Strategies for success – The importance of effective project governance in co-design projects
Co-design and project governance (name a more iconic duo... I'll wait).
It is highly likely that you've opted to be involved in or lead co-design work because you are committed to shaping programs and services to be better for the people who access them.
If there is one thing you can take away from learning about co-design, please let it be this!
Project governance is one of the most important processes during co-design. It may be ‘boring’ — but the important things often are.
As unexciting as it may be, in our time delivering co-design work (since 2015), we've realised that project governance is critical to the success of your co-design project. Even the slickest co-design processes will fail 10 times out of 10 if effective project governance isn't wrapped around it.
Why? Organisational leaders won't know that the project even happened, let alone own the outcome. This is because governance enhances visibility and accountability, aligns the project to organisational goals, and reduces the risk of legitimate outcomes being ignored once the project is complete.
Keep reading to learn why project governance is critical to co-design including:
showcases on typical project governance arrangements for co-design projects,
step through the content of a Terms of Reference for a co-design governance group,
Common risks in co-design projects that governance groups must manage, and;
our insight about how to manage risks with minimal burden on the co-design process.
Why is project governance so important in co-design work?
The saying 'go fast go alone, go far go together' rings true here. Yes, it is true that without project governance you would probably still be able to get some willing folks to participate in a co-design process. It is even possible that they might have a great experience.
It's also highly likely that people who needed to be involved, weren't, and that the outcome of the process was either ignored (no action taken) or redirected (convenient actions progressed) by decision-makers.
Project governance is critical to co-design projects for a number of reasons, including:
It promotes the value of Lived Experience: your co-design plan and key decisions should be at least informed by lived experience, if not designed directly with lived experience folks. By doing so, your co-design project is set up to be genuine from the outset.
It makes hard boundaries clear: effective governance ensures that co-design efforts align with organisational parameters like available resourcing, contractural constraints or strategic direction. There is no greater waste of time when you've co-designed a Rolls Royce and are handed the keys to a Toyota Corolla.
It ensures the right people are in the room: having a highly representative project governance function supports the recruitment of co-design participants and increases the likelihood that they are the right people for the job.
It supports shared decision-making: project governance mechanisms, particularly in co-design projects that span multiple organisations, enables shared decision-making, which is more likely to be owned across those organisations.
It brings decision-makers along for the journey: project governance provides a structured framework for getting information to decision-makers through a co-design project, ensuring a constant flow of information rather than a 'big reveal' with nasty surprises.
It promotes transparency and accountability: clear roles and responsibilities mean everyone knows what is expected of them. They understand the permissions or decision-making authority they hold individually or as a group.
It helps raise the bar for quality assurance: governance sets the criteria for project success, continuously ensuring co-design efforts meet the expectations of key stakeholders.
It considers risk management from the outset: effective governance identifies and mitigates risks early, preventing issues from escalating (we'll go into this in more detail later).
Typical project governance arrangements for co-design projects
Co-design projects typically have at least two layers of project governance to support their delivery:
Project working group: the project governance group that is responsible for doing the work.
Project steering group: the project governance group that is responsible for high-level oversight.
Some co-design projects have more layers, some have just one. For the purpose of explaining the general functionality of how project governance usually operates we'll go with the above two-layer structure.
Project working group
Purpose: the project working group is responsible for representing key stakeholders (i.e. organisations, professionals & decision-makers) or population groups (i.e. lived experience folks who use the service or are impacted directly by the issue at hand). The project working group guides the project to meet its objectives, engages in detailed conversations and works to understand co-design outputs and develop solutions.
Membership: the project working group is usually made up of a number or perspectives, including:
Co-design lead or facilitator: requires thorough knowledge of co-design and leads the project. Ideally, you will have co-leads – one staff member and one consumer – to foster a balanced perspective.
People with Lived Experience: individuals who have personal experience with the service, role, issue or condition under focus – this includes individuals and carers.
Staff: includes those with subject matter expertise, whether as managers, clinicians, practitioners or any other professional capacity.
Executives and sponsors: senior team members who sponsor and endorse the project. Generally speaking, the involvement of executives/sponsors is limited to a small handful of members tasked with championing the outcomes of the co-design process.
Project Steering Group
Purpose: The Project Steering Group provides higher-level oversight of the co-design process. They offer feedback at key milestones, without being involved in day-to-day operations. They also consider the co-design findings and can allocate resources as necessary.
Membership: the project steering group is usually comprised of decision-makers. In some cases, the project steering group is an existing group (i.e. leadership team or program-level). In others, it is established as a stand-alone group. Project steering group members can include:
Lived experience folks: within a project steering group environment, these roles are usually filled by paid lived experience advisors/advocates.
Senior Leaders: often part of the organisation’s executive team and responsible for high-level decision-making.
Portfolio managers: individuals who bring specific expertise or perspectives to the project related to a field (i.e. suicide prevention) or geography (e.g. rural and remote).
By having these two layers of governance documented and operating in a meaningful way, a co-design project can benefit from both detailed input and higher-level oversight, making it more likely to achieve its objectives effectively.
