I am trying to outline a governance framework for a large portfolio and an curious what people have done/found works best when it comes to Change Control Boards...
I am proposing that either there is a central portfolio change board, who authorises all changes, or that each programme/portfolio within the main portfolio have their own change board, or the final one is to have a change control board within each programme/portfolio, but there is a central one that still has the final say...
While option 1 seems the simplest, it does seem silly to have every change from every programme running through a central control board, but the upside is that it does ensure that any authorised change is agreed on the basis there is no wider impact across the portfolio. Option 3, perhaps still gives this, but the Change Control Board really has just become a final 'rubber stamp'. Saving Changes...
I normally see CCBs at the program or project level. At a portfolio level, I tend to see portfolio review committees, portfolio prioritization boards or similar terms.
However, in terms of your question, while there will usually be one portfolio review committee per distinctly managed portfolio, each program or project which is large or complex enough to require a CCB will have one.
The focus at each level is different, hence the times there would be interactions between them would be if the portfolio-level needed to alter the investment/resourcing level for the program or project (e.g. robbing Peter to pay Paul), or if the program or project had a change being considered which fundamentally altered the decision making factors which had been used by the portfolio-level to select or prioritize it originally.
