Link to thesis. - Concept - NTNU

y the Chief of Defence Materiel, headof the supplying organization (calledDE&S), following the McKane report(MoD, 2006) and the unifying of theprocurement and logistics agencies.This enables the other espoused goal ofthe framework: to manage the MoDsprojects as a single portfolio to get thebest capability for the MoD as a whole.In Norway, major investment projectsinvolve big money and tend todraw much attention. The triggeringincident in Norway was a series ofunsuccessful major projects during the1980s–90s. Repeated project overspendturned into a political problem. DeputySecretary General of the Ministry ofFinance Peder Berg led a governmentcommittee investigating a number ofproject cases and the report documentedthe problems (Berg et al., 1999).The Ministry of Finance initiated thedevelopment of an obligatory qualityassurance (QA) scheme in 2000. Thegoal was to ensure improved quality atentry in large public projects. It was abottom-up process within the ministry,with Peder Berg as a driving force.It was important to achieve anchoringat a high level within the Ministry.The decision to introduce this governanceframework was made by theprime minister’s office. For both the firstand second generation of the QAregime, the intention was to establish asystem where politics and administrationis well divided, with the interplaybetween these two sides well understood.Our interviewee said: “From anadministrative point of view, theimportant thing is to make sure there isalways a basis for decision addressingall relevant sides of the issues involved,and an independent assessment confirmingits professional quality. Theintended effect of such a system is tomake the state able to choose the rightprojects and execute them well.”Compared to the U.K. frameworks, theNorwegian one is new. It should, therefore,be expected to represent the latestdevelopments in project managementand project governance. Compared tothe United Kingdom, the experiencestill has to be considered as limited,and there is no accompanying “comprehensivetoolbox” like PRINCE2 TM .The three initiatives seem to havebeen prompted by similar developments:uncertainty due to repeatedfailures of major projects and changesin market; lack of success in publicinvestment projects; strong individualcontributions to put focus on theimportance of public investment projects;and support at a high politicallevel to act. Better use of public fundsmay be said to be the aim in both countries.The OGC and Norwegian initiativesare anchored at the top political leveland organized under the Ministry ofFinance. The process, however, wasgenuinely different. In Norway, the initiatingprocess was bottom-up, as wasthe implementation of the improvementand following learning processes.In the United Kingdom, both processeswere top-down, as was the implementationof the management system(the toolbox attached to the governanceframework).Developing and Implementing theFrameworkThe U.K. OGC Gateway Reviews derivedfrom the 1999 Gershon Report, and thePeer Review concept originated fromthe “Successful IT” report in 2000.Additional features were introduced in2004. A later Gershon review (2004) says:“Looking forward, the OGC is committedto achieving £3 billion in value formoney gains in the 3 years to 2005–06, ofwhich around one half will come fromthe Gateway Review process, whichrequires independent assessment ofprojects and programs at key points intheir life cycles.” John Healey, financialsecretary to the Treasury (HM Treasury,2007), also points to the delivery of “over£8 billion of efficiency savings from publicprocurement.” The OGC is currentlyreforming, becoming a smaller, morefocused organization, reducing staff byalmost half and introducing new challenges.The OGC currently works by influenceand recommendation; its recommendationsare not mandated. This isthe traditional UK civil service culture.The OGC does not consider individualproject reports once they have reportedon them; rather, they look for systemictrends. Reports on a particular projectgo only to the sponsor (the personknown in PRINCE2 TM as the “SeniorResponsible Owner,” or SRO) and theOGC—so in that sense governance of aproject is limited. Responsibility forprojects is divided between the OGC,the department, and other bodies, suchas the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit(for critical projects) and the NationalAudit Office (NAO; for audit purposes).This may give differences in governanceacross sectors but, hopefully,equally good governance across sectors.There are a substantial number ofpeople involved in implementing theframework, many of them giving adviceto users of the tools and methodsattached to the framework itself.In Norway, it is stated by the government(prime minister’s office) thatbetter projects and better execution ofinvestment projects is a political goal.When QA2 was introduced in 2000 (firstgeneration of the framework), it introducedmandatory external assessmentof projects before the financing decisionby Parliament. The Norwegianframework is mandatory for all majorprojects with an expected cost of morethan NOK 500 million/£42 millionfinanced by the state (excluding oil andgas). External assessments are performedby consultant companies undera framework contract with the Ministryof Finance. While QA2 had the expectedeffect, experience through 2000–2004exposed a need to do something atan earlier stage. Some of the projectsbefore Parliament were not matureenough. In 2005, QA1 was introduced(second generation of the framework),and current framework contracts arevalid through 2008 with an additionaloption. QA1 was by far the more difficultarrangement to define and develop.2008 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj S33