Governance in technology companies often relies on rigid frameworks, leading to unnecessary complexity in project management. The author challenges the notion that detailed project and program codes are essential due to accounting standards like GAAP or IFRS. These codes are more about internal governance mechanisms than accounting requirements. Financial statements focus on revenue and expenses, not on internal project categorizations. The precision seen in cost reporting creates a false belief that it’s mandated by accounting, but in reality, it serves governance purposes. The article differentiates between procedural legitimacy, which is merely following rules, and substantive legitimacy, where actions genuinely meet policy goals. Many companies engage in procedural legitimacy, leading to waste and inefficiency. Governance models often stem from outdated practices that don’t fit the dynamics of product and platform work. Instead of sticking to traditional project-based governance, organizations can adopt frameworks that align better with their operational realities, using capabilities and product lines as governance units. These alternatives allow for clearer accountability and better resource allocation. Challenges remain. Companies face inertia from legacy frameworks and fear about measuring performance effectively. The push for more granular data can lead to confusion, especially when different categories are constantly redefined. Even tech companies, often perceived as agile, struggle with outdated governance models. The author emphasizes the need for a context-specific approach to governance, adapting to changes in technology, team structure, and market uncertainty, rather than sticking to outdated practices that hinder progress.