The study proceeded as follows:• The literature gave us a theoreticalunderpinning for governance in general,as described above.• This enabled us <strong>to</strong> draw from the literature,<strong>to</strong> specify the characteristics ofa public project governance frameworkand set these characteristics in<strong>to</strong>a clear structure.• The study studied two specific countries:the United Kingdom and Norway.There are experts in these frameworkswho can reflect on them and characterizethem. The structure was rephrasedin<strong>to</strong> the form of a questionnaire whichwas sent <strong>to</strong> the interviewees and thenused as the basis for semistructuredinterviews.• The results of these interviews, beingalready structured, could then easilybe compared <strong>to</strong> give a structuredanalysis of their differences, as set outin a later section.• This analysis then gave the foundationsfor the case studies. The structurewas taken and set out in areas <strong>to</strong>study, and a brief summary of this wasgiven <strong>to</strong> the case-study projects prior<strong>to</strong> the first meetings. While the investiga<strong>to</strong>rswere not limited <strong>to</strong> theseareas, this structure did give the foundationfor the areas <strong>to</strong> study.Governance FrameworkCharacteristicsThe governance framework definesstructures and principles <strong>to</strong> make thegovernance of public investmentprojects possible and effective. Table 1contains a systematic checklist offramework characteristics.The characteristics can be dividedin<strong>to</strong> four different categories: “theprocess of development” (why the frameworkhas come <strong>to</strong> be, and how it isCategory Theme Explanation Categories of Characteristics1. The process Background—why and Setting the stage <strong>to</strong> Political setting; administrative setting;of development how the framework understand the context social economics; traditional marketcame <strong>to</strong> be and explain the framework’s mode of operation; initia<strong>to</strong>rs; when theinitiation and developmentframework was officially introducedup until current editionExplicitly stated Identify the official policy, the Any explicit statement of purposepurpose statement the framework is (political), made by the decisionof the framework funded on makersCurrent status and Identify how the framework Political and administrative anchoring;how framework is implemented, improved, policy/strategy of implementation; policy/is maintained and and developed strategy of further development anddevelopedassessment; results of the implementedframework2. Embedded Governance Descriptions and characteristics Establishing a common worldview andgovernance principles of embedded governance stabilizing rules of conduct; differentiationprinciples principles between projects based on complexity,etc.; mechanisms <strong>to</strong> reduce complexity,distribute risk, and trigger governanceprocesses in response <strong>to</strong> environmentalturbulence3. The structure Current structure Describe and define the current Explicitly stated ends/goals for theof the framework of the framework framework structure framework; users; framework elements;framework structure; vertical andhorizontal integration; extent and controlof independent/outside engagement4. Detailed Framework elements Descriptions/characteristics of Elements specifically addressing thegovernance concerning cost framework elements concerning development of cost and time estimates;elements estimation and time cost estimation and time planning governance principles concerningplanning in early phases of the project cost estimation/control; systematicanalysis of the effect of these principlesEtc. – –Table 1: Characteristics of a governance framework.2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj S31
PAPERSGovernance Frameworks for Public Project Development and Estimationformed); “the structure of the framework”and “embedded governanceprinciples” describing the frameworkand the governance principles builtin<strong>to</strong> it; and “detailed governanceelements,” a flexible part <strong>to</strong> addressspecial issues of interest. The versionhere is designed for this particularstudy concerning the effect on cost andtime planning. In other studies, the lastpart could be different, dependingupon the purpose of the study. Usingthis structure as a framework gives thebasis for empirical studies. The list inTable 1 contains only the main categoriesof characteristics; a complete lis<strong>to</strong>f characteristics will be in the PMIreport.Governance Frameworks in theUnited Kingdom and NorwayThe following is a systematic comparisonof the governance frameworksdeveloped within the United Kingdomand Norway for large public projects,their his<strong>to</strong>ry, and as they were in mid-2007: these things constantly evolveand change.The Context and Processof DevelopmentThe Political, Social, andAdministrative ContextThe United