PACE

Projects in Adaptable & Controlled Environments

A simple project management approach and toolset for today’s innovative, dynamic, collaborative, high-accountability cultures.

PACE is a flexible, collaborative, non-hierarchical project management approach based on my experience of project management over 20 years. It is intended to be refreshingly non-dogmatic, scalable, team-empowering, and executive-compatible; bridging the rigidity of PRINCE2 with the responsiveness of Agile. It is a simple project approach that I think is genuinely suited to today’s innovative, dynamic, collaborative, high-accountability cultures, based on a synthesis of proven methodologies.

It is particularly strong in creating agility without sacrificing oversight and it balances structure with adaptability. Drawing from Agile and PRINCE2 project management methodologies, which can be blended together, alongside analysis and design techniques like Double Diamond, Lean and Human-Centred Design, and many others. PACE focuses on ambitious goals, early value delivery, real-world testing, and iterative progress.

By creating engagement, transparency, adaptability, support, and empowerment, PACE eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy, ensures projects evolve based on evidence and live feedback, and drives transformation with people (not at them).

Principles

Aim high, start small – Set ambitious goals but begin with manageable steps to reduce risk.
Evaluate regularly – Frequent formal and informal reviews ensure progress and value delivery.
Adapt based on evidence – Real-world testing and live feedback guide project adjustments.
Collaborate on decisions – Stakeholders and delivery teams are engaged at all levels, ensuring shared ownership.
Grow incrementally – Projects evolve naturally through iterative development.
Work in the open – Transparency reduces surprises and enhances engagement.
Empower teams – Self-organising teams are given the tools, support, and information to succeed.
Live testing over theory – Real-world validation through trials and prototypes ensures meaningful results.
Servant Leadership – Leaders focus on enabling and supporting teams rather than directing them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership
Minimal viable governance – Apply just enough oversight to maintain control without stifling progress.
Work within existing systems – Enable individuals, teams, stakeholders and organisations to operate authentically.
Avoid hierarchy – As much as possible, simplify structures and create opportunities for collaboration; but be mindful to balance this with the existing systems and processes you're working within.
Design with users – Focus on delivering what people need, based on the findings of real world interactions and testing.

Roles

PACE defines only the essential roles needed for any project:

Sponsor: Provides executive backing, secures funding, removes organisational barriers, and ensures the project aligns with strategic priorities.
Business Owner / Lead / Visionary: Sets the project’s direction, owns the business outcomes, engages in continuous improvement and prioritisation, and is accountable for value realisation and decision-making.
Note: Roles such as 'owner', 'lead', and 'visionary' all represent the main business-side role, providing direction and ensuring the project delivers value. While the specific title may vary between organisations, the core responsibility remains consistent: to be the project's key business decision-maker and champion.
Project Manager / Delivery Manager: Plans, organises, and oversees delivery, ensuring the project progresses on time, within scope, and to budget.
Note: In PACE, 'Project Manager' and 'Delivery Manager' are essentially the same role, focused on coordinating delivery, managing risks and issues, and engaging stakeholders. The choice of title is flexible and can be adapted to suit the organisation or project.
Business Analyst / Service Designer: Gathers and analyses requirements, maps processes, and designs solutions that meet user and business needs, helps to define value realisation baselines, opportunities, and plans.
Note: Business Analyst and Service Designer are combined here, as both roles focus on understanding needs and shaping solutions. In some projects, one person may cover both; in others, they may be separate, but the essential function is the same, ensuring what’s delivered is fit for purpose.
Data / Information Analyst: Understands business data, provides data insights, conducts analysis to inform decisions, ensures information is accurate and accessible, and builds data led solutions.
Change Lead: Plans and manages the change process, supports adoption, and ensures stakeholders are ready and equipped for new ways of working.
Communications Lead: Develops and delivers communication plans, ensuring clear, timely, and appropriate messaging to all stakeholders.

The project's needs and context determine any other required roles. Teams are encouraged to define these and clarify responsibilities using tools like RACI. This approach promotes minimal bureaucracy and maximum adaptability for a genuine team structure.

Crucially, all projects need to engage with:

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs): Subject Matter Experts provide specialised knowledge and expertise critical to the project's success. Their involvement ensures that the project team has access to the necessary insights, skills, and information relevant to the project's domain, service area, or technical aspects. The specific expertise required will vary depending on the project's objectives, outcomes and scope.
End Users/Customers: End users/customers represent the target audience or beneficiaries of the project. Their needs, preferences, and feedback are central to the project's success. Engaging with end users/customers throughout the project lifecycle ensures that the final deliverables are relevant, usable, and effective. This role encompasses a wide range of stakeholders, both internal and external, depending on the project's objectives.

