This document introduces the Business Integrated Governance (BIG) data model and framework. It was created by a volunteer group to help organizations better integrate data and decision making across projects, programs, portfolios, and business operations. The framework recognizes different accountability nodes within an organization and provides templates for key governance elements like agendas, management information, and dashboards. It is designed to support functions like the main board, portfolio management, project management, finance, and assurance without dictating specific tools or processes. The BIG model provides a common language and single source of truth to help diverse groups within a complex organization make more integrated decisions.

1. Page 1
Introduction to the Core P3M Data Model and Business Integrated (P3M) Governance
Today’sorganisationsoperate differentlyacrossthe commercial,governmentand3rd
sectors (i.e.voluntaryandcommunity),inmanyindustriesinmany
ways,withinnovativeProcesses, Organisational structures, Technologyand Information(POTI) extendingourcapabilityoptions.We mustoperate
efficientlyandchange toeither‘respondtocompetitive situations’or‘domore withless’.Change inanorganisationmight be focused onmarketand
customerrequirements,internal transformation,improvementstoBusinessasUsual (BAU) andinnovation. Insome sectors‘enterprises’orcomplex supply
chainrelationshipsbetweenmanyorganisationsmayexisttodelivermajorsectororsocietal change.
Giventhiscomplex environment,itcanbe difficulttocollate data,information,knowledge andwisdom(DIKW)forthe integrateddecisionmakingneeded
for goodand effective strategydevelopment,governance,prioritisation,programme management,resource management,integratedcostandschedule
control.Thisis neededtocontinuallyaligndeliberate andemergentstrategywithchangingthe organisation(througheffectiveportfoliomanagement,
programme managementandprojectmanagement) togetherwithrunningthe organisation(throughcontinuallyproductandservice improvement
management).
There are manyexampleswhere change projectsandportfolioshave failedtodeliverthe expectedoutcomesandcausedthe failure of the enterprise(s).
While governance groups/bodiesdotheirbesttoimprove andexpandtheirperspectives,the whole picturemaynotbe trulyintegrated,asingle versionof
the truth may notexist.Importantoversightdatamaynot be available tothe keydecisionmakersallowing‘comatose’oversighttotake root.An effective
governance ecosystemneedstospanmanydomainsincludingleaders,teammembers,customersandbenefitownersnotnecessarily inthe same
managementchains.
There isoftena gap betweenwhatisreportedandwhatisneededbythe reportrecipientcharacterisedbythe followinganecdote:
“ReportingSolutionsare characterisedbydeliveryteams pushingdata,ratherthan businesses pullingupinsight– so a PMO mayfeel like its
reportsare not read, andthe execmayfeel thatitdoesn’tgetinsight,justdetailedprogress mumbojumboratherthan what are the options.”
In the past we mayhave triedto make everyone use the same toolsandprocesstosimplifycoordinationandreporting - andfailedmiserably. Also,there
has beenanoveremphasisontime spentrepresentingandreportingthe past(historyisnotcontrollable) ratherthanlooking forwardandforecasting
outputsand outcomesandmakingdecisionstogetthe bestoutcome we can. Thiscan impact negativelyonmanystakeholdergroups(the followingare
examples;the listisnotexhaustive):
 Main Board – ‘flyingblind’ andlosingconfidence thatstrategicinstructions are effectively taskingthe business andthatprogressisbeingmade
againstthe right priorities anddesiredoutcomes. A Boardwithoutconfidence indelegatedauthority canbe swampedwithtactical escalationsand
ineffectiveforecastingleadingtodelaysinkeydecisionmakinganda lackof awarenessof keyrisksandissues.