Kingdom and Norway areboth monarchies and WesternEuropean parliamentary democracies,with long his<strong>to</strong>ries and many similarities.The United Kingdom has a largeeconomy with limitations in publicfunds and considerable unemploymentin the time period. Norway has a smalleconomy with a great surplus, a verystrong national economy, and very lowunemployment. The situation in bothcountries may motivate framework initiatives.In the United Kingdom, therewas naturally a motivation for puttingemphasis on “value for money” fromthe start. In Norway, the focus from thebeginning was directed against cos<strong>to</strong>verrun—a control measure <strong>to</strong> ensurerealistic budgets and a good basis forproject execution. The initiatives inboth countries are based on a wish <strong>to</strong>improve governance in a wide sense.There seems <strong>to</strong> be quite similar politicalbackgrounds in the two countries—apart from a difference betweenNordic/Scandinavian social welfaretradition and the Anglo/Americanstrong market orientation. The UnitedKingdom has a strong public administrationtradition and a large influentialcivil service. Government business isdivided in<strong>to</strong> departments, such asDefense, Home Office, and so on.Responsibility for a project is entirelywithin the department. Wider governmentresponsibility only comesthrough the minister, who reports <strong>to</strong>the Cabinet. There may be an influenceof the U.K. character, which perhapsleans <strong>to</strong>ward a “blame culture:”Gateway reviews are looking <strong>to</strong> teaseout hidden facts. The U.K. Ministry ofDefence (MoD) framework came in asthe relationship with industry changed;becoming more open and involvingindustry, with an “industrial strategy”<strong>to</strong> ensure the whole industrial base islooked at, bearing in mind U.K. sovereigncapability. In Norway, the Sec<strong>to</strong>ralMinistry is responsible for large investmentprojects. The Norwegian state isresponsible for the actions of its employees:the state can be sued, but not theperson, so bad performance often hasno consequence. Building and constructiontraditions were important informing the Norwegian framework. TheUK Office of Government Commerceframework was more based on the ITsec<strong>to</strong>r. One could perhaps say themarket is more influential in the UnitedKingdom, and responsibility of thestate is more influential in Norway.The Beginning—How the GovernanceFrameworks Came <strong>to</strong> BeIn the late 1990s in the UnitedKingdom, Peter Gershon, then at U.K.defense contrac<strong>to</strong>rs GEC, was asked bythe then-prime minister <strong>to</strong> look at procurementin government. Gershonwrote an influential report (1999). Theprime minister asked Gershon <strong>to</strong> set upthe OGC, which he did in April2000. This pulled <strong>to</strong>gether staff fromvarious other agencies (e.g., the CentralComputer & TelecommunicationsAgency and the Property Advisers <strong>to</strong> theCivil Estate). The methods in the reportcovered general commodity procurementand project procurement. Itincluded a “Gateway”-type process anda procurement strategy similar <strong>to</strong> theOGC’s “BuyingSolutions.” This led(Harpham & Kippenberger, 2005) <strong>to</strong> theestablishment of the GatewayProcess TM (OGC, 2004) and PRINCE2 TMproject management methodology(OGC, 2002). Later, there was a generalconcern for better program management,giving rise <strong>to</strong> the developmen<strong>to</strong>f “Centers of Excellence” as part of theframework. The espoused aim ofthe framework is specifically <strong>to</strong> achievefinancial targets of money saved (forOGC combining work on commoditiesand projects).The one major section of the U.K.public sec<strong>to</strong>r that uses a differentframework is the MoD. The MoD hasalways had an “extended life-cycle,”going back way before the “project” andafter. The Downey report (1969) put theemphasis on the early stage. Projectsweren’t delivering <strong>to</strong> time/cost performanceand technology was increasing incomplexity. The main motivations fordeveloping a new framework were<strong>to</strong>ward cost control and reducing risks.A process known as CADMID (alife cycle of <strong>Concept</strong>, Assessment,Demonstration, Manufacture, In-Service,Disposal), part of so-called “SMART”acquisition, came in around 1998 followingwork by international managementconsultants McKinsey. Contractingdefense budgets gave motivations forvalue for money (and <strong>to</strong> getting moreaccurate predictions). The McKinseywork showed the need for a “strongercus<strong>to</strong>mer” within MoD.The framework is anchored withinthe MoD Main Board. The user of theprojects is known as “capability management”led by a Deputy Chief ofDefense staff. The supplier is personifiedS32 2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj
- Page 1 and 2:
3PrefaceThe research presented in t
- Page 3 and 4:
5Table of contentsPART 1 ..........