Beyond the core project team, the SMEs and the End Users/Customers, various roles provide essential input, guidance, oversight, and support. These roles, which may sit within the wider organisation or externally, or may be brought into the project team for larger projects, include skills such as ICT (design, devices, network, architecture and development), Finance, Risk Management, Legal, Compliance, Procurement, and Audit. Their involvement ensures that the project adheres to organisational policies, regulatory requirements, and financial controls, whilst also providing specialised advice and scrutiny throughout the project lifecycle. The specific roles engaged will vary depending on the project's nature and organisational context.

Tools

PACE integrates practical tools from across a number of disciplines that support effective project management and enable collaboration. I am confident that you will know your project and the environment you are operating in well enough to choose the right tool at the right time, but there are some suggestions as to where you could use tools in the Patterns section.

RAID Log – This is a simple table for keeping track of risks, actions, issues, and decisions throughout your project. It helps you spot what could go wrong, what needs doing, any problems that have come up, and the choices made, so you can manage things clearly and avoid surprises.
Gantt Charts & 3/6/9/12 Month Roadmaps – Gantt charts lay out your project’s tasks and deadlines on a timeline, so everyone can see what’s happening and when. I would recommend that a Gantt chart does not go to the detail of every single individual task and instead focuses at the activity level. Roadmaps give a broader view, showing how the main pieces fit together over months, making it easier to plan ahead and spot overlaps or gaps. I would recommend that these are focussed on products and outcomes, not on the delivery detail. Neither Gantt charts or Roadmaps should be viewed as fixed; plans are the basis on which to make educated decisions about change, not something to follow doggedly.
RACI Model – This is a chart that shows who is responsible for each activity, who makes decisions, who should be consulted, and who just needs to be kept informed. It helps everyone know what’s expected of them, so nothing falls through the cracks.
Human Centred Design – This means involving the people who will actually use the solution in the design process. You find out what they really need, test ideas with them, and make changes based on their feedback, so the end result works well in real life and are designed from the ground up to be inclusive and relevant. As well as Design Kit, there are lots of other tools that you can apply proportionally and blend together.
Digital Whiteboards & Cloud Storage – In today’s interconnected and globalised world, it is vital to make use of real-time, versatile collaboration tools such as Miro or Lucid (among other available options), and to share unified versions of documents and plans via cloud storage. These tools enable teams to collaborate seamlessly on a range of activities (such as workshops, design, editing, and reporting) regardless of location or time, as though they were working together in the same project room. (Video meetings and chat spaces are also essential)
Timeboxing & Stand-ups – Timeboxing is setting fixed periods to get certain work done, helping keep things moving. There is usually a series of regular time boxes (8 lots of 2 week long time boxes, for instance; depending on how the products and requirements break down into deliverables). At the beginning of each timebox, the team commits to what they feel they can achieve within the time given. At the end, the team review what they have achieved, and anything not achieved is shifted into a future timebox (or may be set aside or de-scoped, depending on how your combined knowledge of the project is developing) Stand-ups are short, regular meetings during a timebox where the team quickly shares what they’re working on and any blockers for the Project/Delivery Manager to resolve. Adjusting how often you meet and the amount of time available for time boxes, in full consultation with your team, is the most effective and most natural way of speeding up or slowing down a project, letting you adjust the pace responsively and visibly.
Kanban Boards – These are visual boards that show all the activities and/or tasks in a project and their progress. You can see what’s waiting to be planned, what’s ready to do, what’s in progress, what’s blocked or paused, and what’s done; making it easier for the team to manage their workload and priorities as things change. Some tools to use for this are: Trello, MS Planner, Jira, Asana, aWork, and Monday (there are other tools, too)
Stakeholder Mapping – This is about working out who’s involved or affected by your project, how much influence or interest they have, and the best ways to work with them. It helps you plan how to keep the right people engaged at the right times, and can include mapping out the best ways to collaborate with each group. As well as the traditional power/interest stakeholder mapping, and circles of influence, you can use this Stakeholder Collaboration Mapping matrix (which was developed specifically to support this PACE methodology) to work out how best to create a collaborative experience for all stakeholders.
