Konstantin “Stan” Ponomarev · ponomarevkk@gmail.com · +1 281 905 8225
01 / THE CHALLENGE
The problem to solve.
Full central control would slow local decisions. Complete independence made duplicated work, architectural conflict and unaddressed competency gaps hard to see.
THE DELIVERY LOGIC ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL
02 / KEY DECISIONS
Where I focused.
The central trade-off
Local independence supported execution, while a shared registry and common methods supported portfolio visibility. Three support modes let subsidiaries retain ownership and request the capability they lacked.
- 01
Offer support in proportion to the need.
Defined three routes: independent execution, access to specific competencies, or a full project team. Local business units could match the engagement to their delivery capability.
- 02
Keep the business accountable.
The principles retained business ownership of budgets and linked staffing to local needs. A corporate program leader could not unilaterally block a local project.
- 03
Share the minimum governance foundation.
Combined local autonomy with common methodology, a shared project registry and integration with the portfolio cycle. Steering review and a pilot created a path to refine the model.
03 / THE OUTCOME
What changed.
- The model defined three engagement modes and seven governing principles.
- A pilot was approved in December 2019.
- The refined model was prepared for rollout in early 2020.
04 / MY ACCOUNTABILITY
A clear line of ownership.
I co-led operating-model design and steering preparation with other leaders. The documented milestones establish model design and pilot approval, not a completed rollout across all subsidiaries or measured enterprise-wide savings.
WORKING PRINCIPLE
Autonomy works better when teams know how to get the support they need.
Facing a similar mandate?
Let’s discuss the decisions, lessons and experience behind this work.
Discuss this experiencehttps://stan-ponomarev.ponomarevvkk.chatgpt.site/work/subsidiary-pmo/