There’s a real sense of anticipation in organizations, especially for those directly impacted or involved with a project, policy or program when an important paper goes up for approval.
Have we covered all the key areas?
Do we have the required support and sponsorship?
Have we considered how our proposal aligns to wider strategic objectives?
But one question that can be neglected is ‘what does getting approval’ really mean?
In today’s article we will look at some ways the best project teams build towards approval whilst ensuring that approval translates into optimal impact.
There’s a natural tendency, especially when a decision paper deals with complex or problematic topics, to soften or qualify calls to action.
But the best project teams we talk to stress the need to avoid ambiguous calls to actions. Moreover, the best Boards we talk to reinforce this and tell us there is an inverse relationship between the complexity of the topic and the need for clarity.
Even with elegantly structured calls to action it is often extremely difficult to anticipate every eventuality or subsequent event following a decision or approval. Changes in business performance, regulatory change, even global pandemics can arise in unforeseeable ways.
It is advisable therefore to compliment the ‘hard deliverables’ of a paper with a set of agreed principles and models.
Examples might include the triggers for an agreed plan to be re-considered by the Board or ExCo, what decision trees Project Leads will use to document and settle disputes, and what ongoing reporting various groups will receive.
Equipping leaders, both those involved in a program and those impacted by it, with strong, definitive answers they will be asked internally, externally, publicly and privately, is imperative.
Just as establishing principles and models as part of a decision paper provides context and controls, well crafted questions and answers provide comfort and clarity in plain language.
One tactical piece of advice we’ve heard is to minimize as far as possible any answer that avoids a clear decision or agreement. Where further information, consultation data is required before a clear answer is available be clear on what steps will be taken and to achieve resolution and the likely timelines.
Finally, leaders have stressed the need to surface the right materials to the right stakeholders.
Board papers must be supported by appendixes, earlier background and discussion papers on the same topic, and any external materials that are applicable.
Where appropriate summaries of the aforementioned information should be made available to a wider stakeholder group so they have necessary context and substance to understand the decision and its impacts.
Without the four aforementioned pillars Board or Executive approval can amount to little more than conceptual endorsement, or, material re-work, or both. But with them Project teams can move forward with confidence and conviction delivering greater value for the organization.
If you’d like to learn more about how BoardPAC can help you.