Show and Tells – These are regular sessions where the team shows what they’ve actually done, rather than just talking about it. It’s a chance for everyone, including stakeholders, to see real results, give feedback, and help steer the project in the right direction. It is recommended, if possible, to include end users/customers and senior stakeholders in these sessions.
Planning Poker – This is a group activity where the team discusses tasks and estimates how much effort or time each one will take. It helps everyone share their views and agree on what’s involved, so plans are more accurate and realistic.
Prioritisation frameworks – These are simple methods for deciding what to work on first, making sure the most important or valuable tasks get done before less urgent ones, so the team always works on what matters most. There are lots of ways of doing this, here are two sites that outline some popular approaches: What Are Requirement Prioritization Techniques? - Techcanvass and Product Prioritization Frameworks: The 9 Most Popular (2024)
Burn Down Charts – A burn down chart tracks how much work is left in a project or stage, showing progress over time. It’s especially useful for projects or stages with lots of small, repeating tasks, helping teams see if they’re on track to finish on time and helping management to make early adjustments to teams, workload, or timelines if required.
Retrospectives – Build continuous improvement and learning into every stage of the project. Retrospectives are regular meetings where the team looks back at what went well, what didn’t, and how to improve. They’re best held often, not just at the end, so the team can keep learning and getting better as the project goes on. Ideally these would be monthly, but in a short project (6 months or less) you could do these fortnightly.
Stage Gates – These are checkpoints during a project with specific agreed results. The team reviews progress and decides whether to move on, make changes, or stop. They help break big projects into manageable sections and keep everyone focused on key goals or deadlines. These are most often used for major project stages, but they can also be an effective tool to divide up major stages into sections, and/or to focus a project team on a specific deliverable within a section or stage.
Highlight Reporting – This is about giving clear, simple updates on how the project is going, showing what’s on track, what’s at risk, and what needs attention, so everyone stays informed and can act quickly if needed. I personally prefer to use show and tells for this, but for some governance models a more formal document is required.
Exception Reporting – If something unexpected happens that could cause problems, exception reporting is a way to flag it quickly and get help or make decisions to fix things, rather than waiting for regular updates.
Blended Steering Groups & Working Groups – Bringing together senior leaders, stakeholders, and the delivery team in the same meetings, especially for feedback sessions and show and tells, helps everyone stay aligned and makes it easier to solve problems and make decisions together. It’s not recommended to do this in every meeting, and in particular, time box planning and sprint meetings are best kept to the delivery team, but it works well for key sessions. However, it can be effective to offer optional observer invites to all stakeholders to all project meetings, so they can come along and watch the team in action.
Communications Plans – Communications plans should be developed with the support of professional communications specialists. While a project manager may be responsible for executing the communications plan, they should not be solely relied upon to design, adapt, or maintain it. A communications expert is a vital member of the delivery team and governance structure, effectively bridging the gap between these functions. Some frameworks for reference are; UK Government Behavioural Approach and the Mindspace Framework
Change Management Plans – As with communications, change management is a distinct discipline from project management. It is essential to include an experienced change professional within your team to help connect delivery, governance, and end users. Established frameworks such as ADKAR or Kotter’s 8-step Model can be particularly effective in supporting this process.
Value Realisation – The project team helps to identify benefits and value in the early stages of a project and, working with business colleagues through the delivery stages, they ensure outcomes remain focussed on the value. The operational business teams own the responsibility to realise the value; to ensure that it materialises. There are lots of different tools that can be used, for example:
Project Outline Document (POD) – This is the document you should use right at the beginning of a project, and is the only template defined specifically for PACE, but you can still adjust it if necessary, though it is advised to keep it as simple and concise as possible.

