Appendices

Appendix A: Case studies of project governance issues

Poor project performance is frequently liked to governance problems. The case studies below outline governance issues identified by Gateway review teams or VAGO.

Rounded Rectangle: CASE STUDY 1 HVHR infrastructure project – Gateway review Project outline: High Risk and complexity via PPM and 4-year $130 million multi-agency delivery. Program of work that addresses short-, medium- and long-term deficiencies. Concept and feasibility phase. Critical governance issues identified from Gateway report: ‘The governance framework for delivery of the program, the business case and all activities that follow is headed by entity X. A number of stakeholders who were interviewed observed that entity X is often diverted into consideration of detailed technical issues, detracting from its policy and governance role.’ ‘As a matter of urgency the SRO and department should finalise the appointment of a program director who should initially be tasked with establishing a program structure, along with the processes that are required to manage the deployment of the Framework and the delivery of the project.’ ‘Implementation of the framework needs more explicit policy direction and therefore closer engagement with the governing committee leadership, the project team should explore with the committee ways this can be done.’ Gateway outcome: Red overall rating, defined as: ‘Successful delivery of the project to time, cost and quality does not appear achievable.’

Rounded Rectangle: CASE STUDY 2 HVHR ICT enabled change project – Gateway review Project outline: High Value $122 million and High Risk and complexity via PPM and 10 year. Concept and feasibility phase. Critical governance issues identified from Gateway report: ‘Develop a governance structure and human resources strategy for the project.’ ‘Steering committee should confirm and formally endorse business case.’ ‘Develop a comprehensive project org chart and governance diagram, and develop specific terms of reference for steering committee; consider including external members on the steering committee.’ Gateway outcome: Red overall rating, defined as: ‘Successful delivery of the project to time, cost and quality does not appear achievable.’

Rounded Rectangle: CASE STUDY 3 HVHR construction project – Gateway review Project outline: High Value $130 million and High Risk via PPM and complex procurement model. Implementation phase Critical governance issues identified from Gateway report: ‘Review the governance structure to ensure effective decision-making, accountability and transparency.’ ‘The decision making process for the project should be reviewed to ensure that changes are adequately assessed, reviewed and signed off.’ ‘The steering committee develop a process to ensure members of the alliance operate with best practise alliancing characteristics.’ ‘The steering committee agrees the way forward and contents of the business case as a priority.’ ‘The steering committee should review the resources and roles committed to the project at this critical stage.’ Gateway outcome: Red overall rating, defined as: ‘Successful delivery of the project to time, cost and quality does not appear achievable.’

 

Rounded Rectangle: CASE STUDY 4 Major construction project – VAGO review The business case, initial governance arrangements and project planning were sound. However, a number of significant changes made during the project adversely affected the achievement of its objectives. These changes included: • three different project delivery methods involving different parties delivering parts of the project and owning and operating the facility; and • a significant change in the design after the successful tenderer had been announced. Transferring administrative responsibility between departments caused some delays in progressing key elements of the project, although the change has seen an improvement in the overall management of the project. The changes to the project scope and delivery created risks that were not well managed. Specifically: • the business case, governance arrangements and the project implementation plan were not updated on a timely basis to reflect changes to scope, delivery strategies and the roles of government agencies and private sector organisations; • the state government assumed responsibility for the provision of additional elements, however the business case and plan for this was still being developed at the time of the audit; and • detailed project financials were essential to the management of the project, however, at the time of the audit the scope of the works and financial information was still not sufficiently developed to commence negotiations with tenants on leases and assess the financial viability of the project.