Konstantin “Stan”
PonomarevTRANSFORMATION & PROGRAM LEADERSHIP
Menu

Governance model agreed

CASE 09 / DECISION RIGHTS 2 MIN READ

Make a matrix
work as one system.

Functional programs and cross-cutting transformation priorities competed for the same resources and decision space. I helped design a model that retained functional accountability while making shared constraints governable.

Jump to the results ↓
4coordination rules
CONTEXT
Gazprom Neft · Digital transformation portfolio
MY ROLE
Governance design and coordination
PERIOD
2019–2020
11programs in the context
2governance models compared
8evaluation criteria

AT A GLANCE

Governance model agreed

The mandate

Resolve overlapping authority across the program matrix.

My contribution

Analyze alternatives and coordinate the governance improvements.

The result

A retained functional model with four explicit coordination rules.

01 / THE CHALLENGE

The problem to solve.

Centralizing every decision would weaken functional ownership. Leaving the matrix unchanged would preserve duplication, competing benefit claims and resource conflicts.

THE DELIVERY LOGIC ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL

01ValueSeparate benefits and check duplication
02AuthorityRepresent cross-cutting priorities
03CapacityAgree resource commitments

02 / KEY DECISIONS

Where I focused.

The central trade-off

Full centralization would weaken functional ownership; an unchanged matrix would preserve conflicts. The agreed design retained functional steering with explicit coordination rules.

  1. 01

    Evaluate the structural choice.

    Compared two governance models against eight criteria and prepared decision materials. The recommendation retained functional steering while correcting its cross-program weaknesses.

  2. 02

    Separate value and duplication decisions.

    Defined how business effects should be distinguished in investment reviews and introduced checks for overlapping initiatives before launch.

  3. 03

    Make representation and resources explicit.

    Added cross-cutting program representation in functional steering and required explicit resource agreements. These rules connected authority to the commitments being made.

03 / THE OUTCOME

What changed.

  • The governance model preserved functional steering and introduced four coordination improvements.
  • Benefit attribution, duplication checks, representation and resource commitments became explicit design elements.
  • Decision materials and process documentation supported implementation of the agreed approach.

04 / MY ACCOUNTABILITY

A clear line of ownership.

I led governance analysis and process documentation, prepared steering materials and coordinated the improvements. This is a decision-rights case within the wider portfolio, not a separate claim of portfolio financial value or proof that all conflicts disappeared.

WORKING PRINCIPLE

A matrix needs explicit agreements at the points where authority overlaps.

Facing a similar mandate?

Let’s discuss the decisions, lessons and experience behind this work.

Discuss this experience

LET’S CONNECT

The next mandate.
Let’s discuss it.

An opportunity, a shared challenge or an exchange of ideas — start a conversation.

Let’s connect

AREAS OF PRACTICE

Transformation management.
Portfolio & program leadership.
AI-enabled business change.

Tampa, Florida
U.S. work authorization
No sponsorship required

Executive profile PDF · 1 pageView LinkedIn (opens in a new tab)