Patterns

PACE provide patterns that are foundational to the way of working — modular, flexible, and intentionally non-linear. They can be applied in any order, reused, skipped, adjusted, or combined to suit the context. This ensures projects only carry out activity aligned to delivering value and are continuously evaluated, adapted, and aligned with organisational objectives. It is quite close to the Double Diamond approach, with some noticeable differences. The timescales given herein for each of the patterns are simply suggestions. A project team and stakeholder group will be best placed to define how long each pattern should be for any given project; but it is best to keep them as short and focussed as is realistic.

Identify

How long should it be: 1 to 3 months - don’t drag it out

Tools to use: Project Outline Document, Stakeholder Mapping, Human Centred Design, RACI Model, Prioritisation frameworks, RAID Log, Stage Gates

How to do it: Write your POD (if the system you are working within needs more complex documentation, you should complete that documentation and copy the relevant parts into the POD), Conduct workshops and stakeholder interviews to define problems and opportunities. Use impact mapping to understand potential benefits, value, and alignment with strategy.

Engage stakeholders early to gain diverse perspectives.

Define a clear, ambitious, yet achievable outcome-focused goal.

Define the risk appetite for the project, aligned to organisational risk appetite.

Assess against organisational sustainability goals.

Identify initial roles; business owner, analysts, Customer groups, SMEs and project/delivery manager.

Outline at a high level any estimated costs, timelines, and potential benefits and value delivery.

Understand connections with other projects or operational activities.

Outcomes: You know the problems you're trying to fix, you know the opportunities they hold, you have an idea of the potential solutions and quick wins, you have an idea of the costs and benefits, and you have an idea of the people you will need to work with.

Stage Gate: Ensure initial alignment with strategy, budget, and resource capacity before proceeding.

2. Discover

How long should it be: 3 to 6 months - keep it focussed and purposeful

Tools to use: Human Centred Design, Gantt Charts & 3/6/9/12 Month Roadmaps, Stakeholder Mapping, Prioritisation frameworks, RAID Log, Change management, Communications planning, Stage Gates, Planning Poker.

How to do it: Use discovery techniques from Design Kit (such as user research, process mapping, and service blueprints) to explore challenges.

Grow your team, including adding all key PACE roles and other roles and skills needed to experiment with solutions.

Conduct interviews, shadowing, and surveys with affected stakeholders.

Engage deeply with related projects and business teams to identify synergies.

Define a prioritised roadmap of small prototypes and tests, ranging in complexity.

Create a structured process for assessing and implementing the prototypes: (for example, here is one I have used previously: Trials Governance.png)
Implement any quick wins where you can do so easily in this stage, but don’t focus on this

Develop an evolving communication and change management plan, perhaps using tools like ADKAR or Kotter’s 8-step Model.

Identify quick wins and larger solutions.

Begin documenting realistic benefits and value outcomes using real data and qualitative insights that are identified as findings from the prototyping and testing work.

Outcomes: you have a complete understanding of prototypes and tests you are going to run to help you fully design small and large solutions, you know what larger solutions are needed, you may have implemented some simple quick wins, you have a growing team, particularly the core roles, you have an understanding of how your work will connect with other ongoing and planned work, and you have the initial frameworks for communications and change management. Your costs and benefits are much clearer by now, but may not be precise yet.

Stage Gate: Validate the feasibility of trials, agree the quick wins and larger deliverables, secure stakeholder buy-in, and approve budgets.

3. Design

How long should it be: 3 to 6 months - if it goes any longer, you’re stepping into complex delivery

Tools to use: Gantt Charts & 3/6/9/12 Month Roadmaps, Kanban Boards, Prioritisation frameworks, Burn Down Charts, Timeboxing & Stand-ups, Change management, Communications planning, Stage Gates, Show and Tells, Planning Poker

How to do it: Build potential solutions using rapid iteration methods such as wireframing, minimum viable products (MVPs), and rapid application tools (low/no code). In this stage you should deliver all quick wins, leaving the larger solutions for the final stage.

Conduct A/B testing and small-scale rollouts to validate solutions.

Follow your structured prototyping and testing process to review and Implement quick wins to deliver early value and design larger solutions.

Refine governance and team structures as necessary.

For larger solutions, develop detailed requirements, solution architecture, and service design, based on findings of prototypes and tests, and create business cases (in your preferred format or the format required of the system within which you are working) and implementation plans supported by data from trials and prototypes.

Update the change and communication strategy based on insights from trials.

Outcomes: you have implemented all the quick wins, you have designed the larger solutions, your costs and benefits are clear to everyone, your team has expanded to include all the roles you need, you have adjusted your change and communications plans ready for delivery.

Stage Gate: Gain approval for solution implementation, business case validation, and readiness for delivery.

4. Deliver

How long should it be: as long as needed - but try to keep it under a year.

Tools to use: Gantt Charts & 3/6/9/12 Month Roadmaps, Kanban Boards, Timeboxing & Stand-ups, Burn Down Charts, Retrospectives, Highlight Reporting, Exception Reporting, Blended Steering Groups & Working Groups, Change management, Communications planning, Stage Gates, Show and Tells

How to do it: Implement larger solutions iteratively using Agile sprints or phased rollouts.

Establish delivery structures such as workstreams, clear reporting methods, and monitoring systems.

Conduct regular check-ins, stand-ups, and retrospectives to ensure adaptability.

Train operational teams and create handover documentation to ensure sustainability.

Monitor key performance indicators (KPIs) and gather user feedback continuously.

Formalise benefits tracking and ensure ongoing value realisation.

