Most projects now start life inside a framework or governance process. That is usually a good thing: it means someone has thought about risk, quality and value before the first conversation about a specific site. The test comes later, when boots are on the ground and the project team is trying to keep a live estate running while they build.

On some schemes we see governance act as a safety net and a source of clarity. On others it becomes a parallel world of paperwork that does not help the people doing the work. This article looks at a few patterns we see in live environments and some simple ideas that make frameworks and governance feel useful on site rather than distant.

1. One version of the truth for programme and risk

If a project has one programme and one risk register at board level, but different versions at project and site level, people will eventually stop trusting them. In live estates this shows up when an “amber” risk on a report is experienced as a daily problem by staff, or when a critical clinical date is not visible in the construction logic.

The better projects we have seen use framework and governance tools to create a single line of sight. Board level milestones, site activities and live environment constraints are visible on the same plan, with commentary that reads the same whether you are in a ward, a site office or a committee meeting.

2. Decisions that match the tempo of live estates

Governance often assumes monthly or quarterly decision cycles. Live hospital and commercial estates move faster. Isolation windows, decant moves, route changes and safety controls can need decisions in days or hours, not weeks.

Where frameworks work well, they set out which decisions genuinely need to go through formal gateways and which can be delegated to a project or site forum within agreed parameters. That way, governance protects the really important calls and does not slow down the decisions that keep a live programme moving.

3. Framework requirements that are visible on site

Frameworks often come with requirements on HSEQ, social value, reporting and ESG. If these live only in prequalification documents and annual returns, they do not influence the way teams behave day to day.

On projects that feel well governed, those requirements are translated into simple site level expectations: what inductions cover, what inspections look for, what goes on noticeboards and how progress is shared with clients. The framework then feels like a backbone rather than a separate layer.

4. Honest reporting, not performance theatre

Governance breaks down when reports are written to look good rather than to describe reality. In live estates that can mean risks surfacing too late, issues being disguised as “opportunities” and boards being surprised by problems that were well known on site.

We have seen better outcomes where frameworks and client governance actively encourage honest reporting: simple dashboards that highlight real issues, space for narrative, and a culture where bringing a problem early is seen as a strength, not a failure.

5. Governance that joins up client and delivery teams

Finally, governance works best when it brings client, design and delivery teams together rather than treating them as separate audiences. In live estates this means involving estates, clinical or operational leads in forum and gateway meetings and giving site teams a voice in explaining what is happening.

Where this happens, frameworks and governance feel like a shared tool. Where it does not, they feel like something done to the project, not with it.

Frameworks and governance will not build a project on their own, but they can create the context in which good delivery is more likely. In live environments that means focusing less on volume of paperwork and more on clarity, honesty and alignment between what the board sees and what is happening on the floor.