Capturing project governance arrangements via Terms of Reference
A well-defined Terms of Reference (ToR) is crucial for effective governance of a co-design process in any project. It serves as a foundational guide that outlines critical roles, expectations, and procedures.
Having a precise ToR ensures that everyone is on the same page and contributes to a more streamlined and accountable process. Below are the essential elements that a ToR for a project governance group should include:
Purpose: outlines the main objectives and scope of the project governance group.
About the project: provides an overview of the project, its goals, and its significance.
Role of governance group: specifies the functions, responsibilities, and limitations of the governance group.
Expectations of members: details what is expected from each member, including attendance, participation, and conduct.
Membership: defines who can be a member, how members are selected, and the duration of membership.
Accountability of the group: explains who the group reports to.
Authority of the group: explains the decision-making power that the group holds.
Meeting schedule: sets the frequency, timing and location of meetings.
Agendas, Reports and Minutes: describes how meetings will be organised, including the rules for quorum and decision-making. It also outlines the process for administration, setting agendas, and recording minutes.
Guiding Principles for the group: lists the core values and principles that guide the group's actions. Common principles include collaboration and shared priorities, confidentiality, public comment, conflict of interest and intellectual property.
By clearly setting out these elements in a ToR, project governance groups can operate more effectively, reducing misunderstandings and ensuring that the co-design process runs smoothly.
Co-design risks mitigated through good project governance
After years of people in board rooms lying to each other about risk, it's no wonder risk management gets a bad rap. But if done right and at an appropriate scale, risk management is a helpful process. In the case of co-design, "risk management" could be reframed as "good management" and used to be aware of and consider the common pitfalls of delivering a co-design project.
The risks that are most likely to surface in a co-design process are:
Stakeholder disengagement: lack of active participation from key stakeholders can compromise the project's success.
Limited resources: insufficient time, budget, or personnel can hinder the project's progress and quality.
Unclear objectives: if the project's goals are not well-defined, it may result in wasted efforts and a lack of direction.
Poor communication: lack of clear and timely communication can lead to misunderstandings, delayed decisions, and ineffective collaboration.
Scope creep: uncontrolled and unauthorised changes to the project's scope can lead to a process that doesn't result in the desired outcome.
Unrealistic expectations: over-ambitious goals or timelines can set the project up for failure.
Conflicts of interest: divergent interests (particularly commercial ones) among stakeholders can impede consensus and decision-making.
Lack of expertise: the absence of team members with sufficient co-design or subject matter expertise can affect the project's quality.
Poor governance: weak governance structures can lead to disorganised processes, lack of accountability, and eventual project failure.
Participant emotional distress: co-design often involves discussions that can be sensitive or triggering, potentially causing emotional distress to participants.
Cultural appropriateness: lack of cultural awareness can lead to misunderstandings or offence, affecting the engagement and contribution of diverse groups.
Limited cultural representation: failure to include a diverse range of voices can result in solutions that are not culturally inclusive.
Ethical breaches: failure to adhere to ethical norms, such as informed consent, can put participants at risk.
Accessibility issues: lack of proper arrangements for people with disabilities could pose safety risks and limit participation.
Communication barriers: language and other communication barriers can pose safety risks if critical information is not understood.
Stigmatisation: participants from marginalised communities might face stigma or discrimination (perceived or actual) within the co-design process.
Power imbalances: hierarchical or cultural power dynamics can affect the safety and openness of participant interactions.
Both the project governance group and project steering group could have a role to play in identifying and managing the risks mentioned above.
Managing risk without it becoming a burden to your co-design process
Effective, lean risk management in a co-design project is a balancing act between vigilance and efficiency. You must focus on what you can actively manage and avoid spending too much time talking about what could go wrong. You want to know what you should be focused on actively managing and not spend all of your time talking about what could potentially go wrong.
By focusing on streamlined processes and real-time monitoring, a governance group can maintain an ongoing awareness of critical risks without an unnecessary administrative load. Here are some key practices:
Risk register: keep a simplified, focused register that outlines only critical risks, making it less cumbersome and more manageable.
Agenda item: regularly review the risk register as a standing item during governance meetings to ensure ongoing oversight without needing additional meetings.
Pulse check: implement a straightforward feedback mechanism, like an anonymous form, to gather real-time insights into emerging risks from participants and stakeholders.
Review milestones: at key stages in the project, conduct a targeted review of high-priority risks to ensure they are being adequately managed.
These practices offer a way to keep a finger on the pulse of project risks without adding excessive complexity or workload.
You cant have one without the other
It's evident that co-design and project governance are intertwined in a way that spells success for projects aimed at improving services for those who use them.
Neglecting governance might offer short-term agility but compromises long-term impact. Governance ensures accountability, steers the ship with a diverse crew, and builds resilience against potential risks.
While the terminology around project governance might induce yawns or sighs, its implementation in a co-design framework can be the difference between a project that merely ends and one that truly changes lives.
So, let's embrace it not as a bureaucratic necessity but as an integral component that enriches the co-design process and its outcomes.
To dive deeper into co-design and ensure your projects are set up for success, visit Beacon Strategies' Co-Design homepage. Get started now by visiting www.beaconstrategies.net/co-design.
