That's not a criticism; it's one of the most common positions we find CIOs and programme sponsors in at the midpoint of a major SAP programme.
The reporting is happening, the steering committee is meeting, the RAG status is mostly green, yet something doesn't feel right.
Good governance isn't about the volume of meetings or the thickness of the reporting pack, it's about whether the right people are making the right decisions at the right time and with accurate information. Most SAP programmes fall short of that standard without anyone realizing it until the damage is done.
This is what good SAP programme governance actually looks like, and how to know if yours measures up.
Governance doesn't usually fail dramatically, it drifts.
A steering committee that started with sharp decision-making gradually becomes a status update forum. A risk register that was genuinely maintained becomes a document that gets attached to board packs without anyone reading it. Escalation routes that looked clear on paper turn out to be socially difficult to use in practice.
The result is a programme that looks governed but isn't. Decisions get delayed because nobody's sure who owns them. Problems surface later than they should because the reporting structure rewards green status over honest assessment.
By the time the issues become visible at board level, the options for responding have narrowed significantly.
The most common governance gaps we see in SAP programmes are:
Good SAP programme governance rests on four things working together. If any one of them is weak, the whole structure is compromised.
Every decision the programme will face should have a named owner before it needs to be made. Not a committee, not a process, a person.
That means defining upfront what can be decided at delivery level, what needs programme board approval, and what requires escalation to the executive sponsor or C-suite.
It means documenting those decision rights in a format the whole team understands and revisiting them when the programme structure changes.
When decision rights are clear, decisions happen faster. When they're unclear, decisions get avoided.
The most dangerous governance document in any SAP programme is a reporting pack that nobody challenges. Green status that doesn't reflect delivery reality isn't neutral. It's actively harmful, because it delays the moment when the people with authority to act find out they need to.
Good reporting has three characteristics. It's timely enough to be useful. It's honest enough to be trusted. And it's structured around decisions, not just information, so the people reading it know what they're being asked to do.
A well-governed programme distinguishes clearly between what is on track, what is at risk, and what needs a decision now. Not next month. Now.
The steering committee is the engine room of programme governance. When it works well, it's where difficult trade-offs get resolved, where risks get owned, and where the programme gets the air cover it needs to make hard calls.
When it doesn't work well, it becomes the place where everyone agrees the programme is progressing well and leaves feeling vaguely uneasy.
The difference comes down to mandate and preparation. A good steering committee has a clear remit to make decisions, not just receive them. Its members come prepared, having read the pack in advance.
The agenda is structured around issues and decisions, not updates. And there is space for the conversation that isn't in the deck.
A good chair enforces this. A good programme director prepares for it. Both are necessary.
The governance model that was right at the start of a programme is rarely right at the midpoint, and almost never right in the final sprint to go-live. Risk concentrations change. Decision frequency increases. The pressure on the team is different.
Good SAP programme governance is designed to flex. That means reviewing the governance structure at key programme milestones, not just setting it up once and assuming it will hold.
It means being willing to increase the frequency of steering committee meetings when the programme is under pressure, and being honest about when the existing structure isn't fit for the moment you're in.
There is no single right answer to programme board structure. But there are consistent patterns in the programmes that govern themselves well.
Executive sponsor. One person, with genuine authority and genuine commitment. Not a figurehead. Not someone who attends when the programme is going well and disappears when it isn't. The executive sponsor owns the programme outcome and is visibly accountable for it.
Programme board. The decision-making body for programme-level issues. Typically includes the executive sponsor, senior business leads from affected functions, IT leadership, and an independent voice where possible. Meets regularly enough to stay current, not so frequently that it becomes a burden.
Delivery governance. The operational layer below the programme board. Focused on week-to-week delivery progress, risk management, and issue resolution. This is where the programme director and workstream leads operate. Issues that can't be resolved here escalate to the programme board with a clear recommendation, not just a problem statement.
Change authority. A defined body or individual with the authority to approve scope changes, assess their impact, and make the call on whether they proceed. Separate from the programme board in larger programmes, delegated to the programme director in smaller ones. What it cannot be is unclear.
Good governance is easier to feel than to measure. But there are clear indicators that a programme's governance is doing its job.
Your governance is working when:
Your governance needs attention when:
If more of the second list sounds familiar than the first, your governance structure isn't serving your programme. That's fixable. But it's easier to fix before a crisis than during one.
One of the most effective things any programme can have is an independent voice in the governance structure. Someone who isn't part of the delivery team, isn't employed by the system integrator, and has no stake in the programme looking better than it is.
That independence changes the quality of the conversation. It means risks get named that would otherwise stay off the agenda. It means the steering committee gets an honest read of programme health, not a managed one. And it means the programme sponsor has someone they can speak to candidly, without worrying about the political consequences.
At Resulting, programme assurance and independent governance support is one of the core things we do. We've sat in a lot of steering committees. We know what good looks like, and we know how to help you get there without disrupting the programme in the process.
If this article has prompted questions about your own governance structure, that's worth acting on. Governance concerns that feel vague at the midpoint of a programme have a habit of becoming very concrete problems closer to go-live.
A 30-minute conversation with our programme management team won't cost you anything. It might save you a great deal more.