Governance Framework & Escalation Paths

TL;DR: Designs the project governance model including decision-making authority levels, steering committee structure, escalation paths, reporting cadence, and governance ceremonies. Ensures clear authority, timely decisions, and appropriate oversight without bureaucratic overhead.

Principio Rector

La gobernanza existe para facilitar decisiones, no para retrasarlas. Un buen modelo de gobernanza define quién puede decidir qué, hasta qué monto, y cómo se escala lo que excede su autoridad. La gobernanza excesiva paraliza; la gobernanza insuficiente produce caos. El equilibrio depende del tamaño, riesgo y cultura del proyecto. [EXPLICIT]

Assumptions & Limits

• Assumes stakeholder register and RACI matrix are available or will be created concurrently [SUPUESTO]
• Assumes organizational governance policies exist as baseline — if not, defaults to PMI governance standards [SUPUESTO]
• Breaks if no executive sponsor is identified — governance without authority is documentation theater [STAKEHOLDER]
• Scope limited to project/program governance; enterprise governance architecture is out of scope [PLAN]
• Does not replace legal or regulatory compliance frameworks — operates within them [PLAN]

Usage

/pm:governance-framework $PROJECT_NAME --type=multi-tier
/pm:governance-framework $PROJECT_NAME --type=lightweight --methodology=agile
/pm:governance-framework $PROJECT_NAME --type=formal --include=escalation,authority

Parameters:

Parameter	Required	Description
$PROJECT_NAME	Yes	Target project identifier
--type	No	lightweight / multi-tier / formal (default: multi-tier)
--methodology	No	Constrains governance proportionality
--include	No	Specific governance components to generate

Service Type Routing

{TIPO_PROYECTO}: Large programs need multi-tier governance; Agile projects use lightweight governance; Regulated projects need formal governance boards; PMO-Setup defines portfolio governance.

Before Defining Governance

1. Read stakeholder-register — identify decision-makers and their authority boundaries [STAKEHOLDER]
2. Glob *raci* and *charter* — confirm roles and project authority are defined [PLAN]
3. Read risk-appetite-framework — governance rigor must match organizational risk tolerance [PLAN]
4. Review organizational governance standards — ensure alignment with existing structures [PLAN]

Entrada (Input Requirements)

• Project charter with authority levels
• Organizational governance standards
• Stakeholder register with decision-makers
• RACI matrix
• Risk appetite framework

Proceso (Protocol)

1. Governance needs assessment — Evaluate project size, risk, and complexity for governance level
2. Authority matrix — Define decision authority by type and threshold
3. Steering committee design — Define composition, charter, cadence, and decision protocols
4. Escalation framework — Create escalation paths with time-based triggers
5. Reporting structure — Define what gets reported to whom and when
6. Change authority — Define change approval authority levels
7. Gate governance — Assign gate review boards and decision criteria
8. Governance ceremonies — Schedule governance meetings and reviews
9. Documentation — Create governance charter and procedures
10. Effectiveness review — Plan periodic governance effectiveness assessments

Edge Cases

1. No executive sponsor identified — Escalate immediately; document governance gap as critical risk; propose interim authority structure with explicit expiry date. [EXPLICIT]
2. Matrix organization with dual reporting — Define primary vs. secondary authority per decision type; document conflict resolution protocol for competing authorities. [EXPLICIT]
3. Governance overhead exceeds 15% of team capacity — Simplify: merge ceremonies, raise decision thresholds, remove redundant approvals. [EXPLICIT]
4. Remote/distributed teams across time zones — Design asynchronous decision protocols with SLA-based response windows; avoid synchronous-only governance. [EXPLICIT]
5. Regulatory-mandated governance layers — Map regulatory requirements to governance ceremonies explicitly; tag mandatory vs. discretionary governance elements. [EXPLICIT]

Example: Good vs Bad

Good Governance Framework:

Attribute	Value
Authority matrix	4 decision types x 3 authority levels with thresholds [PLAN]
Escalation paths	Time-based triggers (24h, 48h, 1 week) per severity [SCHEDULE]
Steering committee	Charter with quorum rules, cadence, and decision protocol [STAKEHOLDER]
Governance calendar	Monthly steering, weekly PMO, daily team stand-up [SCHEDULE]
Change authority	Budget changes under 5% approved by PM; above by steering [PLAN]

Bad Governance Framework: "The steering committee will meet as needed to make decisions." — No defined cadence, no authority matrix, no escalation triggers, no decision thresholds. Result: decisions blocked for weeks with no clear path to resolution. [EXPLICIT]

Salida (Deliverables)

• 03_governance_framework_{proyecto}_{WIP}.md — Governance model document
• Authority matrix (decision type x authority level)
• Escalation path diagram (Mermaid)
• Steering committee charter
• Governance calendar

Validation Gate

• Every decision type has an assigned authority level — no orphan decisions
• Escalation paths include time-based triggers for every severity level
• Steering committee has defined quorum (minimum attendees for valid decisions)
• Governance overhead does not exceed 15% of team capacity [METRIC]
• Authority thresholds are quantified (budget amounts, schedule days, scope %)
• No decision type lacks a defined escalation path
• Governance aligned with RACI and stakeholder register — no contradictions
• Governance proportional to methodology — Agile governance is not waterfall governance
• Periodic effectiveness review scheduled (quarterly minimum)
• All governance ceremonies have defined agendas, durations, and outputs

Escalation Triggers

• Decision blocked for > 3 business days
• Authority dispute between governance bodies
• Governance overhead perceived as excessive
• Steering committee attendance below quorum

Additional Resources

Resource	When to read	Location
Body of Knowledge	Before starting to understand standards and frameworks	references/body-of-knowledge.md
State of the Art	When benchmarking against industry trends	references/state-of-the-art.md
Knowledge Graph	To understand skill dependencies and data flow	references/knowledge-graph.mmd
Use Case Prompts	For specific scenarios and prompt templates	prompts/use-case-prompts.md
Metaprompts	To enhance output quality and reduce bias	prompts/metaprompts.md
Sample Output	Reference for deliverable format and structure	examples/sample-output.md

Output Configuration

• Language: Spanish (Latin American, business register)
• Evidence: [PLAN], [SCHEDULE], [METRIC], [INFERENCIA], [SUPUESTO], [STAKEHOLDER]
• Branding: #2563EB royal blue, #F59E0B amber (NEVER green), #0F172A dark