Governance, management and knowledge

One aspect of governance is setting objectives.  Another is checking in on progress from time to time.  Another is making it clear that hiding a problem from the boss is not a good idea.

Where was the failure in governance over

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was in charge of the website construction and rollout.  It acted as “general contractor” on the project, which was consistent with a White House memo of general application.  Beginning in March 2013, CMS knew things were in trouble.  In retrospect, it would appear that they redefined “oversight.”  But it appears that, despite that knowledge, CMS didn’t really tell the White House.

“Health Website Problems Weren’t Flagged in Time,” Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2013 A4

Apparently, accurate data about the status of projects in progress is important to managing that process.  How do you make sure that your culture allows (nay, encourages) people to provide early warning of problems so that there are no surprises?  How do you select managers who will report bad news up-dip?  Is there something that you are doing that discourages such reporting?  What’s the risk of not doing this well?

At least no one’s been fired.


Leave a comment

Filed under Business Case, Communications, Controls, Culture, Governance, Information, Internal controls, Operations, Protect assets, Risk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s