A strong business case doesn’t end with approval. In fact, it marks the start of a commitment: to deliver value, manage risk, and stay aligned with strategic goals. But without clear ownership and governance, that commitment can quickly fade; projects drift and benefits are assumed rather than proven, meaning decision-makers lose visibility into whether the business case is still delivering on its promise.
In this final article in the Business Case Academy series, we explore the role governance and ownership play in keeping business cases active and accountable. We’ll also explain how governance differs from post-approval tracking, and why you need both to truly realize value.
What do we mean by governance and ownership in a business case context?
In many organizations, the term "governance" gets a bad name as it’s often associated with delays, red tape, or heavyweight committees. But in the context of business cases, governance is about accountability and clarity, not complexity, and is the structure that keeps a business case from becoming a “set and forget” exercise. The distinction between the two is that:
Governance refers to the mechanisms, roles, and rhythms that ensure someone is paying attention when things go off track. It outlines who’s responsible for making decisions, when those decisions are made, and how risks, scope changes, or benefit shortfalls are addressed.
Ownership is the human side of that structure. It means someone (not a team, not a committee) is personally responsible for delivering the business value. Ownership helps avoid the all-too-common scenario where delivery teams focus on outputs, but no one is tracking whether the promised outcomes actually arrive.
In short, governance provides oversight; ownership provides drive. Both are essential, as without governance and ownership, even the most compelling business case becomes a static document. With them, it becomes a living agreement; one with the teeth to drive real results.
Why governance matters, and where it often goes missing
Too many business cases are treated as one-and-done exercises. Once approved, attention shifts entirely to execution, so status updates focus on timelines and budget, while benefits and strategic alignment quietly slide off the agenda. This disconnect leads to familiar pitfalls:
Misaligned priorities: Teams defaulting to delivery-first, value-later mentalities, so delivering what was planned, even if assumptions have changed.
Unchallenged risks: Issues flagged in the original case are never re-evaluated or mitigated, and new ones that emerge aren’t escalated.
Scope and timeline creep: amendments are made as conditions change, without re-evaluating the original ROI.
Benefits not realized: ROI is reported upfront but never verified post-implementation.
Missed opportunities: If no one revisits the case, you lose chances to adapt and optimize based on what’s working, or to move away from what’s not working.
Good governance keeps the original intent front and center, ensuring that:
Decisions are made with the business case in mind, not just operational urgency.
Progress reviews focus on value, not just outputs or milestones.
Responsibility is clearly defined, so there’s no ambiguity around accountability when trade-offs are needed or when benefits are at risk.
It’s not about adding overhead; rather, it’s about protecting the investment that was made when the business case was signed off.
How governance differs from post-approval tracking
It’s a common mistake to assume that if you have good post-approval tracking, you have governance covered. But tracking and governance serve different purposes and solve different problems, meaning that one doesn’t replace the other.
Governance is about accountability. Tracking is about visibility.
Here’s how they compare:
Aspect | Governance | Post-Approval Tracking |
|---|---|---|
Purpose | Ensure delivery of intended value | Measure progress and performance |
Key Question | Who is responsible for course-correcting? | Are we on track with what we planned? |
Format | Reviews, escalation paths, ownership roles | Dashboards, metrics, benefit realization logs |
Primary Focus | Decision-making and accountability | Evidence and monitoring |
A dashboard can show you that benefits are slipping, but governance determines what happens next. You can track benefits all you want, but if no one’s responsible for acting on what the data shows, the value still won’t be delivered. Who gets alerted? Who decides whether to pivot, reinforce, or stop? Without that structure, tracking becomes passive. Governance activates it.
Together, they form a complete feedback loop. Tracking shows what’s happening. Governance ensures that someone actually does something about it.
Key components of effective business case governance
Governance doesn’t need to be arduous and heavyweight; it just needs to be intentional, as the goal is to build confidence and momentum, not bureaucracy. Here are five components that make a real difference:
🪪 A named Value Owner
Every business case should identify a single accountable owner for value delivery. This isn’t just the project sponsor; it’s someone who owns the benefit side of the case.
👉 e.g. if the case promises operational savings, a leader from Operations (not IT) should be the value owner. Clarity here drives focus.
🗓️ A defined check-in rhythm
Value shouldn’t only be reviewed at the end, as by then it will be far too late to adjust to correct any issues. Build regular review points into your governance, be it monthly, quarterly, or tied to milestones. These check-ins should revisit key assumptions, risks, and benefit realization, not just project progress. This rhythm creates opportunities to learn and adjust early.
⤴️ Decision rights and escalation paths
Things will change. Governance should clarify who has the authority to make decisions when scope shifts or risks emerge. Do you revise the benefit model? Delay delivery? Reassess ROI? Without predefined roles and escalation paths, organizations stall or overreact. Clear governance supports timely, rational decisions.
🔗 Connection to strategic portfolio oversight
Business cases don’t exist in isolation. Effective governance links individual cases to broader strategic governance processes. This enables portfolio-level decisions about funding, timing, and resourcing, as well as helping to avoid duplication or fragmentation across projects.
📏 Right-sized structure
Not all governance needs to be formal. For small business cases, a simple framework (e.g. one owner, a short monthly review, and a defined fallback plan) may well be enough. For larger investments, more robust structures (e.g. steering committees, benefit realization boards) may be needed. The point is to match governance to the risk and complexity of the case.
Tips for embedding governance without slowing things down
Governance doesn’t need to be a separate process, in fact, it’s actually most effective when it’s embedded into your existing rhythms and platforms:
Start during business case development: Assign ownership, define check-ins, and include governance in the business case itself, not after sign-off as an afterthought.
Align with your operating cadence: Don’t create new meetings for the sake of it, instead sync reviews with quarterly planning, strategic reviews, or finance cycles. Make it part of how the organization runs.
Keep things simple and visual: Include governance roles and rhythms in your rollout plan, then use dashboards or summary reports to make ROI progress, risk status, and benefit delivery easy to grasp in one view.
Use a system built for this: A centralized business case platform like KangaROI helps connect owners, surface risks, schedule check-ins, and review Real ROI, without needing a spreadsheet workaround.
Well-structured governance isn’t a drag on delivery; it’s a way to keep delivery tied to value.
Summary
A business case is more than a document, it’s a promise. Governance is how that promise stays relevant, visible, and outcome-driven, and most importantly, delivered, not just signed off and forgotten.
Where the Executive Summary sets the tone, governance brings it full circle. It turns ideas into commitments, and commitments into outcomes. As we conclude the Business Case Academy, it feels appropriate to reflect that a winning business case doesn’t just end with “we did it,” but with “we delivered the value we said we would.” That’s what governance makes possible.