2. Page 2
 Portfoliogroups - becomingdisconnected fromleadershipprioritychanges, therebyintroducingalackof alignmentbetweenstrategicobjectives.
Projectoutputs, becomingfrustratedwithtaskorientated andhistorically focusedprogressfromprojectsandprogrammesmakingitdifficultto
forecastobjective attainment.Lackof independentassurance tokeepthe teams‘honest’
 Project and programme leaders- becomingfrustratedusingineffective methodsandtools.Strugglingtoacquire/retain resourcesatthe righttime.
Carryinga painful administration overheadtocompileanimperfectpicture fromdisparate dataavailableinpre-defined‘one size fitsall’ templates.
Feedingdataintodifferentreportsfordifferentstakeholders.
 Sponsors – not beingable togetor compile confidentandclearanswersonthe forecastoutcomesof aprojectagainststrategicobjectives (that
themselves maybe unclearandchange)
 Managementteams - struggle tobalance Business asUsual workwithshifting(resourcing, productandservice) needsfromprojects.Theycan
struggle torealise benefitsfromchanges‘thrownoverthe wall’.They canlose the ‘love’ of usingprojectmanagementtodeliverascentrally
imposedmethods andtoolsare justnotappropriate fortheirneeds.
 Commercial and Finance Teams - findit difficulttosupportparochial performance models, toresource unpredictedfinance expertise needs, andto
supporteffectiveinvestmentappraisal/outcomemeasurement
 Assurance/Support function- strugglestoattaineffectiveness andefficiency withmultiple tools/operations andmaytry to force ‘one size fitsall’
whichmakeslogical sense butispractically unfeasible. Alsosometimesfocusingonthe wrongissues.
These issuescanprove costly fororganisations (expense/inadequateagility, lackof asingle versionof the truthcausingwastefulduplicationof work).
Thankfully, recentadvancesinmethod, governance, supportandtechnology have providedmeanstoaddressthese issuesmore easilythancouldhave
beenachieved2-3yearsago.
Hence, usingthe vastexperience fromavolunteergroupof clientorganisations,consultants,tool vendors,service providers,boardmembers,chairmen,
data managers,portfolioandfinance specialists,the Core P3M Data Clubhas createda rich example model forBusinessIntegrated(P3M) Governance for
change.It coversportfoliosof projectsand programmesandinterconnectingorganisational layers.The model isdesignedtobe used withMainBoard,
finance function,transformationandstrategyexecutionprofessionalsandresource andmanagementteamsleadingBusinessasUsual activities. Our
initiativesoughttoharmonise the informationflowsthatallowintegrationof BAUand P3M Governance. BIG isthe Integrationof BusinessandGovernance.
To followthe material tofollowthe readerneedstoappreciate thatwe have assumedanexampleorganisation,derivedanoutline framework consistingof
AccountabilityNodes,capturedsomeassumptionsabout eachandcreatedan example businessagenda,imagineeredthe MIneededtosupportit,
collectedexamples andderivedoutof that the data implication- andsuperimposedthatontop of the Praxisimplieddatamodel.

3. Page 3
In eachof these nodes,youare notreadinga bestpractice statement,youare readinganexample whichyoucaneitheruse as a startingpointforyour own
journeyonthis,or use as evidence thatthe datamodel example isbasedonamixture of goodpractice and goodsuggestionfromfellowprofessionals
consultants,tool vendors.
The BIG assetsare a frameworktoleverage yourexistinginvestmentsingoodpractice.Thisframeworkis intendedtobe usedalongside anymethodology
and goodpractice.It focusesonthe keyinformationanddataneedstoenable goodgovernance. The model doesnotgointocapability,competenceor
methodsrelatedtoportfolio,programme andprojectmanagement anditdoesnotgo intodetailsof supportmodelsneededtoharmonise operations,but
doesmake assumptionsaboutbusinesssupportprovided,andhasa node for Support/ Assurance withinthe change domainforthe examplescenario.
A presentation elaboratingthisintroductionisavailableanda richer discussionuponrequest.

4. Page 4
Framework Overview
The core of BIG isa data model.The development of the datamodel wasfoundedonthe key
governance picture inthe APMDirectingChange Publication. The Framework:
- Recognises vision, mission, strategyandobjectives of anorganisation/enterprise
- Acceptsthe separate butrelatedGovernance of ProjectManagementandoverall portfolioand
Project/ Programme Governance
- Interfaces withoperations(BAU) governanceforfinances, costperformance data, resources and
benefitrealisation
Additionally (anddrawnfromAPMDirectingChange) we have assumeda
governance model thatprovides claritybetweenportfolios, programmes
and projects.Itprovidescleardelineation betweenrolesfocussedon
outcomes(sponsor) anddelivery (manager). We have alsorecognised
that inlargerorganisations the collective oroverall portfoliomightbe
brokendownintosub-portfolios thatare assignedtoeachkey
organisational unitordepartment.

