Cross-functional teams are critical to success, but they are also where governance often fails. At the intersection of teams, there’s a common governance blind spot that impacts performance, efficiency, and project outcomes.
Too often, governance gaps form between functions that should be working together, such as delivery and commercial, or operations and strategy. These gaps are hidden in day-to-day operations, but their impact is very real: delays, inefficiencies, confusion, and rework.
While leaders focus on their individual functions, cross-functional governance remains an afterthought, leading to missed opportunities and poor decision-making. It’s easy to overlook these blind spots, until they start affecting delivery.
In this article, we’ll explore why these gaps arise, how they impede execution, and how high-performing organisations tackle them by establishing clearer ownership, central coordination, and regular operating rhythms.
Why Governance Gaps Arise Between Teams
Governance issues typically arise where functions meet. These cross-functional governance gaps often form at the intersection of:
- Sales/BD and Pre-Contracts. Commercial teams push for fast wins, while pre-contracts teams struggle to align expectations with deliverables.
- Pre-Contracts and Delivery/Operations. Assumptions made during pre-contracts are carried forward into delivery without proper validation.
- Commercial and Delivery. Misalignment between commercial and delivery teams results in unrealistic timelines or unclear scope.
- IT and Operations. Product handovers are incomplete or misunderstood, delaying project execution.
- HSEQ and Operations. Health, safety, and environmental concerns are treated separately from operational delivery, causing missed risks and inefficiencies.
- Recruitment and IT. IT and recruitment functions often operate without alignment, leading to delays in resource allocation or system readiness.
These gaps result in miscommunication, incorrect assumptions, and rework, and they often go unnoticed until the effects show up in missed deadlines or blown budgets.
The Impact on Delivery Performance
When governance gaps remain unaddressed, the consequences add up.
- Lack of Information Flow. Teams struggle with incomplete or unclear information, leading to confusion and errors.
- Missed Deadlines. Delays become more frequent as decisions are stalled or miscommunicated. Poor communication, a key governance gap, leads to project failure one-third of the time according to PMI findings.
- Rework. Projects may end up solving the same problems over and over because previous decisions or actions weren’t properly documented or understood.
When governance becomes siloed and functions operate in isolation, delivery outcomes suffer. Leaders need to shift focus from task completion to outcome-driven collaboration, with clear ownership and accountability across functions.
How High-Performing Organisations Address Governance Gaps
High-performing firms recognise that central coordination is key to bridging governance gaps. Functions like PMOs (Project Management Offices) or Centres of Excellence (CoEs) play an important role in ensuring all teams align on goals and processes.
McKinsey research shows cross-functional teams can reduce project costs and time by 30-50% while improving delivery predictability
These firms understand that governance isn’t just about checking boxes, but rather, how to create a system that supports collaboration, accountability, and timely execution.
Here’s how high-performing organisations make it work:
- Central Coordination. PMOs or CoEs consolidate project status, risks, and milestones to ensure all teams are aligned on the same objectives.
- Clear Ownership. Every team knows not just their role, but how their actions intersect with others.
- Data Sharing. Teams share real-time information, risks, and progress so everyone has access to the same knowledge.
- Integrated Decision-Making. Decisions are based on a shared understanding of goals, assumptions, and risks, not siloed data.
The Role of Operating Rhythm in Bridging Silos
Operating rhythm is the heartbeat of cross-functional governance. It ensures that risks and decisions are surfaced regularly, so they don’t get buried in email chains or forgotten until it’s too late.
High-performing organisations embed regular review cycles, either weekly or bi-weekly, to assess progress, address risks, and ensure alignment. This cadence fosters transparency and keeps teams on track toward common goals.
Key operating rhythms include:
- Regular Review Points. Weekly or bi-weekly meetings that track progress against key milestones, risks, and issues.
- Escalation Protocols. Clear processes that ensure risks are addressed at the right level before they become major problems.
- Visibility and Transparency. Dashboards and project tracking tools that give everyone access to the same data, making decisions quicker and easier.
By building these rhythms into the organisation, teams can be more proactive, preventing risks before they become issues.
From Activity-Based to Outcome-Based Governance
Governance often falters when organizations focus on completing tasks rather than achieving outcomes. In activity-based governance, teams meet deadlines and check off items, but these actions may not align with the broader business goals. An outcome-based approach, however, ensures that every activity is tied to measurable results that drive strategic value. Leaders must ask: How does this action contribute to our long-term objectives?
High-performing organizations prioritize results. They ensure that teams not only understand their roles but also how their contributions intersect with broader goals, driving meaningful outcomes.
Key Differences:
- Activity-Based Governance: Focused on task completion with limited alignment to overarching goals.
- Outcome-Based Governance: Focused on achieving specific, measurable results that directly contribute to business success.
Action Steps for Leaders:
- Set clear, measurable goals aligned with strategic objectives.
- Focus on outcomes, ensuring teams understand how their work drives results.
- Use KPIs to track progress and alignment with goals.
- Assign ownership of outcomes and ensure accountability.
- Maintain open communication to track progress and address challenges.
- Regularly assess performance and adjust processes as needed.
By embedding outcome-based governance into daily operations, organizations can ensure that all actions contribute to strategic success. This shift empowers teams to collaborate with purpose and drive results, turning governance from a task into a strategic lever for growth.
Closing Thoughts
When organisations recognise and address governance gaps early, they can avoid rework, delays, and inefficiencies. Clear ownership, strong coordination, and operating rhythms allow teams to collaborate more effectively, and execute with speed and precision.
At Shivendra & Co, we help organisations build governance frameworks that connect teams, drive outcomes, and reduce risks. We work with leaders to create systems that turn governance from a checkbox into a strategic advantage.
When governance is aligned across teams, performance improves, and organisations can scale with confidence.
References:
- Ascertra. (2024, April 20). Poor communication leads to project failure one-third of the time. Ascertra. https://www.ascertra.com/blog/pmi-study-reveals-poor-communication-leads-to-project-failure-one-third-of-the-time
- McKinsey & Company. (2020, December 3). Why the time is right to reinvent capital project delivery. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/why-the-time-is-right-to-reinvent-capital-project-delivery