Produce a simple closure report, in any format that you choose or which is required by the system you are working within, summarising key outcomes, lessons learned, future recommendations, and value realisation ownership.

Outcomes: you have comprehensively delivered the larger solutions, you have closed the project, you have handed over value realisation to business owners.

Stage Gate: Confirm delivery against objectives, value realisation plans, and operational readiness before formal closure.

Governance

PACE does not articulate or expect any governance structures at all. PACE is aware that every organisation, leadership group, board, portfolio, customer group, stakeholder, programme, and project is unique. And PACE knows that most will already have established governance models or ways of working in place. When delivering a project using the PACE methodology, it is essential that you align with these existing governance structures. This may require you to operate within robust, top-down frameworks such as corporate governance or PMP/PRINCE2 structures, or to adapt to more flexible governance approaches.

A core principle of PACE is to work with existing systems and to enable individuals to operate authentically. While it is important to empower and support your team to perform at their best, you must also engage with leadership and senior stakeholders within their preferred frameworks.

At times, this may involve shielding your adaptable team from more rigid governance requirements, while also providing senior leaders with reassurance and structure in situations that may appear uncertain or unpredictable. In these scenarios, you will need to switch between different management styles and roles as appropriate.

For example, I always maintain a Gantt chart for project planning, but I seldom share it directly with my adaptable team; although I do update it to reflect their needs and communicate these changes to senior leaders in ways that work for them.

The following tools from the PACE methodology can support your integration with a variety of governance models, and allow you to demonstrate control while maintaining your adaptable delivery approach:

RAID Log
Gantt Charts and 3/6/9/12 Month Roadmaps
Stakeholder Mapping
Stage Gates
Highlight Reporting
Exception Reporting
Blended Steering Groups and Working Groups
Change Management Plans
Communications Plans

There may be times when you need to help create a governance structure, and if you do it is essential to keep it as simple as possible. You can review summaries of different governance models below to familiarise yourself with them. However, please note that this is not a substitute for practical experience within these frameworks, nor does it replace the value of direct discussions with senior stakeholders to understand their governance preferences and agree on how you will integrate:

Agile: What is good agile governance? | Axelos
Prince: Organization :: PRINCE2® wiki
PMP: Guidance for the governance of project management and/or Governance rules! The principles of effective project governance
UK Corporate Governance (Public Companies): Corporate Governance Code Guidance
Charity Governance – NCVO: Governance | NCVO
Nonprofit & Trustee Board Models – BoardEffect: Board governance models: A comprehensive list | BoardEffect
Corporate Governance Comparison (Private vs Public Ltd) – Jones Day: United Kingdom: Corporate Governance - Jones Day
Charity Governance Structure & Practice – Corporate Governance Institute: https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/guides/governance-in-a-charity-how-does-it-work

Value

Project results in PACE are measured in outcomes and evidencable value. While the project team identifies the potential value, its realisation is a business responsibility - particularly for the Business Owner/Lead/Visionary, Sponsor, and Finance functions.

The process of value delivery considers both Cost Savings and Operational Efficiencies (e.g., reduced expenditure, increased productivity) alongside Customer/End-User Outcomes (e.g., increased satisfaction, improved experience), and organisational "soft" benefits (e.g., reputational improvement and risk avoidance).

To facilitate value realisation, the project team, with the business, defines clear, measurable value items within the Identify and Discover patterns, aligning them with strategic goals. The project team then works with strategic leaders to document these in a realisation plan.

Throughout the project and post-implementation the Business Owner/Lead/Visionary is accountable for ensuring value realisation, by;

approving the plan,
establishing processes for continuous monitoring and measurement,
using appropriate metrics,
taking action to maximise value.

The Sponsor ensures value realisation is a strategic priority and provides high-level support. And Finance provides the framework for measuring and reporting financial benefits, aligned with organisational practices.

And when the project ends, the Business Lead/Owner/Visionary retains responsibility for ongoing value realisation for outcomes that will materialise in the future.

In this way, PACE ensures projects deliver lasting value to the organisation and its stakeholders, while ensuring accountability for the project outcomes remain with the business.

