Link to thesis - Concept - NTNU

O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / International Journal of Project Management 24 (2006) 281–288 283Fig. 1. The estimates prepared in the QA-process – the arrow represents phases in the project life cycle.11 projects, where 6 of them showed cost overrun, a governmentcommittee concluded that failures in the initialphases of the projects were the main cause of the cost escalationduring implementation [1].4.1. Description of the current Quality-at-entry RegimeThe Quality-at-entry Regime is in this paper a label forthe formal requirements that public investment projectsmust meet before the preparation of proposal for the Parliament.The basic exercise connected to the presentRegime is mandatory quality assurance and uncertaintyanalysis of the project carried out by external consultantson behalf of the responsible ministry, the so-called qualityassurance 2 (QA2). In this paper the term ‘‘quality assurance’’is used shorthand instead of referring to the ‘‘exerciseunder the present Quality-at-entry Regime’’. The aimof the Regime so far has been to evaluate the quality ofthe foundation for the chosen alternative. The more particularfocus regarding revision of cost estimates and identifyingmajor risks must be seen in light of the specific goal forthe quality assurance. It is a tool for evaluating the qualityof information and for providing new information on thebasis of which the decision makers can judge the project.4.2. The quality assurance – when and howThe quality assurance, which typically takes place at thepre-planning stage, and the cost estimates provide anopportunity to track how three main stakeholders; the projectorganisation, the external consultant, and the Parliament,5 view the project cost at this stage.An illustration of the process and how the cost estimatesrelate to a certain stakeholder and point in time is given inFig. 1.The duration between the steps in the process variesfrom project to project, and it is not uncommon to observea time-span from several months up to a year between 1and 3 in the figure. A suitable question here is: As some elementsof the project may change in the course of its development,how is it possible to compare the cost estimatesconnected to the different points in the process? The questionis a fundamental one, and a brief explanation is appropriate.First of all, the formal requirement is that theproject does not proceed beyond the pre-planning stageuntil it is approved by the Parliament. Secondly, the qualityassurance does not take place until updated project documentationexists, and the cost estimate is a central part ofthis information. This pertains to the situation between 1and 2 in the figure. Information concerning the expectedbudget of a project is crucial when deciding to go aheadwith the project. In this way it is safe to assume that therecommended budget from the external consultant andthe approved budget fundamentally refer to the same project,unless it would be explicitly stated. This pertains to thesituation between 2 and 3 in the figure.The cost estimate connected to 1 in the figure stems fromthe uncertainty analysis conducted by the project organisation.This is an expression of the project organisationÕs viewconcerning the project cost. The consultants deliver anexternal evaluation of the project and give their recommendationof a budget for the project based on an independentuncertainty analysis (2 in the figure). The end of the preplanningstage is the parliamentary approval of a budgetand permission to implement the project (3 in the figure).4.3. The estimates and how they are prepared5 Formally, the decision to go ahead with the project and the financinglies in the hands of the Parliament. In practice, however, the budgetdecided by the Parliament corresponds with that proposed by theresponsible ministry (the project owner).The prevailing method among project organisations andconsultants in the projects studied here is the stochasticuncertainty analysis regarding the project cost. The estima-