5. Page 5
An example organisationstructure hasbeencreatedtoenablediscussions andto
visualise stakeholdergroupsandrelationships. Itillustratesthe challengesfacedby
organisationsdealingwithseveral distinctportfolios,fromTransformation,to
CustomertoBusinessasUsual (includingservices/products/assets) tolocal
Innovation.
Thisgenericstructure hasbeenfurtherdecomposed intoanetwork of
‘Accountability Nodes’.
Note:A ‘Node’ a personorcommittee actingthroughitschair witha dutyto make
decisionsoveradefinedareaof businessactivity.Authoritymaybe delimitedby
timeframe (e.g.financialyear) andorseniorityandorskill groupandor product line
and or relationshipssuchascustomersor supplychain.
Withvisualisationaclearmappingiscreatedthat makesiteasierto relate to ourorganisations intermsof sponsorship, delivery andbeneficiary –without
whichitis difficulttohave confidence inobjectivedelivery, targetattainmentorchallengeresolution. Accountability Nodesare pointsof accountability
whichwhenconstructedtogethermapoutwhoisleadingwhat.
Each is assumedtobe underpinned byaprocessbasedonan organisation’sstandardsforexample, forManagingProjects–whichare themselves basedon
goodpractice.It will deliveragainsttermsof reference/vision,operatemonitoringandcontrols, andgovernance viaaccountabilities, rolesand
responsibilities underpinnedbypeopleandprocess, usingdata.Itwill have connections tothe widerworldthroughwhichitlistensandevaluates, takes
inputsanddelivers outputs.ForeachAccountabilityNode,the modelcomeswithmaterialwhich:
- providesanoverviewandassumptionsonmattersthatshouldconcernthe leaderof thatNode
- offersan‘Agenda’forrelatedgovernance meetings –whichisa cross betweenresponsibilitydefinitionandameetingdefinition
- providesdefinitionsof MIwhichwouldsupporteachAgendaitem
- providesagenericdashboardof keymeasuresthatshouldbe available
- provideslinkstoexample MIfromconsultantsandsoftware vendors
- Linksto furtherback uppresentationmaterial
In the example, theyconstituteanoutline integratedgovernancemodel –fromMain Boardto portfoliotoprogramme toproject,offeringassumptionsfor
finance involvement,managementteamsandassurance.
Belowisa simplifiedlogical model whichiselaboratedinthe detailedBIGmaterials.

6. Page 6
It assumesa scenariowithaMain Board that delegateschange toaChange Sub-Groupandoperational matterstoan OperationsSub-Group.
It isassumedthat eachChange Sub-GroupwouldtaskPortfolioDirectionGroups
withdelegatedObjectivesfromthe MainBoard forchange.The OperationsSub-
Group wouldlikewise taskManagementTeams(whichincludes finance) with
Targetsfor operation.Bothmaybe taskedwithChallengestobe addressedcross
functionally.
In largerorganisationsthere maybe manyManagementTeamswithinthe
business,setuptodeliverOperations –andcarry outthe role of Portfolio
DirectionGroups.There maybe one per businessunit,buttheymaydrawfrom
all overthe businessforcrossfunctional Objectives.Insmallerorganisationsthe
rolesoutlinedabovemightbe undertakenbythe same groupof individuals
wearingmultiple hats.
Cruciallythisframeworkconsistsof several definedroles –eachorganisation
mightalreadyhave similarroleswithdifferenttitlesand/or combinedgroups. (Role mappingisanadoptiontask).
The role of the PortfolioDirectionGroupisto ownthe delegatedstrategicobjectivesandprovideclearandupto date directiontothe deliveryof their
change portfolioandforecastandtake accountabilityforthe realisationof the desiredstrategicbenefitsandoutcomesfrom change delivery.
WorkingwithPortfolioDirectionGroupswouldbe PortfolioProgressGroupsthat(asthe name implies) focusondeliveryoversightandbenefitsforecasting.
In some organisationsthesetwobodiesmaybe one andthe same groupsof people.The modelisnotprescriptiveaboutP3Mpractice but offerssome
assumptionsaroundthe governance operationforit viaan example.
Likewise,the model isnotprescriptive aboutwhatManagement Teams,oraCommercial andFinance teamdeliverswithintheirtermsof reference,butit
statesassumptionsandsuggestamodel forhowPortfolios,ProgrammesandProjectsworkeffectivelywithpartsof the finance operation(whichdeal with
financing,expertise,costperformance andassurance),benefitdeliveryandresourcingoperationsinManagementTeams(deliveringBAUandcustomer
projectsalongside transformationwork) - viaanexamples.We note thatBusinessSupport(e.g.PMO) may provide some of these asservices.
It isassumedthat ManagementTeamshave performance targetstoachieve (includingcustomerfacing),local change needs,participationincorporate
transformationinitiatives.These couldinduce aconflictof interestbetweenhittingbusinesstarget(level andtiming) and collaboratingwithstrategic
imperatives.Hence,itisassumedthataresource allocationmodel ismaintainedtoassure effective visibleprioritisation –asit iswithresource allocation
that priorityisimplemented.Itisthereforeimperativethatownersof resource (whomayexistinvaryinglevelsandinManagementorP3 Teams)

