Directing a Project Process in PRINCE2 2017
Govern through decisions rather than micromanagement: authorise the right commitments, monitor viability, respond to exceptions, remain available for direction and formally release the project at closure.
Executive summary
Board accountability
The Project Board is accountable for project success and retains key decision authority while delegating daily management.
Five core activities
Authorise initiation; authorise the project; authorise a stage or Exception Plan; give ad hoc direction; authorise closure.
Manage by exception
The Board intervenes when decisions exceed the Project Manager’s delegated authority rather than managing routine work.
Governance stays active
Board members can give advice between formal decision points; the Project Manager need not wait for a stage boundary or exception to seek direction.
Purpose and governance model
Directing a Project enables the Project Board to be accountable for project success by making key decisions and exercising overall control while delegating day-to-day management to the Project Manager. This is the operational expression of manage by exception at the governance level.
The Board is not intended to be a second project-management team. Its members represent business, user and supplier interests and focus on authorisations, continued viability, exceptions, strategic direction and closure. The Project Manager controls the current stage within delegated tolerance and provides information through the agreed progress controls.
This division protects senior time while preserving accountability. Delegation without governance would leave the Project Manager unsupported and potentially operating beyond authority. Governance without delegation would pull senior decision-makers into routine scheduling and issue coordination. Directing a Project is designed to balance the two.
Objectives across the project life
The source identifies several objectives: ensure authority exists to initiate the project and deliver its products; provide management direction and control throughout the project; ensure continuing viability; maintain an interface with the commissioning authority; authorise closure; and ensure post-project benefit-realisation plans are managed and reviewed.
These objectives show why the process spans the lifecycle. The Board first decides whether initiation is justified, later decides whether the full project and each stage should proceed, deals with exceptions and direction during delivery, and finally decides whether the project can close.
The Board also acts as the project’s governance interface upward. If the project is forecast to exceed project-level tolerance, the Board must escalate rather than grant itself more authority. Likewise, external strategic changes can be brought into the project through this interface.
Activity 1 — authorise initiation
After Starting Up a Project, the Board receives the Project Brief and Initiation Stage Plan. Its decision is whether the proposed project is sufficiently worthwhile and viable to invest in detailed initiation. This is not the same as authorising full project delivery.
The Board should examine the outline Business Case, proposed approach, team structure, Project Product Description, lessons and initiation plan. It can approve, request changes or decide that the idea should not proceed.
This gate prevents the organisation from treating initiation as an automatic administrative step. Initiation consumes resources and should itself have a reasoned authorisation.
Activity 2 — authorise the project
At the end of initiation, the Board considers the PID, detailed Business Case, Project Plan, management approaches, controls and the plan for the first delivery stage. The question changes from “should we investigate this properly?” to “should we commit to this project and its next authorised stage?”
The source expects the Board to confirm that the project remains viable, that the products and approach are credible, that roles and controls are defined, and that risk remains acceptable. The Board may also need alignment or approval from the commissioning authority, particularly for the Benefits Management Approach or matters beyond delegated authority.
Authorisation establishes the management baseline against which later progress and exceptions are judged. It should therefore be an explicit decision, not an assumption created by teams continuing work after initiation.
Activity 3 — authorise a stage or Exception Plan
Near a management-stage boundary, the Board reviews the End Stage Report, updated Business Case, updated Project Plan, lessons, risks and the next Stage Plan. It decides whether to authorise the next commitment of resources. This supports progressive investment rather than approving detailed delivery once at the start and then allowing the project to run unchecked.
If a forecast exception has led the Board to request an Exception Plan, the same governance logic applies. The Board assesses whether the revised plan restores an acceptable path within its authority. Approval of a stage Exception Plan creates the new authorised baseline for the remaining stage.
The Board can decline to continue if justification no longer exists. Terminating a poor project can protect the organisation from further loss and is consistent with continued business justification.