In Comparison

Philosophy: PACE: Flexible, collaborative, non-dogmatic; blends structure & adaptability / PRINCE2: Structured, process-driven, highly governed / Agile: Adaptive, iterative, and incremental
Governance: PACE: Minimal Viable or Proportional Governance (adapted to context); stage gates, blended oversight / PRINCE2: Strong governance, defined roles, stage gates, formal documentation / Agile: Light governance, empowered teams, product owner/scrum master
Team Empowerment: PACE: High; self-organising, empowered teams, servant leadership / PRINCE2: Moderate; roles defined, but less autonomy / Agile: High; self-organising, cross-functional teams
Stakeholder Engagement: PACE: Continuous (show & tells, collaboration mapping, blended stakeholder groups, optional observer invites) / PRINCE2: Formal, planned engagement, regular reporting / Agile: Continuous, product owner as key stakeholder
Lifecycle: PACE: Structured yet flexible and iterative (Double Diamond-inspired: Identify > Discover > Design > Deliver, with stage gates) / PRINCE2: Linear stages (Starting up, Initiating, Directing, Controlling, etc.) / Agile: Iterative cycles (sprints/iterations/releases)
Scope Management: PACE: Adaptive, value-driven, prioritisation frameworks (MoSCoW, WSJF, etc.) / PRINCE2: Strict change control, formal change requests / Agile: Adaptive, backlog refinement, MoSCoW (in DSDM)
Risk Management: PACE: Integrated (RAID log, frequent reviews, collaborative decisions) / PRINCE2: Structured risk logs, regular review, formal escalation / Agile: Embedded in daily work, risk burndown, team discussion
Tools & Techniques: PACE: Kanban, Gantt, RAID, RACI, timeboxing, retros, show & tell, stakeholder mapping, stage gates, value realisation, comms/change management plans / PRINCE2: Product-based planning, risk logs, highlight reports, quality reviews / Agile: Kanban, burndown, stand-ups, retrospectives, planning poker
Transparency: PACE: High (work in the open, highlight/exception reporting, show & tell) / PRINCE2: Moderate (formal reporting, documentation) / Agile: High (visible boards, daily stand-ups, reviews)
Change Adaptability: PACE: High (live feedback, iterative, real-world testing) / PRINCE2: Low to moderate (formal change process, documentation-heavy) / Agile: High (embraces change, iterative planning)
Value Delivery: PACE: Early, incremental, value-focused / PRINCE2: End-stage or milestone-based / Agile: Early and continuous (working software/products)
Scalability: PACE: Highly scalable (from small to large, blends with PMO/portfolio needs) / PRINCE2: Highly scalable (enterprise, portfolios, programmes) / Agile: Scalable, but more natural for smaller teams/projects
Documentation: PACE: Lean, focused on value and learning / PRINCE2: Extensive, formal, required at each stage / Agile: Minimal, just enough for team needs
Continuous Improvement: PACE: Core principle (retrospectives, learning cycles) / PRINCE2: Lessons learned at end or at stage gates / Agile: Core principle (retrospectives, inspect & adapt)
Best For: PACE: Dynamic, high-accountability, collaborative, complex or changing contexts / PRINCE2: Large, complex, regulated, or high-risk projects / Agile: Fast-moving, innovative, evolving requirements

In Context

This section explores how PACE integrates with other methodologies and strategic leadership needs.

How does PACE support PRINCE2 and PMP Practitioners Needs?

Where is the Governance?

PRINCE2/PMP View: PRINCE2 and PMP have clear governance structures, with defined roles, responsibilities, and approval processes. PACE seems to favour adaptability over strict control—how does it ensure accountability?

Response:
PACE incorporates Minimal Viable Governance, ensuring just enough oversight without stifling progress. It includes:

Stage Gates that align with PRINCE's decision points but are flexible based on project needs.

Show and Tells & Retrospectives to ensure ongoing engagement and accountability.
Working in the open, to generate trust and maintain visibility.

How Can You Ensure Scope Control?

PRINCE2/PMP View: PRINCE2 and PMP emphasize Change Control Processes to prevent scope creep. How does PACE manage changes while remaining adaptive?

Response:
PACE follows adaptive scope management, balancing flexibility with control by:

Live Testing and Feedback Loops to refine scope based on real-world data.

Prioritisation Frameworks (MoSCoW, Weighted Shortest Job First, etc.) to manage evolving requirements.

Value-driven Scope Definition—if a change does not deliver additional value, it’s re-evaluated.

What About Risk Management?

PRINCE2/PMP View: PRINCE2 and PMP require a structured approach to risk management. PACE seems to focus more on adaptability—how does it ensure risks are properly mitigated?

Response:
PACE integrates risk management into daily operations, rather than treating it as a separate process:

RAID Logs track risks continuously rather than just at predefined intervals.

Frequent Reviews & Iterative Adjustments ensure that risks are identified and acted upon in real-time.

Collaborative Decision-Making ensures risks are managed holistically rather than in isolation.

How Do You Ensure Stakeholder Alignment?

