11.3 Directing a Project

Trigger and purpose

Directing a Project (DP) is unusual among the seven processes because it has no single trigger. It is triggered initially by the request to initiate that comes out of Starting Up a Project, and from then on it overlays the entire project, firing its activities whenever a decision point arrives. It ends only when the project is closed.

The process is performed by the Project Board — the Executive, the Senior User, and the Senior Supplier — with support from Project Assurance. Its purpose is fourfold:

1. Give direction and control to the project at key decision points.
2. Make the big decisions — authorise initiation, each stage, project closure, and any exception that breaches stage tolerances.
3. Provide overall governance via stage boundaries and exception assessments.
4. Delegate day-to-day management to the Project Manager while retaining accountability for outcomes.

A common scenario trap is to confuse Directing with Controlling. The board directs; the PM controls. The board does not assign Work Packages or chase individual deliverables — it sets tolerances, receives reports, and decides at the right altitude.

The five DP activities

Note the v7 naming: what PRINCE2 6 called give ad hoc direction is called give ongoing direction in v7, and authorise a stage is now authorise a stage or exception plan. Directing a Project is organised around these decision activities rather than around a timeline. The board's work is decision-driven, not calendar-driven.

What the board receives

The Project Board is a consumer of management products produced elsewhere:

• Highlight Reports — regular status from the PM during a stage (frequency set in the Communication Management Approach).
• End Stage Reports — from Managing a Stage Boundary, at each stage end.
• Exception Reports — when a stage or project tolerance is forecast to be breached.
• End Project Report — from Closing a Project, the final account.
• Issue Reports and Checkpoint Reports may be escalated via the PM where they affect board-level tolerances.

The board's outputs are decisions and authorisations: the authorisation to initiate, the authorisation to proceed with each stage, the ongoing direction given in response to exceptions, and ultimately the authorisation to close.

Ad hoc direction

Between formal decision points the board gives ongoing direction. This activity covers responding to Exception Reports (the board may ask for an Exception Plan, change tolerances, or prematurely close the stage), answering PM requests for advice, reacting to corporate or programme changes (e.g. a budget cut, a strategic pivot), and approving or rejecting changes that fall within the board's change authority. Ad hoc direction is not a free-form chat — it is a logged, decision-oriented activity that the PM records and acts on.

Common exam scenarios

• "Who performs Directing a Project?" — the Project Board (with Project Assurance support).
• "What does the board authorise at the end of Initiating?" — the project and the first stage (a single decision covering both).
• "Which reports does the board receive during a stage?" — Highlight Reports (regular) and Exception Reports (on tolerance breach).
• "When does the board give ongoing direction?" — any time between formal decision points, in response to exceptions, requests, or external changes.
• "Does the board authorise every Work Package?" — No. The PM authorises Work Packages in Controlling a Stage; the board authorises stages and the project.

Tailoring

For a small project, the board may be a single person (the Executive wearing all three role hats), and ongoing direction may be a brief weekly call. For a large project, the board may include additional Senior Users and Senior Suppliers and meet at each stage boundary with formal minutes. The depth of DP activities is tailorable, but the decisions themselves — authorise initiation, stages, closure, and exceptions — are not optional.

Worked example: an exception escalates to the board

Midway through stage 2 of a product-launch project, the PM forecasts that cost will exceed stage tolerance by 12%. Under Controlling a Stage, the PM first tries corrective action within their delegation; when that is not enough, they submit an Exception Report to the Project Board. The board, acting within Directing a Project's give ongoing direction activity, reviews the report and asks the PM to produce an Exception Plan — effectively a replacement Stage Plan. The PM brings the Exception Plan to the next stage-boundary decision; the board, in authorise a stage, either approves the revised plan and new tolerances or decides to close the stage early. The board never edits the plan itself — it sets direction and the PM executes. This separation of altitude is what the exam tests: the board decides whether, the PM figures out how.

Common traps

• Confusing Directing with Controlling. The board directs at decision points; the PM controls day-to-day. A scenario that shows the board assigning a Work Package is wrong — that is Controlling a Stage.
• Forgetting the single combined authorisation at end of Initiating. The board authorises the project and the first delivery stage in one decision, not two. The initiation stage was already authorised at the end of Starting Up.
• Assuming ongoing direction is informal. It is a logged, decision-oriented activity. The PM records the board's direction and acts on it; it is not a corridor chat.
• Attributing Checkpoint Reports to the board. Checkpoint Reports flow from Team Managers to the PM; the board receives Highlight Reports, not Checkpoints.