Activity 4 — give ad hoc direction
The source explicitly addresses a common misconception: a Project Manager does not have to wait for a stage boundary or an exception before speaking to the Board. Board members can provide ad hoc, out-of-session advice and direction when their authority, experience or organisational position is needed.
This does not undermine manage by exception. Routine decisions should remain delegated. Ad hoc direction is appropriate for matters such as clarifying strategic intent, responding to emerging organisational constraints, advising on stakeholder issues or helping resolve a decision that sits within Board responsibility.
A healthy governance relationship makes it safe for the Project Manager to seek advice early. If the culture treats every question as failure, managers may delay escalation until options are limited. Conversely, if every operational decision is referred upward, delegation has failed. The Project Executive and Project Manager should agree how and when informal access will work.
A Board member who is formally accountable but consistently unavailable can become a project constraint. Tailoring should consider decision cadence, deputies where appropriate and how urgent direction will be obtained.
Activity 5 — authorise project closure
The Project Manager recommends closure after verifying product acceptance, handover readiness, project performance, lessons, benefit-review arrangements and follow-on actions. The Board reviews the End Project Report and related information and decides whether the project can formally close.
Closure authority is important because it releases the Project Manager and team from project accountability, confirms that remaining ownership has transferred and allows project costs to cease. The Executive then notifies the commissioning authority as appropriate.
If closure is premature, the Board’s role is equally important. It directs what should be salvaged, transferred or stopped and ensures that termination is controlled rather than simply abandoning the project.
Information the Board should use
Board decisions draw on different management products at different times. The Project Brief supports initiation authorisation. The PID, Business Case and Project Plan support project authorisation. Highlight Reports provide routine visibility. End Stage Reports and Stage Plans support stage decisions. Exception Reports support extraordinary decisions. The End Project Report supports closure.
The source responsibility model also expects the Board to review lessons and benefit-management information and confirm specialist product approval where appropriate. Effective direction therefore depends on concise, reliable management information rather than large volumes of raw delivery detail.
Board members should read reports through their represented interests. The Executive focuses on justification and value, Senior Users on needs, acceptance and benefits, and Senior Suppliers on technical integrity and supplier capability. Together they form the decision balance built into the Organisation theme.
Designing an effective Board decision cadence
Board effectiveness depends on matching decision cadence to stage structure and risk. Before delivery begins, agree when Highlight information will be provided, how stage and exception decisions will be scheduled, how urgent advice can be obtained and what material the Board expects for each authorisation. This reduces delay without pulling the Board into routine control.
Decisions should be recorded with enough context to preserve authority and traceability: what was authorised, which plan or tolerance applies, conditions attached to the decision and any actions assigned. For an Exception Plan, identify which previous baseline it replaces. For stage authorisation, identify the Stage Plan and tolerances delegated to the Project Manager. For closure, record that ownership and follow-on responsibilities have been transferred.
Review Board performance as part of project learning. Delayed decisions, unclear delegations or unavailable role-holders can create project risk just as specialist delivery problems do. Governance is a working system whose responsiveness and clarity should be managed, not merely a list of senior names in the PID.
Practical verification checklist
- Keep the Project Board focused on direction, authorisation and exceptions rather than day-to-day task control.
- Use separate decisions for initiation and full project authorisation.
- Review updated Business Case, risk and plan information before authorising each stage.
- Respond to Exception Reports within the Board’s authority and escalate project-level exceptions upward.
- Maintain an accessible route for ad hoc advice between formal meetings.
- Ensure decisions represent business, user and supplier interests.
- Review benefit-management arrangements as part of governance.
- Use formal closure authorisation to transfer ownership and release the project organisation.
- Apply the same governance discipline to premature closure.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Treating Board meetings as detailed status-management sessions.
- Assuming silence equals authorisation to continue.
- Waiting for a stage boundary before asking for legitimate Board advice.
- Allowing the Board to reset project tolerance without approval from the level above.
- Approving the next stage without reviewing continued justification and risk.
- Letting the project fade into operations without formal closure authority.