Many organisations treat change frameworks like sacred texts.
The problem? Off-the-shelf models rarely fit the context. Teams end up following the process dogmatically – even when it blocks delivery.
- You don’t need more red tape.
- You do need frameworks tailored to your business, refined through feedback.
- Without that, the process becomes the problem.
Many organisations treat change frameworks like sacred texts – quoting them verbatim, defending them fiercely, and clinging to them even when they no longer fit reality.
But frameworks are meant to serve you, not the other way around.
The problem starts when a framework – PRINCE2, PM², Agile, MSP, or any other – becomes the destination rather than the guide. Teams are told to follow the process, even when that process slows them down, duplicates effort, or adds layers of review that add no value.
What begins as an attempt to standardise delivery ends up institutionalising bureaucracy. And ironically, that bureaucracy is often justified as “good governance.”
(If that sounds familiar, think back to Solution 2, when we tackled generic job descriptions – the same logic applies: one size rarely fits all.)
When Governance Becomes the Problem
Governance should create clarity, accountability, and consistency.
But rigid frameworks can do the opposite when they ignore context.
I’ve seen project managers spend more time preparing for stage gates than progressing the project itself. Templates become artefacts to satisfy audit-trail requirements rather than tools to aid decision-making. PMOs become process police instead of partners.
That’s when you know your framework is managing the people instead of the people managing the framework.
Governance should never feel like an obstacle course. If it does, something’s gone wrong in its design – or more likely, its application.
Tailor, Don’t Translate
Every business has its own DNA – culture, risk appetite, speed, politics, and maturity.
So why do so many organisations copy frameworks directly from a textbook or consultant deck?
Tailoring doesn’t mean cutting corners. It means understanding what adds value in your environment and what doesn’t.
It’s about right-sizing the framework so that it supports delivery rather than suffocating it.
A few lenses to consider when tailoring:
- Scale & complexity: a five-person data migration doesn’t need enterprise-level governance.
- Regulatory environment: A fintech under FCA oversight will need more structure than an internal HR upgrade.
- Organisational maturity: newer teams may need tighter controls; experienced ones may need autonomy.
- Decision cadence: slower hierarchies need checkpoints; nimble ones need fewer hand-offs.
(As I noted in Solution 1 – Speak Project, frameworks work only when everyone understands the language and purpose behind them.)
The best frameworks are flexible frameworks – not weakened, but adaptive. They evolve with the business.
Even Tailored Frameworks Need Further Tailoring
Here’s where many organisations stop short.
They build a framework that suits their business – and then apply it identically to every project.
That’s like tailoring a suit perfectly, then expecting it to fit everyone in the office.
Even the best enterprise framework must flex at the project level.
Ask yourself:
- What type of project is this? A regulatory remediation, cloud migration, or software rollout?
- What delivery model applies? Agile, Waterfall, or Hybrid?
- What’s the risk exposure and dependency profile?
- Who’s sponsoring it, and how involved are they?
Each of these changes the shape and weight of governance.
A multi-year, regulated, cross-jurisdictional programme may need deep documentation and oversight; a six-week internal automation build does not.
This is where experienced PMs and PMOs earn their value – by making those distinctions confidently.
Governance isn’t a straight line; it’s a spectrum. Knowing where to position each project is what separates administrative project management from true delivery leadership.
(And that discernment is exactly the competence we talked about in Solution 3 – Interview for Delivery, Not Vibes.)
Purpose-Driven Tailoring – Ask Why
Tailoring isn’t just about how much governance to apply – it’s also about why it’s needed.
Take the humble Project Charter.
It’s one of the most common – and most misunderstood – artefacts in any framework.
The template might have ten sections: objectives, scope, risks, assumptions, dependencies, communications, stakeholders, Risk logs, budget, benefits, and more.
Before filling in every box, ask:
- Who actually needs this information?
- Why do they need it?
- How does this section support delivery?
- Is this information already held elsewhere? We should have one version of the truth, not multiple competing ones.
If you can’t answer those questions clearly, you may not need that section at all – at least not in that level of detail.
A well-tailored Charter for a small internal project might be three pages. For a major transformation, it might be twenty.
The point is intentionality: every section exists for a reason that serves a real decision-maker or control point.
That’s where collaboration between the Project Manager, Sponsor, and PMO becomes essential.
Together they determine what is essential and what is optional – documenting not for completeness, but for clarity.
Tailoring isn’t dilution. It’s precision.
Feedback Loops, Not Fossils
A living framework evolves.
Yet too often, organisations deploy one, declare victory, and never revisit it.
The healthiest PMOs treat their frameworks as products.
They have owners, backlogs, and users. They capture feedback from project teams:
- Are templates helping or hindering delivery?
- Are gates driving genuine decision-making?
- Are governance boards receiving insight or noise?
If the framework is static, it will drift out of sync with the organisation’s pace and pain points.
Just as Agile teams inspect and adapt, so should PMOs.
The Role of the PM & the PMO
A good PM follows the process.
A great PM understands the process – and knows when it should bend.
That judgement relies on professionalism, experience, and trust – which is why investment in accredited PMs, PMOs, and BAs matters (see Solution 4 – Raise the Bar on Professionalism).
A mature PMO empowers flexibility. It sets principles, not rules.
It trusts practitioners to interpret them, and intervenes only when oversight or escalation is truly needed.
The PMO’s job is to govern the system, not the people inside it.
Closing Thought
Frameworks are vital.
They bring order to complexity, alignment to chaos, and repeatability to success.
But they are tools, not dogma.
The moment you start defending a process rather than improving it, it’s time to pause.
So yes – choose a framework that fits your organisation.
Then tailor it again to fit the project at hand.
And for each artefact and control, ask:
Who needs this? Why? How does it help us deliver? And is this our single version of the truth?
Because the only thing worse than no governance…
is governance that governs the wrong things, in the wrong way, for too long.
