensuring both parties know their role in responding and recovering from a disaster or other technology outage.

FIL-19-2019 also reminds financial institutions that they need to properly inform regulators when they undertake contracts or relationships with technology service providers. The Bank Service Company Act requires financial institutions to inform regulators in writing when receiving third-party services like sorting and posting of checks and deposits, computation and posting of interest, preparation and mailing of statements, and other functions involving data processing, Internet banking, and mobile banking services.

Writing clearer contracts that strengthen your institution

Financial institutions should review their contracts, especially those that are longstanding, and make necessary updates in accordance with FDIC guidelines. As operating environments continue to evolve, older contracts, often renewed automatically, are particularly easy to overlook. You also need to review business continuity and incident response procedures to ensure they address all services provided by third-parties.

Senior management and the Board of Directors hold ultimate responsibility for managing a financial institution’s relationship with its technology service providers. Management should inform board members of any and all services that the institution receives from third-parties to help them better understand your operating environment and information security needs.

Not sure what to look for when reviewing contracts? Some places to start include:

• Establish your right-to-audit
  All contracts should include a right-to-audit clause, which preserves your ability to access and audit vendor records relating to their performance under contract. Most vendors will provide documentation of due diligence upon request, such as System and Organization Control (SOC) 1 or 2 reports detailing their financial and IT security controls.
  
  Many right-to-audit clauses also include a provision allowing your institution to conduct its own audit procedures. At a minimum, don’t hesitate to perform occasional walk-throughs of your vendor’s facilities to confirm that your contract’s provisions are being met.

• Ensure connectivity with outsourced data centers
  If you outsource some or all of your core banking systems to a hosted data center, place added emphasis on your institution’s business continuity plan to ensure connectivity, such as through the use of multiple internet or dedicated telecommunications circuits. Data vendors should, by contract, be prepared to assist with alternative connectivity.

• Set standards for incident response communications 
  Clear expectations for incident response are crucial  to helping you quickly and confidently manage the impact of a service incident on your customers and information systems. Vendor contracts should include explicit requirements for how and when vendors will communicate in the event of any issue or incident that affects your ability to serve your customers. You should also review and update contracts after each incident to address any areas of dissatisfaction with vendor communications.

• Ensure regular testing of defined disaster recovery standards
  While vendor contracts don’t need to detail every aspect of a service provider’s recovery standards, they should ensure those standards will meet your institution’s needs. Contracts should guarantee that the vendor periodically tests, reviews, and updates their recovery standards, with input from your financial institution.
  
  Your data center may also offer regular disaster recovery and failover testing. If they do, your institution should participate in it. If they don’t, work with the vendor to conduct annual testing of your ability to access your hosted resources from an alternate site.

As financial institutions increasingly look to third-party vendors to meet their evolving technology needs, it is critical that management and the board understand which benefits—and related risks—those vendors present. By taking time today to align your vendor contracts with the latest FFIEC, FDIC, and NCUA standards, your institution will be better prepared to manage risk tomorrow.

For more help gaining control over risk and cybersecurity, see our blog on sustainable solutions for educating your Board of Directors and creating a culture of cybersecurity awareness.
 

Law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, and corrections personnel provide many complex, seemingly limitless services. Seemingly is the key word here, for in reality these personnel provide a set number of incredibly important services.

Therefore, it should surprise no one that justice and public safety (J&PS) IT departments should also provide a well-defined set of services. However, these departments are often viewed as parking lots for all technical problems. The disconnect between IT and other J&PS business units often stems from differences in organizational culture and structure, and differing department objectives and goals. As a result, J&PS organizations often experience misperception between business units and IT. The solution to this disconnect and misperception? Defining IT department services.

The benefits of defined IT services

1. Increased business customer satisfaction. Once IT services align with customer needs, and expectations are established (e.g., service costs and service level agreements), customers can expect to receive the services they agreed to, and the IT department can align staff and skill levels to successfully meet those needs.
2. Improved IT personnel morale. With clear definition of the services they provide to their customers, including clearly defined processes for customers to request those services, IT personnel will no longer be subject to “rogue” questions or requests, and customers won’t be inclined to circumvent the process. This decreases IT staff stress and enables them to focus on their roles in providing the defined services. 
3. Better alignment of IT services to organizational needs. Through collaboration between the business and IT organizations, the business is able to clearly articulate the IT services that are, and aren’t, required. IT can help define realistic service levels and associated services costs, and can align IT staff and skills to the agreed-upon services. This results in increased IT effectiveness and reduced confusion regarding what services the business can expect from IT.
4. More collaboration between IT and the organization. The collaboration between the IT and business units in defining services results in an enhanced relationship between these organizations, increasing trust and clarifying expectations. This collaborative model continues as the services required by the business evolve, and IT evolves to support them.
5. Reduced costs. J&PS organizations that fail to strategically align IT and business strategy face increasing financial costs, as the organization is unable to invest IT dollars wisely. When a business doesn’t see IT as an enabler of business strategy, IT is no longer the provider of choice—and ultimately risks IT services being outsourced to a third-party vendor.

Next steps
Once a J&PS IT department defines its services to support business needs, it then can align the IT staffing model (i.e., numbers of staff, skill sets, roles and responsibilities), and continue to collaborate with the business to identify evolving services, as well as remove services that are no longer relevant. Contact us for help with this next step and other IT strategies and tactics for justice and public safety organizations.

