Menu

Dave Harris

Client Partner (Charity Sector)

Holly Davis

Head of Delivery

Getting digital governance right: lessons from major charity programmes

4 mins read

How do you make decisions in a big complicated organisation when you're building something new and don't know everything upfront? This is the core challenge facing charities embarking on Digital, Data and Technology programmes (DDaT). The questions cluster around governance: What should the structure look like? How do we avoid repeating past agile disasters? Who makes which decisions? How do we de-risk major investment while maintaining the collaborative approach that delivers results?

Having delivered DDaT programmes for major charities like RNIB, Samaritans and Oxfam, we've learned that success depends as much on getting the governance right as it does on having the right technical approach. The challenge is creating structures that provide appropriate oversight while enabling the responsive agile delivery that makes these programmes successful.

The governance challenge for large charities

Major DDaT transformations in large charities face unique constraints. You need robust governance to manage significant investments and complex organisational requirements. Yet traditional governance structures can kill the iterative, user-centred approach that delivers the best outcomes.

The key is designing governance that enables rather than constrains effective delivery. Too much committee involvement creates bottlenecks. Too little oversight risks building solutions that don't serve the organisation's broader strategic needs.

Governance isn't just about formal structures - it's fundamentally about culture. How people feel empowered to act, who they trust to make decisions, and the unspoken rules that guide behaviour. If governance doesn't feel legitimate, people create their own informal decision-making networks.

We address this through stakeholder mapping sessions early in programmes, identifying formal decision-makers and informal influencers. Ways of working sessions establish how decisions will actually be made, not just how they're supposed to be made on paper.

A three-tier governance model that works

We recommend a three-tier governance structure that separates strategic oversight from operational decision-making:

Strategic oversight (executive level)

Who: CEO, relevant trustees, senior leadership team
Role: Set overall vision, approve major budget changes, remove organisational blockers
When: Monthly check-ins, quarterly deep dives

This level provides air cover without getting involved in tactical decisions. We've seen this work well when the group focuses on ensuring the project aligns with the organisation's broader strategy, rather than getting involved in specific design or implementation decisions.

Key questions: Are we still solving the right strategic problem? What organisational blockers need removing? How does this programme support our broader mission?

Project governance (operational leadership)

Who: Head of Digital/Digital Director, relevant department heads, key stakeholder representatives
Role: Prioritise features, resolve cross-departmental conflicts, manage internal stakeholders
When: Fortnightly sprint reviews, ad-hoc escalation as needed

This is where most governance decisions happen. This group needs clear delegation to make decisions quickly. We establish clear decision-making boundaries - they can approve scope changes up to agreed thresholds without constant upward referral.

Key questions: Who needs to be in the room for this decision? What are we learning from users and how should that change our priorities? Which stakeholder voices aren't being heard?

Delivery team (tactical execution)

Who: Product Owner, Delivery Manager, core project team from both organisations
Role: Sprint refinement and planning, daily delivery decisions, usability testing, technical implementation
When: Daily interaction through agile ceremonies

This team needs autonomy to make hundreds of small decisions each week. The Product Owner role is crucial - they must be senior enough to make decisions but embedded enough to be truly part of the delivery team.

Key questions: What did we learn from users? Are we building the right thing, or just building things right? What assumptions do we need to test next?

Clear decision-making: who decides what

Delivery team decisions:

  • User experience and interface design within agreed principles
  • Technical implementation approaches
  • Content structure and information architecture
  • Sprint priorities within agreed themes

Project governance decisions:

  • Feature prioritisation and roadmap adjustments
  • Cross-departmental requirements and conflicts
  • Resource allocation within agreed parameters
  • Stakeholder communication strategies

Strategic oversight decisions:

  • Major scope changes or strategic pivots
  • Budget increases beyond agreed parameters
  • Timeline extensions affecting organisational commitments
  • Risk escalations with reputational implications

Empower your product owner

This is the single biggest success factor. Your product owner must have genuine decision-making authority and can't be constantly running back to committees for approval on tactical choices. They need to be senior enough to make decisions but hands-on enough to be truly embedded in the day-to-day delivery.

Authority isn't just about formal titles. We've seen product owners with impressive job titles who lacked the trust and legitimacy to make decisions stick. Conversely, we've worked with product owners who commanded respect through their expertise and relationships, even when they weren't the most senior person in the room. Your product owner needs both formal authority and informal influence.

When we worked with Samaritans, their product owner could make priority decisions autonomously using the framework we'd established together. This meant we could respond quickly to what we learned from user testing without waiting weeks for committee sign-offs. Contrast this with projects where the "product owner" is really just a project coordinator who has to seek approval for every decision - these programmes inevitably slow to a crawl and lose momentum.

The product owner role often determines whether your programme succeeds or fails. Get this right, and everything else becomes much easier.

The long-term view

DDaT programmes are significant investments that can fundamentally change how your organisation operates. Getting governance right isn't about creating more meetings - it's about creating conditions for teams to do their best work while maintaining appropriate oversight.

The governance structures we help put in place often outlast the programme itself, shaping how the organisation makes decisions long after the new platform goes live. The organisations that get this right don't just end up with better digital platforms - they build internal capabilities that become competitive advantages.

If you'd like to discuss how this governance approach might work for your programme, we'd be happy to share more specific examples and explore what the right structure might look like for your organisation.

Get in touch to book a call with one of our experienced team.

Get in touch