During the final presentation, a project team waves away every critical question with 'we've already worked that out' — precisely the team that wrote the plan itself, and therefore the least suited to judge it. Every project team is in love with its own plan, and that's not a reproach: it's the natural result of weeks of work and genuine belief in the cause. But it's exactly why a plan judged only by its makers has, in fact, not been tested. Good governance organises an outside view, precisely at the moment it's most uncomfortable: right before the go. Before that outside view can work, it must first be clear who in the project carries which mandate — without that foundation, challenge has no one to argue against.
Ownership begins with a name
Before anything can be reviewed, it must be clear who is responsible for what. PRINCE2 captures this in the Project Initiation Documentation: confirm understanding of the project before the board commits significant resources, with a team structure that is "complete, with named individuals". No roles floating in the air, but people with a name and a mandate.
In PRINCE2 the PID is the formal "contract" between project manager and board, and at the same time the baseline against which evaluation takes place at closure. APM names the same in its thirteen governance principles: every project has a sponsor, an approved plan with authorisation points at which the business case is reassessed, and recorded decisions. The causes of failure that APM names are telling: no strategic link, no senior ownership, no involvement of the parties concerned.
The client with a mandate
The Advisory Board on IT Assessment sets the bar sharply: there must be a client with a mandate, responsible for both budget and business case. Key personnel must have demonstrable experience with comparable projects: not enthusiasm, but proven experience with this kind of work.
This sounds like bureaucracy, but it is the opposite. A client without a mandate cannot decide when it matters; a team without relevant experience discovers the pitfalls only when it walks into them. Governance ensures that the people who may say yes or no can and may actually steer.
Challenge thinking: organised counter-argument
Here lies the heart of it. The Advisory Board requires "demonstrable and structural room for challenge thinking". Not incidentally, not because someone happens to be critical, but organised. Challenge thinking is the deliberate design of counter-argument: someone whose role it is to attack the plan, to contest assumptions and to ask the uncomfortable questions the team itself would rather avoid.
The Court of Audit formulates the operational form of this: an independent second opinion or peer review of plans before decision-making. Independent is the key word. A colleague from the same team who "takes a quick look too" is not a second opinion: that person shares the assumptions and the blind spots.
A plan reviewed only by those who made it has not been tested but confirmed.
Why the outside view works
The inside view, reasoning from the details of your own plan, is the source of systematic optimism. An independent reviewer automatically brings an outside view: they look from a distance, recognise patterns from earlier projects and have no emotional interest in the chosen solution.
That this works institutionally is shown by the Norwegian quality assurance regime: mandatory independent reviews on the front-end, with a demonstrable effect on the control of projects. The review adds no substantive knowledge the team did not have: it adds distance. And distance is precisely what a team in love lacks.
Challenge thinking is not distrust
There is a misconception that an independent review is a motion of no confidence in the team. The reverse is true. A team that dares to expose its plan to a sharp, independent view shows confidence in its own work. The team that resists review usually has something to hide: often from itself.
Well-designed challenge thinking makes plans stronger before the go, when adapting is still cheap. The alternative review comes anyway: during execution, when reality tests the assumptions mercilessly and correcting costs a multiple.
What this means for you
For the next go decision, arrange one thing: an independent second opinion from someone outside the project team, with the mandate to say no. Not a colleague who 'just takes a look' — someone with no stake in the outcome.
A plan with strong content but weak governance is a good car with no steering wheel.
Sources
- PRINCE2 — Project Initiation Documentation: samenstellingseisen en kwaliteitscriteria.
- APM, Directing Change — dertien governance-principes.
- Adviescollege ICT-toetsing, Toetskader (eis van een opdrachtgever met mandaat en "aantoonbaar en structureel ruimte voor tegendenken").
- Algemene Rekenkamer — aanbeveling voor een onafhankelijke second opinion/peer review op plannen vóór besluitvorming.
- Samset, K. & Volden, G.H. (2016), Front-end definition of projects: Ten paradoxes…, International Journal of Project Management.