Governance and stakeholder MNGT

  • Post category:Post
  • Post comments:0 Comments

Governance and stakeholder MNGT

  1. Governance issues and recommendations

1.1. Insufficient governance structures

Every project has to be governed from its start to end in order to achieve its major objectives. These objectives explain what to be achieved. Also, the monitoring of the project progress has to be done in respect to the set objectives. In case of a major project like Perth arena, failing to put the essential procedures and processes of governing the projects well made it suffer (Turner 1999). The Department of Housing and Works (DHW) assumed the role of client and delivery agency which was a mess. As a result, there was lack of enough supervision and also directions were not clear and suitable for the project (Western Australian Auditor General 2010).

The Audit report published and called for the appointment of a client intermediary while DHW was set to remain as the delivering agency. The client agency ensures that there is transparency in the decisions of a project set outside the delivery agency (Patanakul, et al. 2016). This arrangement will minimize the risks which may result from undocumented changes to time, scope and also the cost which may lead to failure of the project (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). This may allow the agency to have accountability and objectives which are clear towards that project. These projects of a government must implement the processes of the project management which processes relevant projects which must be well understood by the delivery agency, agency of clients and also the project of the team (Zwikael and Smyrk 2005). DHW is supposed to lead the delivery agency to do its mandate of implementing the planning which is formal, estimating and management of the risks, monitoring and closing processes. ORDER YOU PAPER NOW

1.2. Non-compliance with the standard framework

According to the framework of asset management, it was set to guide process for management of assets owned by the government. It is a mandatory that under SAMF that those projects should have estimated costs which should not exceed one million dollars as per project definition plan (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). Thus there was no any similar plan of that kind which was prepared for that Arena Perth Project at the time when evaluation performance was done (Department of Treasury Western Australia 2015).

As per Project Definition Plan (PDP) mostly it involves the issues of delivery project and its risks also attached in it. For PDT to be typically drafted well, it must comprise definition of assets, methods of procurements, cost estimates, quality management, project schedule and changes in management procedures (Patankul, et al. 2016). The PDP is a very crucial in identifying the potential risk early and controlling any irrelevant changes to the constrains of that projects.

1.3. Resource inadequacies in a project team

On top of failure to establish a reliable governance structure, the team participating in the DHW project was not adequate. Due to this, the critical constitutes of SAMF were easily decided upon before properly analyzing the risk (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). The team project consisted two officers assigned to projects on part time bases only. The administration daily left the director of the project to fulfill the roles of both the superintendent and the principal. This is because of the inadequate staffs in the DHW which is side made by the director of the project which had to really on consultants for the same processes of project management.

This may end if the roles of the clients are separated delivery agency, this will make work easier because the work commitments will be shared among the teams of both agencies.  In this resource allocation its capable of handling the important projects (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). The issues are overcome by analyzing resource constraints in team project and then resolving bottleneck problems where the projects may not be assigned as per the demand.

  1. The stakeholder circle

This is a circle which addresses the premises which a project can exist if it is only informed in consent of its own stakeholder community (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt. 2000). The stakeholder was developed by the Lynda Bourne. It is a process which involves five steps which include identifying, prioritization, engagement and monitoring of all stakeholders…Show More…













Leave a Reply