Governance: the word we avoid… but shouldn’t.

In transformation projects, there are certain words that make people roll their eyes. “Governance” is one of them. It is often associated with endless committees, never-ending PowerPoint presentations, multiple validations, and heavy processes. And yet. In SAP projects, in hospital software changes, and in IT transformation programs in general, governance is not a luxury. It is a condition for success. The real question Why do so many projects slow down… even though everyone involved is competent and motivated?

The problem: when governance is unclear

At Sapristic, we often work in contexts where:

• • Roles are not clearly defined
  • Responsibilities overlap
  • Decisions are postponed
  • Arbitrations happen under pressure

On paper, everyone is “involved”. In reality, no one knows exactly who decides what, when, and within which scope. And that is where friction begins to appear.

The causes

In complex projects, governance becomes fragile for several reasons:

• An organization inherited from historical structures and not adapted to the project
• Confusion between business expertise and decision-making authority
• A sponsor who is either not visible enough or too operational
• The absence of clearly structured bodies (steering committee, project committee, technical committee)

We often compensate by adding more meetings. But more meetings does not mean more clarity.

The impacts

Unclear governance produces very concrete effects:

• Delayed decisions
• Technical rework
• Late scope arbitrations
• Team frustration
• Loss of trust from business stakeholders

In a digital transformation project, every week of indecision can have a direct impact on timelines, budgets, and resource mobilization. Governance is therefore not merely an “organizational” topic. It is a performance lever.

But there are solutions

The good news: governance does not have to be heavy to be effective. At Sapristic, we work with simple principles:

Clarify roles

Who decides? Who recommends? Who executes? Who needs to be informed? A well-built RACI is worth more than ten meetings.

Structure decision bodies

Each level should have its own space:

• Strategic
• Tactical
• Operational

No mixing of responsibilities. No strategic decisions made in a technical committee.

Define arbitration rules

When there is disagreement, what happens? Who makes the call? Within what timeframe? A project breathes easier when the rules are known in advance.

Adapt governance to the context

A multi-site international program cannot be managed like a local project. Governance must be proportionate, not standardized by reflex.

Governance is not just about control

It is primarily about clarity. When everyone understands:

• their role,
• their scope,
• their decision margins,

tensions decrease and speed increases. In SAP and digital transformation projects, performance does not come only from technology. It comes from the organization’s ability to make clear decisions at the right level.

A final word

Governance is not a constraint. It becomes one when it is poorly designed. When well structured, it:

• accelerates decision-making
• reduces friction
• secures transformations
• strengthens trust between IT and business

At Sapristic, we do not “just” work on SAP. We operate where organization, technology, and decision-making meet. And often, the difference between a project that survives… and a project that truly succeeds in the long run comes down to one word we still avoid too often: Governance.