7. Page 7
understandtheircapacity/capability,demands,allocationagainstdemands,andtime spent –andcan be accountable forallocationsmade. Supportand
Assurance of thisprocesswill be vital.
It isassumedthat Portfolios,Programmesand Projectsandbusinessoperationsare carriedoutwithinanorganisationthathasclearrolesand
responsibilities,accountabilitiesanddomainauthority,operatinganddecision-makingprocesses.We furtherassumethere is businesssupporttoenable
people tocarry out processwithtechnologyanddata(thisishoweveratoughassumptiontomeet).
While governance maybe carriedoutad hoc, mostorganisationsoperate incyclestoenable acoherentpicture tobe assembled fromvariousperspectives
at a momentintime. The BIGmappingdescribes the meetingsneededintermsof the ManagementInformation(dataflowsandanalysis) anddecision
making. Descriptions are writtentoallow tool vendorstoeasily supportthe model’selements, consultantstoestablishthe businessprocesses and
dashboardsto display reliablesingle source of truthstatusdata.
An example of howthismaybe orchestratedaroundaquarterlyMainBoard Meetingisofferedbelow,showinganexample flowof decisionsacrossthe
financial yearfromQ1 to Q4 witha quarterlycadence:
 Assurance reviewtoconfirmprocessexecution,compliance reviewfordata
compliance check.Thismaybe supportedbyfinance ora BusinessAssurance
Activity.
 Finance Review - togoover numbersfromwhichtoupdate projects,
programmesandportfoliooncostperformance
 ProjectandProgrammesreview –workwitheach onstatus / forecast
 TransformationPortfolio(s) review(doesitall addupwithPortfolio
ProgressGroup)
 Finance Operationsperformance review –these are not coveredinthe BIG
model,butwe recognise withinorganisations thereare existingperformance
operationslike:
o OperationsProjectsandProgrammesreview –history,forecast,outlook
(thismaybe inscope for P3MwithinBusinessUnits)
o CustomerSubPortfolio/OperationsSubPortfolio
o OperatingBusinessPlanreview(includingall otheraccountabilitynodes –e.g.Support/Product / AssetManagementworkstreams.
 Finance Update basedonfeedback
 Corporate PortfolioReview(PortfolioDirectionGroups reportingintoMainBoard)