- Page 5 and 6:
7Summary/abstractThe work reported
- Page 8 and 9:
101 IntroductionProjects are increa
- Page 10:
collection and interpretation of th
- Page 13 and 14:
15normative agendas, in other words
- Page 15 and 16:
17world of projects. The choice of
- Page 17 and 18:
19Figure 3 Sources and dataThe proj
- Page 19 and 20:
21In line with Flyvbjerg (2006b), t
- Page 21 and 22:
233 Concepts and constructs of thep
- Page 23 and 24:
25by most BOKs and textbooks in pro
- Page 25 and 26:
274 Main topics covered by the rese
- Page 27 and 28:
294.2 Empirical indications from ex
- Page 29 and 30:
31Budget proposed by the Norwegian
- Page 31 and 32:
3330 %Difference (%) from the propo
- Page 33 and 34:
3520 00018 000Cost development from
- Page 35 and 36:
37In paper 9 (Magnussen 2009a) an a
- Page 37 and 38:
395 Conclusions and directions for
- Page 39 and 40:
41estimates must be implemented at
- Page 41 and 42:
43Klakegg, Ole Jonny, Terry William
- Page 43 and 44:
45List of government documents 11Fi
- Page 45 and 46:
47Part 2 - Papers1. Magnussen, Ole
- Page 47 and 48:
Paper 1Magnussen, Ole Morten, and K
- Page 49 and 50:
AbstractCost overruns and delays ar
- Page 51 and 52:
Cost effectiveness considerations:
- Page 53 and 54:
demonstrates another fundamental is
- Page 55 and 56:
Figure 1 The Extended Quality Assur
- Page 57 and 58:
Expected effects of the revised qua
- Page 59 and 60:
ReferencesBerg, Peder, Kilde, Halva
- Page 61 and 62:
International Journal of Project Ma
- Page 63 and 64:
O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / Int
- Page 65 and 66:
O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / Int
- Page 67 and 68:
O.M. Magnussen, N.O.E. Olsson / Int
- Page 69 and 70:
Paper 3Magnussen, Ole M., and Nils
- Page 71 and 72:
MANAGING THE FRONT-END OF PROJECTS:
- Page 73 and 74:
Olsson, Samset, Austeng and Lädre
- Page 75 and 76:
1995; Packendorff, 1995), mainly cr
- Page 77 and 78:
to a better way of managing the fro
- Page 79 and 80: Figure 1 Basic structure of the ind
- Page 81 and 82: from empirical investigations has b
- Page 83 and 84: among organizations, not individual
- Page 85 and 86: actors, the relationships are repro
- Page 87 and 88: the network approach has been used
- Page 89 and 90: established based on the views of i
- Page 91 and 92: IHFJKGAELDMBCA - The focal projectB
- Page 93 and 94: the NDEA. The communication strateg
- Page 95 and 96: Directorate for Cultural Heritage (
- Page 97 and 98: the project. The basic activity was
- Page 99 and 100: assumed to be more important than o
- Page 101 and 102: Another interesting observation was
- Page 103 and 104: REFERENCESEngwall, Mats. 2003. No p
- Page 105 and 106: Söderlund, Jonas. 2002. On the dev
- Page 107 and 108: Flexibility at Different Stages in
- Page 109 and 110: Reproduced with permission of the c
- Page 111 and 112: Reproduced with permission of the c
- Page 113 and 114: Reproduced with permission of the c
- Page 115: Paper 5Olsson, Nils O. E., and Ole
- Page 126 and 127: PAPERSGovernance Frameworks for Pub
- Page 128 and 129: supporting setting of and achieving
- Page 132 and 133: y the Chief of Defence Materiel, he
- Page 134 and 135: (within MoD but independent of thep
- Page 136 and 137: Norway U.K. (MoD) U.K. (OGC)Charact
- Page 138 and 139: from the external consultants was s
- Page 140 and 141: governance. International StudiesRe
- Page 142 and 143: Paper 7Williams, Terry, Ole Jonny K
- Page 144 and 145: The development of the frameworksUK
- Page 146 and 147: notable characteristic of the Norwe
- Page 148 and 149: Office to the National Audit Office
- Page 150 and 151: highly complex and changing decisio
- Page 152 and 153: ARTICLE IN PRESSAvailable online at
- Page 154 and 155: ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al.
- Page 156 and 157: ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al.
- Page 158 and 159: ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al.
- Page 160 and 161: ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al.
- Page 162 and 163: ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al.
- Page 164 and 165: Paper submitted to the Internationa
- Page 166 and 167: One constraint is that actual costs
- Page 168 and 169: In other words, the QA scheme is a
- Page 170 and 171: author, there apparently are no stu
- Page 172 and 173: 20,0 %15,0 %10,0 %5,0 %0,0 %P50 est
- Page 174 and 175: The pre-eminent result is that the
- Page 176 and 177: Results from the analysis of the de
- Page 178 and 179: more fundamental assessments of pro
- Page 180 and 181:
Paper 10Magnussen, Ole M. 2009. Exp
- Page 182 and 183:
Explaining cost estimate difference
- Page 184 and 185:
changes and external factors. Facto
- Page 186 and 187:
30 %Difference (%) from the propose
- Page 188 and 189:
Table 2 Areas associated with expla
- Page 190 and 191:
agency. In this case, the observed
- Page 192 and 193:
ReferencesFlyvbjerg, B., Holm, M.K.