Stats
Actions
Tags
Establishes and manages project governance for consulting engagements: RACI matrices, steering committees, stage gates, RAG status, risks, issues, closure. Use for accountability, health tracking, risk management.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/management-consulting:project-governanceThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Establish and operate the oversight structure for consulting engagements, ensuring clear decision-making, accountability, and stakeholder alignment throughout. For building the implementation plan itself (workstreams, phasing, business cases), see implementation-planning. This covers the full project management lifecycle: from initial governance setup through ongoing status reporting, risk mana...
Establish and operate the oversight structure for consulting engagements, ensuring clear decision-making, accountability, and stakeholder alignment throughout. For building the implementation plan itself (workstreams, phasing, business cases), see implementation-planning. This covers the full project management lifecycle: from initial governance setup through ongoing status reporting, risk management, and project closure.
Right-size governance to project complexity. A 3-person engagement doesn't need the same governance as a 50-person transformation.
Selection factors: project size, number of stakeholders, risk level, organizational culture, regulatory requirements.
The charter is the foundational document. Get sign-off before substantive work begins.
Charter elements:
RACI clarifies who does what. The single most important rule: one Accountable person per activity. Multiple "A"s means nobody is accountable.
RACI definitions:
Build the RACI by project phase. A typical consulting engagement has phases like:
Discovery: Conduct interviews (R: engagement manager, A: project lead), gather data, synthesize findings, review current state.
Analysis: Apply analytical frameworks, build financial models, develop options.
Recommendations: Develop strategy, build business case, prepare executive presentation.
For each activity, assign exactly one A. The person doing the work (R) and the person accountable for the outcome (A) can be the same person on small teams but should be separated on larger engagements.
Clarify decision authority before issues arise. Verbal agreements fade.
| Decision Type | Decider | Input Required | Process |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope changes | Sponsor | EM, client lead | Change request |
| Methodology | Engagement manager | Team | Team decision |
| Deliverable content | Engagement manager | Client lead | Review and approve |
| Timeline adjustments | Engagement manager | Sponsor | Notification |
| Budget reallocation | Sponsor | EM | Approval required |
| Resource changes | Engagement manager | HR/PMO | Coordination |
| Go/no-go on recommendations | Engagement manager | Team | Team consensus |
| Issue Type | First Escalation | Second Escalation | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical | EM to client lead | Sponsor | 48 hours |
| Schedule | EM to sponsor | Steering committee | 24 hours |
| Budget | EM to sponsor | Finance | 24 hours |
| Strategic | Sponsor to steering committee | Board | Immediate |
Escalate early, not late. Surprises destroy trust faster than bad news delivered promptly.
Stage gates provide formal checkpoints where the project must demonstrate readiness before proceeding.
Gate 1: Plan Approval (end of planning phase)
Required evidence: approved charter, completed RACI, detailed work plan, team assigned, approved budget, initial risk register.
Gate 2: Issue Review (end of analysis phase)
Required evidence: findings documented, options evaluated, draft recommendations clear, client aligned on direction.
Gate 3: Design Approval (end of design phase)
Required evidence: solution documented, business case validated with updated financials, implementation roadmap approved, change plan approved.
Gate 4: Go-Live Review (end of implementation)
Required evidence: deliverables accepted, benefits tracking in place, control plan operational, lessons learned captured.
| Decision | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| GO | Approved to proceed | Move to next stage |
| GO WITH CONDITIONS | Approved with specific modifications | Document conditions and track completion |
| REDO | Insufficient readiness | Address gaps and return to gate |
| STOP | Terminate project | Initiate closure procedures |
RAG (Red-Amber-Green) provides a standardized way to communicate project health.
| Status | Definition | Action Required |
|---|---|---|
| GREEN | On track, no significant issues | Continue normal monitoring |
| AMBER | Some concerns, mitigation in place | Monitor closely, escalate if worsens |
| RED | Critical issues, intervention needed | Immediate escalation, recovery plan |
A status report should cover these sections, in this order. Keep it to 2 pages for steering committee consumption.