8. Page 8
 Instructionstorebalance cascade outbasedon Main Board Decisions/Actions
 Deliverycontinues
The main elements of the BIGModel are therefore:
 Main Board – expressed asassumptions, we outline how we wouldlikeaMain Boardto functionregardingchange sittingabove ourPortfolios. This
isnot to dictate whattheydo, butto provide adiscussion tool toenable eachorganisationtoalign, andtherefore more easily define operationand
enablingtools/dataand a single versionof the truthforBoard control
 Managementteams – showinghow we canbalance Operational Service /BAUwork (whichforsome isprojects) withshiftingneedsfromChange
projectsandcan embedbenefitrealisationfromchangesasBusiness asUsual. They canregainthe benefitsof usingprojectmanagementtodeliver
withoutcentrally imposedinappropriate methodsandtools. ManagementTeamswouldtypically undertake aPortfolioDirectionand/or Progress/
Delivery role
 PortfolioLeadership(Progress/ Delivery) – we offera model tohelpPortfolioleadershiptomore easily stayconnectedwithstrategicobjectives,
leadership prioritychanges, focusuponbothoutcomes /benefitsaswell asdelivery outputs, become betterconnectedwithprogressfromprojects
and programmes, focusonthe mostimportantinformation andstayaware of widerbusiness needs
 Project and Programme Boards– showinghow we canseparate governance frommethodsandtools, offeramodel forhow toacquire/retain
resources, focusonbenefitsandcarrya lesspainful administrationoverhead
 Sponsors – (Notcoveredexplicitly,butimpliedinProjectandProgramme boardsabove) Providingbetterquality forecastandoutcome metricsand
enablingthemtoprovide betterdirectiontoprojectsthroughkeyinformationthatsupportstheirstrategicrole (andintime maybe algorithmsthat
enable anongoingindependentevidence-basedview of projectdelivery progress)
 Finance – addressinganapproachto avoidunpredicted finance expertiseneeds, supporteffectiveinvestmentappraisal/outcome measurement
and harmonise aroundcommonperformance modelswithlocal analysisontopof them
 Assurance/Support function– to liftthe discussion above(buttoinclude) PMOtoenable the business tobe supported inbecomingandremaining
integratedfromaGovernance Perspective
 Data Model – the implicationof the example scenarios,withsurroundingdiscussionandexplanation
Furthermaterial isavailable which
- exploresthe issuesthathave ledtoderivationof the model,outlinesthe approachwe have taken
- discussesthe needforcurrentstate assessmentforanorganisationlookingtoadoptit
- offersa benefitmodel andapproachtoadoptionandbenefitrealisation
- explainsthe modelcomponents,implicationsandunderpinningdatamodel

9. Page 9
- presentsavisionforoperation
Derivationandconclusionworkonthe overall Governance Framework are available onrequest.

10. Page 10
Materials Overview
The Core P3M Data Clubwascreatedto deliverV1of a ‘standard’data model tosupportportfolio,programme andprojectmanagementgovernance –
recognisingthatmuchof the data neededwithinthe P3Mcommunityisgenerated/ownedoutsideof it.We are not so presumptuousastosuggestwe can
getthisright firsttime.Ourapproach recognisedthis.Hence,we tookanexample-basedapproach.We have:
- assumedanexample organisation (tocoverpointsof principle we wanttomake)
- derivedanoutline P3Mfocusedgovernance framework –to connectfrommainboard,through portfoliosintoprogrammesandprojects,inthe context
of finance,managementteams(i.e.BAUdeliveryareas),supportandassurance
- takeneach ‘AccountabilityNode’ inthe framework andcapturedassumptionsaboutit
- made an example businessagenda–what businesswouldeachAccountabilityNode cover?Thisisnotan attempttodictate meetingagenda,more to
thinkaboutwhat informationisreallyneeded
- imagineeredthe ManagementInformation(MI) neededtosupportit– we did thisbasedonthe experienceof the core contributors
- collectedexamples –frombusinesses,tool vendorsandevenconsultantsliterallypencillingwhattheybelieve MIshouldbe.
- selectedan‘opensource’P3Mframework – Praxis- and derivedformita core data model impliedformitsdocumentsandreportdefinitions.
- derivedadditional core MI data implicationsfromthe examplesabove - superimposed ontothe Praxisimplieddatamodel
We have notattemptedtorewrite bestpractice,dictate methods/process,ordictate technologychoices,andwe believe thatthe model infactallows
organisationstoavoidinappropriateone size fitsall impositionswhichcancause huge difficultyinadoptionandsustainmentof goodpractice.Thiswork
was done usingslidesasthe workingtool andwe have sharedthese materialsasbackground.Subsequently,we have writtenthemupintodocumentsto
make themmore consumable /accessible.
To be crystal clear– the Core P3M Data Clubhascreatedsome assetsinaddressingan‘example scenario’whichothersmyfinduseful inaddressingtheir
ownscenario– to seedperceivedproblemstatements,toenable arealisticcurrentstate capture,andprepare a realisticvisionforwhaton organisations
portfolio,programme andprojectmanagementecosystemmightbe – doingthisinrespectof the enabling/supportingbusinessareasMainBoard,Finance,
ManagementTeams,SupportandAssurance.
We have inventedthe term‘AccountabilityNodes’sothatwe can refertoculminationsof accountabilityacrossBAUandChange workloads.These nodes
are characterisedbyhavinga sponsor,output/outcome,benefits,costs/resources.Forexample –investmentgroup,aprogramme,productgroup,service
team.All of these maybe at or withinkeypointswithinanorganisationhierarchyandhave aviable systemunderneaththem.
In eachof the Nodeslistedbelow,youare notreadingabestpractice statement,youare readingan example whichyoucaneitheruse asa startingpoint
for yourownjourneyonthis,or use as evidence thatthe datamodel exampleisbasedona mixture of goodpractice andgood suggestionfromfellow
professionals,consultants, andtool vendors.