If you’ve been tasked with leading a high-impact project for your organization, you may find managing the scope, budget and schedule is not enough to ensure project success—especially when you encounter resistance to change. When embarking on large-scale change projects spanning people, processes and technology, appointing staff as “coaches” to help support stakeholders through the change—and to manage resistance to the change—can help increase adoption and buy-in for a new way of doing things.

The first step is to identify candidates for the coaching role. These candidates are often supervisory staff who have credibility in the organization—whether as a subject matter expert, through internal leadership, or from having a history of client satisfaction. Next, you need a work plan to orient them to this role. One critical component is making sure the coaches themselves understand what the change means for their role, and have fully committed before asking them to coach others. They may exhibit initial resistance to the change you will need to manage before they can be effective coaches. According to research done by Prosci®, a leading change management research organization, some of the most common reasons for supervisor resistance in large-scale change projects are:

• Lack of awareness about and involvement in the change
• Loss of control or negative impact on job role
• Increased work load (i.e., lack of time)
• Culture of change resistance and past failures
• Impact to their team

You should anticipate encountering these and other types of resistance from staff while preparing them to be coaches. Once coaches buy into the change, they will need ongoing support and guidance to fulfill their role. This support will vary by individual, but may be correlated to what managerial skills they already possess, or don’t. How can you focus on developing coaching skills among your staff for purposes of the project? Prosci® recommends a successful change coach take on the following roles:

• Communicator—communicate with direct reports about the change
• Liaison—engage and liaise with the project team
• Advocate—advocate and champion the change
• Resistance manager—identify and manage resistance
• Coach—coach employees through the change

One of the initial tasks for your coaches will be to assess the existing level of change resistance and evaluate what resistance you may encounter. Prosci® identifies three types of resistance management work for your coaches to begin engaging in as they meet with their employees about the change:

• Resistance prevention―by providing engagement opportunities for stakeholders throughout the project, building awareness about the change early on, and reinforcing executive-level support, coaches can often head off expected resistance.
• Proactive resistance management―this approach requires coaches to anticipate the needs and understand the characteristics of their staff, and assess how they might react to change in light of these attributes. Coaches can then plan for likely forms of resistance in advance, with a structured mitigation approach.
• Reactive resistance management―this focuses on resistance that has not been mitigated with the previous two types of resistance management, but instead persists or endures for an extended amount of time. This type of management may require more analysis and planning, particularly as the project nears its completion date.

Do you have candidates in your organization who may need support transitioning into coaching roles? Do you anticipate change resistance among your stakeholders? Contact us and we can help you develop a plan to address your specific challenges.

Most of us have been (or should have been) instructed to avoid using clichés in our writing. These overstated phrases and expressions add little value, and often only increase sentence length. We should also avoid clichés in our thinking, for what we think can often influence how we act.

Consider, for example, “death by committee.” This cliché has greatly — and negatively — skewed views on the benefits of committees in managing projects. Sure, sometimes committee members have difficulty agreeing with one another, which can lead to delays and other issues. In most cases, though, an individual can’t possibly oversee all aspects of a project, or represent all interests in an organization. Committees are vital for project success — and arguably the most important project committee is the steering committee.

What Exactly is a Steering Committee?
It is a group of high-level stakeholders that provides strategic direction for a project, and supports the project manager. Ideally, the group increases the chances for project success by closely aligning project goals to organizational goals. However, it is important to point out that the group’s top priority is project success.

The committee should represent the different departments and agencies affected by the project, but remain relatively small in size, chaired by someone who is not an executive sponsor of the project (in order to avoid conflicts of interest). While the project manager should serve on the steering committee, they should not participate in decision-making; the project manager’s role is to update members on the project’s progress, areas of concern, current issues, and options for addressing these issues.

Overall, the main responsibilities of a steering committee include:

1. Approving the Project Charter
2. Resolving conflicts between stakeholder groups
3. Monitoring project progress against the project management plan
4. Fostering positive communicating about the project within the organization
5. Addressing external threats and issues emerging outside of the project that could impact it
6. Reviewing and approving changes made to the project resource plan, scope, schedules, cost estimates, etc.

What Are the Pros and Cons of Utilizing a Steering Committee?
A group of executive stakeholders providing strategic direction should benefit any project. Because steering committee members are organizational decision-makers, they have the access and credibility to address tough issues that can put the project at a risk, and have the best opportunities to negotiate positive outcomes. In addition, steering committees can engage executive management, and make sure the project meshes with executive management’s vision, mission, and long-range strategic plan. Steering committees can empower project managers, and ensure that all departments and agencies are on the same page in regards to project status, goals, and expectations. In a 2009 article in Project Management Journal, authors Thomas G. Lechler and Martin Cohen concluded that steering committees are important to implementing and maintaining project management standards on an operational level — not only do steering committees directly support project success, they are instrumental in deriving value from an organization's investments in its project management system.

A steering committee is only as effective as it’s allowed to be. A poorly structured steering committee that lacks formal authority, clear roles, and clear responsibilities can impede the success of a project by being slow to respond to project issues. A proactive project manager can help the organization avoid this major pitfall by helping develop project documents, such as the governance document or project plan that clearly define the steering committee structure, roles, responsibilities and authority.

Steer Toward Success!
Steering committees can benefit your organization and its major projects. Yet understanding the roles and responsibilities — and pros and cons — is only a preliminary step in creating a steering committee. Need some advice on how to organize a steering committee? Want to learn more about steering committee best practices? Together, we can steer your project toward success.