Executive summary: 2-3 sentences. Overall status, key wins, key concerns. If a steering committee member reads only this section, they should know the state of the project.
Status dashboard: RAG rating and trend (improving, stable, declining) for each dimension: schedule, budget, scope, quality, resources.
Progress this period: Deliverables completed, key achievements, work in progress with completion percentages.
Milestone status: Each milestone with target date, forecast date, status, and variance. Use symbols (achieved, at risk, missed) for quick scanning.
Budget status: Total budget, spent to date, percentage spent vs. percentage complete, forecast at completion, variance. A project that is 50% through its budget but 30% complete has a problem.
Burn rate analysis: Planned vs. actual spend by period. Diverging trends signal trouble before it shows up in the overall numbers.
Risks and issues: Top risks with probability, impact, and mitigation. Open issues with severity, owner, and due date. Resolved issues from this period.
Forward look: Next period priorities, upcoming milestones, decisions required, dependency awareness.
Governance: Steering committee meeting notes, escalations, change log.
Systematically identify risks using established categories.
| Category | Scope |
|---|---|
| Strategic | Market changes, competitor actions, regulatory shifts |
| Financial | Cost overruns, currency fluctuation, funding uncertainty |
| Operational | Process failures, key person dependency, supply chain |
| Technical | Technology issues, integration problems, cybersecurity |
| Regulatory | Compliance requirements, legal exposure, data privacy |
| Schedule | Delays, dependencies, resource availability |
| Quality | Defects, scope creep, acceptance criteria disputes |
Identification techniques: Team brainstorming, expert judgment, SWOT analysis, historical checklists from similar projects, root cause analysis working backwards from potential failures, horizon scanning for emerging risks.
Probability scale (1-5):
Impact scale (1-5):
Risk score: Probability x Impact
| Score Range | Classification | Required Action |
|---|---|---|
| 19-25 | CRITICAL | Immediate action, steering committee visibility |
| 10-18 | HIGH | Priority mitigation, active management |
| 5-9 | MEDIUM | Active monitoring, mitigation plan in place |
| 1-4 | LOW | Accept and monitor |
| Strategy | When to Use |
|---|---|
| Avoid | Change the plan to eliminate the risk entirely. Use for high-impact, high-probability risks where avoidance is feasible |
| Mitigate | Reduce the probability or impact. Most common strategy. Define specific actions with owners and deadlines |
| Transfer | Shift risk to another party (insurance, outsourcing, contractual terms). Use when another party can manage the risk more effectively |
| Accept | Acknowledge and monitor. Use when cost of mitigation exceeds expected cost of the risk, or when probability is very low |
For each risk above LOW, document: mitigation actions with owners and timelines, contingency plan if the risk materializes, cost of mitigation vs. cost of occurrence.
Review cadence:
Early warning indicators: For each significant risk, define the signal that would indicate the risk is about to materialize, the monitoring method, and the monitoring frequency.
Risk trends: Track total risks, high/critical risks, closed risks, and new risks over time. A rising count of high risks is itself a risk.
Issues are risks that have materialized, or problems that need resolution.
Issue severity definitions:
Track each issue with: ID, description, severity, status (open/in progress/resolved), date created, owner, due date, and resolution.
Many consulting engagements blend agile and waterfall approaches. This is pragmatic, not fashionable.
When to use which:
Sprint-phase alignment: Sprints operate within project phases. Each sprint delivers incremental progress. Phase gates still apply at phase boundaries.
Hybrid governance elements:
From a governance perspective, closure requires: final status report delivered, steering committee sign-off obtained, and decision rights formally handed back to the client organization. For the full closure methodology (deliverable handover, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, financial reconciliation), see the project-closeout skill.
npx claudepluginhub anotb/management-consulting-pluginManages project delivery using PRINCE2 principles including stage planning, risk tracking, progress reporting, and exception handling.
Guides first weeks of consulting engagements from contract to running project: kickoff workshops, discovery planning, stakeholder mapping, workstreams, cadences. For new clients or stalled resets.
Identifies, assesses, and prioritizes project risks using a 5×5 probability-times-impact matrix, assigns owners, and defines mitigation plans, contingencies, and triggers.