11. Page 11
For ease of reference,we are callingthe scenariowe have createdandthe principleswe promoteasBusinessIntegrated(P3M) Governance –abbreviated
to BIG.The Chaptersinthe BIG knowledge base containprose,illustrationsandlinkstothe original workingmaterials(whichhave beensubjecttoless
qualityreviewthatthe prose has).Eachhas linktofurtherdiscussionandresources.Theseinclude:
 Introduction – highlevel introductiontothe ‘problem’,simple perspectivesfromkeystakeholdergroups,consequencesandoutline of the Core
P3M Data and BusinessIntegratedGovernance Model.
 Framework Overview– basisof the Model,Accountability,the governance frameworkforaccountabilities,introductiontooperationusingthe
Model,the importance of cadence andharmonisation,outlineof ‘what’sinitforme?’ for keystakeholdergroups.
 Main Board – AssumptionsabouthowMainBoardsrelate to P3M, introductionof termstouse in a BusinessIntegrated(P3M) Governance Model,
example businessagendaformattersrelatingtoP3Mfor boards,outline ManagementInformationdefinitions.
 Portfolio– AssumptionsaboutPortfolioManagement,portfolioclassificationsusedinthe Model,the relationof PortfoliostoMainBoard,Portfolio
LeadershipGroupsandManagementTeams.ForPortfolioDirectionandProgressGroups–outline of assumptionstakenfromgoodpractice,
impliedbusinessagendaforportfolios,impliedManagementInformationdefinitions.
 Programme - Assumptions,anexampleofferedfromgoodpractice,impliedbusinessagenda,impliedManagementInformationdefinitions.
 Project - Assumptions,anexampleofferedfromgoodpractice inagile andwaterfalldeliverymodels,impliedbusinessagenda,implied
ManagementInformationdefinitions.
 Finance - Assumptionsaboutthe role of Commercial andFinance,Finance MattersrelatedtoProjectsandProgrammes,impliedbusinessagendato
supportthe example scenario,impliedManagementInformationdefinitions.
 ManagementTeams - Assumptionsaboutthe role of ManagementTeamsasOperational Leads,Sponsorsof change,managersof resourcesand
ownersof benefits.Impliedbusinessagendastosupportthe example scenario,impliedManagementInformationdefinitions.
 Support – assumptionsaboutholisticorganisationof supportwithinorganisations,discussionof supportneededforthe Model
 Assurance – highlevel assumptionsaboutassurance,anexampleassurance assignmentand‘playback’agenda,impliedMIneeds.
 Data Model – Introductiontodataintegration,needfordatainthe Model,Data Approachand the relationtothe complete /recurringMainboard
to DeliveryandBackagaincycles,data sources,model details,technologydiscussion.