PRINCE2/PMP View: PRINCE2 and PMP use structured stakeholder engagement approaches, ensuring that all voices are heard. PACE seems more fluid—how does it prevent misalignment?

Response:
PACE ensures strong stakeholder engagement and continuous engagement, through:

Stakeholder Mapping, which identifies the best engagement strategies.

Show and Tells, offering continuous touch points rather than periodic status reports.

Blended Steering Groups & Working Groups, reducing hierarchy and increasing buy-in.

How Do You Manage Large, Complex Programmes?

PRINCE2/PMP View: Large programmes require structured coordination across multiple projects. PACE seems lightweight—how does it scale for enterprise-level work?

Response:
PACE can scale by integrating with formal programme and portfolio structures:

Connecting with existing PMO support to ensure governance aligns with business needs.

Ongoing engagement, collaboration and open working to manage live dependencies.

Accepting different levels of control for simple vs. complex work.

For PRINCE2 and PMP practitioners, PACE does not replace structured project management; instead, it modernises it by integrating flexibility and collaboration into delivery while leaving space for the structured PMO requirements. It respects traditional methods while allowing teams to adapt to today’s dynamic environments.

How does PACE Support DSDM Agile Practitioners Needs?

Where is the Strict Timeboxing?

DSDM View: DSDM relies on fixed timeboxes to control scope and ensure delivery. PACE appears more flexible—how does it prevent timelines from slipping?

Response:
PACE maintains the discipline of timeboxing but adapts it based on team and project needs:

Timeboxing is encouraged but adjusted when full commitment isn’t possible (e.g., “Done/Doing/Stuck” stand-ups instead of rigid time slots, and adjusting the length of time boxes and frequency of meetings to suit team needs and drive change of pace).

Incremental and early delivery or prototypes and quick wins ensures teams still deliver value regularly, even when strict timeboxes aren’t feasible.

Kanban provides real-time visibility on tasks, reducing bottlenecks.

What About MoSCoW Prioritisation?

DSDM View: MoSCoW prioritisation (Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, Won’t Have) is a core mechanism in DSDM for managing scope. PACE doesn’t seem to rely on it—how is prioritisation handled?

Response:
PACE fully embraces flexible prioritisation techniques, including MoSCoW, but also leaves space for the use of other tools:

Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF) for high-paced, continuous backlog reprioritisation.

Impact vs. Effort Matrices to make prioritisation more collaborative and data-driven.

Value-Driven Prioritisation, where features are evaluated based on actual value rather than predefined categories.

How Does Governance Work Without a Strict Project Framework?

DSDM View: DSDM defines fixed project roles and responsibilities, including Business Visionary, Technical Coordinator, and Project Manager. PACE seems more fluid—how does it ensure accountability?

Response:
PACE incorporates governance without forcing rigid role definitions:

Servant Leadership Model: Leadership supports rather than directs, allowing self-organising teams to work effectively.

RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) ensures clear responsibilities, even without predefined roles.

Blended Steering & Project Teams: Encourages decision-making at the right level, preventing bottlenecks while maintaining oversight.

Where is the Business Engagement?

DSDM View: DSDM mandates continuous business involvement, particularly through a Business Ambassador role. How does PACE ensure that business stakeholders remain engaged?

Response:
PACE ensures strong business engagement through:

Stakeholder Mapping to define the best ways to engage different business roles.

Show and Tells as frequent, lightweight updates that ensure stakeholders stay informed.

Co-creation Workshops & User Testing to make business involvement more natural and ongoing.
PACE retains the Business Lead role, with the same expectations for responsibility and ownership as in DSDM, but allows for an adaptable definition.

How Do You Ensure Incremental Delivery?

DSDM View: DSDM requires an iterative, incremental approach, where usable product increments are delivered frequently. PACE seems adaptable—how does it ensure early value delivery?

Response:
PACE focuses on continuous delivery of value, not just deliverables:

Live Testing & Real-World Trials allow teams to release improvements frequently, even outside of formal increments.

Small Quick Wins are actively implemented where feasible, avoiding the need to wait for big releases.

Adaptive release planning in response to real-world findings enables iteration cycles to be adjusted based on experience and data.

Isn’t PACE Too Flexible?

DSDM View: One of DSDM’s strengths is its structured framework, ensuring consistency across projects. PACE seems to remove this structure—how does it prevent chaos?

Response:
PACE isn’t structureless, it is adaptive. It retains essential structure while avoiding rigid constraints by:

Applying Minimal Viable Governance to ensure control without excessive overhead.

