Project Autonomy vs Corporate Governance
Define and publish delegated authority limits before execution begins, reserving corporate approval only for decisions above agreed risk or expenditure thresholds.
CyberTRIZ analysis · GreenFieldIndustrialProjects contradiction SFR025 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Business Context
Green field projects need sufficient autonomy to respond quickly to technical, commercial, and execution conditions. Corporate governance, however, requires consistency with investment policies, risk limits, standards, financial controls, and strategic priorities.
Green Field Industrial Projects TRIZ Resolution
Define governance boundaries rather than centralizing every decision. Corporate functions retain authority over strategic and high-consequence matters, while the project receives delegated authority for decisions within approved limits.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 1 – Segmentation separates corporate governance decisions from project execution decisions.
Principle 10 – Prior Action establishes authority limits before execution begins.
Principle 15 – Dynamics adjusts delegated authority as project risk and maturity change.
Expected Outcome
Faster project decisions
Preserved corporate governance
Clearer accountability
Reduced approval bottlenecks
Decision Indicators
Early indicators include:
Routine project decisions require corporate approval.
Project teams bypass governance to maintain progress.
Corporate functions become execution bottlenecks.
Decision rights remain unclear.
Governance intensity does not reflect decision consequence.