Defining Clear Stage Gates that function as lightweight approval points, much like DSDM’s Foundations Phase.

Encouraging team-specific methods, while aligning with overarching organisational objectives.

For strict DSDM practitioners, PACE doesn’t reject Agile principles; it modernises them by ensuring they remain practical in different organisational contexts. It aligns where it makes sense and adapts where needed, ensuring delivery remains business-focused, collaborative, and incremental.

How does PACE Support Strategic and Executive Leadership/Board Member Needs?

Strategic leaders focus on value realisation, risk mitigation, governance, and organisational impact. While PACE promotes adaptability, its approach also aligns with executive priorities.

How Does PACE Ensure Strategic Alignment?

Executives need assurance that projects align with business strategy, corporate objectives, and long-term vision. Traditional methodologies enforce rigorous business case approvals—does PACE provide enough structure?

Response:
PACE ensures strategic alignment through:

Early & Continuous Business Engagement: Projects are aligned with strategic goals from the Identify stage, where executive input is gathered and incorporated.

Value Realisation planning identifies expected business impact before execution. This avoids misalignment and ensures that all efforts contribute to corporate goals.

Open and Collaborative Working: By breaking down hierarchies and including strategic leaders in live project discussions, and working groups, strategic alignment becomes a day-to-day part of project activity, rather than an external check and balance.

Stage Gate Reviews & Adaptive Governance: Provides structured checkpoints for executives to redirect, pause, or pivot projects based on evolving business needs.

How Does PACE Control Risk in a Flexible Model?

Executives require clear risk visibility and control, particularly when adapting plans dynamically. Agile-based methods can sometimes appear too fluid, with unclear risk ownership.

Response:
PACE provides structured but adaptive risk management by integrating:

RAID Logs: Ensures risks are tracked, mitigated, and escalated when needed.

Real-time assessment: ensure that risk management is a day-to-day part of project activity.

Adaptive Processes: being adaptable means that PACE can and should adjust quickly when new risks are identified.

Exception Reporting & Escalation Mechanisms: Ensures unexpected risks that could affect corporate objectives are raised immediately to senior leaders.

How Can Executives See Progress Without Micromanaging?

Leaders need high-level visibility into project progress without being buried in operational details. They typically rely on traditional reports, KPIs, and financial tracking.

Response:
PACE enables decision making through:

Show and Tells for Leadership: Regular high-impact presentations summarise strategic progress, rather than lengthy documents.

Customised Highlight Reports: Executives receive tailored summaries focusing only on strategic KPIs, financial performance, and business impact.

Outcome-Based Progress Tracking: Moves beyond task completion metrics to business value realisation.

Does PACE Ensure Financial Control & ROI?

Executives, particularly CFOs and Finance Directors, need strict budgetary controls, cost tracking, and financial forecasting. Traditional PM methodologies enforce budget checkpoints. How does PACE prevent financial mismanagement?

Response:
PACE ensures financial discipline through:

Continuous Value Tracking: Unlike traditional single-point ROI reviews, PACE integrates ongoing financial monitoring to ensure projects remain cost-justified.

Iterative Budgeting Model: Allows phased financial approvals based on real-world outcomes, minimising wasted investment.

How Does PACE Ensure Organisational Change Readiness?

Executives recognise that projects often fail due to poor change management. Resistance from staff, poor adoption, and cultural barriers can derail initiatives.

Response:
PACE builds organisational change readiness into project execution by:

Integrated Change Management Plans: Ensures that change isn’t an afterthought but a parallel workstream in all project stages.

Stakeholder Mapping: Identifies potential change resistors and enablers early, allowing for targeted interventions.

Continuous Employee Engagement: Uses working groups, hands-on trials, and internal Show and Tells to get buy-in before full-scale implementation.

Leadership Role in Change: Encourages C-Suite involvement in key Show and Tell sessions, ensuring top-down messaging supports change adoption.

Can PACE Scale for Enterprise-Level Transformation?

Large organisations need a framework that works across multiple business units, geographical locations, and complex interdependencies. Does PACE scale effectively?

Response:
PACE is designed for scalability with:

Adaptive Governance: Balances global portfolio oversight with localised project autonomy.

Enterprise-Wide Steering Groups: Ensures executive input is continuously integrated into project and programme execution.

Flexible Delivery Models: PACE supports both enterprise-level transformations and small-scale innovations, ensuring alignment across diverse project types.

PACE is designed not just for project teams, but for executives too. It balances structured governance, risk management, financial control, and compliance oversight, while still maintaining the agility needed for modern business environments.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse