Link to thesis. - Concept - NTNU

ARTICLE IN PRESST. Williams et al. / International Journal of Project Management xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3up the OGC in 2000, pulling together staff from variousagencies [14]. The report led to the establishment of theOGC (2004) Gateway Process TM with six well-defined, standardizedand documented Gateways. Gateway Review 0looked at strategic management at the programme level,and Gateways 1–5 at the project level, covering differentstages of the project life-cycle. Private sector engagementcame from the use of experienced consultants who had beenindividually accredited by OGC for Gateways. The SixGateways start at Ministerial level and work all the waydown to suppliers. Parliamentary/Governmental level isundertaken by mechanisms outside this study.Categorisation came later, looking at high political significance,riskiness of the programme and cost. At the toplevel were the ‘‘Top 20” Mission Critical projects, theOGC sitting on the project board. The next level was ‘‘HighCriticality”: for these, Gateway reviews had to use seniorpeople or independents. Different rules applied to ‘‘Medium”and ‘‘Low Criticality” projects. Later still, a generalconcern for better programme management gave rise tothe development of small Centres of Excellence as part ofthe framework, bringing ‘‘best practice” to the Department,acting as an OGC liaison point within a Department andreporting directly to the Head of Department. Morerecently came a Project Initiation Process. The espousedaim of the framework is specifically for the OGC to achievefinancial savings (according to procedures laid down by theNational Audit Office). At the time of this research, theOGC worked by influence – its recommendations had notthen been mandated (although this is set to change). Thisis the traditional UK civil service culture. The OGC didnot consider individual project Gateway reports; ratherthey looked for systemic trends. Reports on a particularproject went only to the OGC and the sponsor (the ‘‘SeniorResponsible Owner”/SRO), although special reports on thetop ‘‘mission critical” projects go to the Prime Minister’sOffice. A substantial number of people were involved inimplementing the framework and giving advice.A Treasury report entitled ‘‘Transforming governmentprocurement” [15], stated that the OGC would becomemore focused, powerful and smaller, and, since thisresearch was carried out, the Gateway Process has beenmandated, with four areas of development in the OGCframework: Major Projects Portfolio: The system of criticality hasbeen replaced by the Major Projects Portfolio – a list ofthe key projects across the public sector for deliveringthe Government’s service imperatives. A single integratedquarterly report on the health of the Government’s MajorProjects Portfolio will be produced in conjunction with theCabinet Office. Major Projects Review Group: This is a scrutiny committeefor major Government projects, sponsored by the Treasury,challenging projects on deliverability, affordabilityand value-for-money. Their intervention will not only helpthe team, but will also be of the nature of a scrutiny so willhave much stronger power, with an emphasis on actions tobe taken. It consists of eleven very senior members of theCivil Service or Government agencies. Enhanced Gateway Reviews: There will be a new overarchingrating of ‘‘delivery confidence” to supplementthe current rating, indicating the Review team’s assessmentof their confidence that the project will deliver itsintended outcomes and benefits. When there is a ‘‘Red”rating, the report will not only go to the sponsor, but willbe escalated to the Head of Department and beyond. Thereviews will also include action plans, monitored by OGC. ‘‘Starting Gate”: A new intervention is to be introduced,intended to provide assurance at the stage of developingmajor new policy options, prior to initiation of a projector programme.2.2. UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)The one major section of the UK public sector that uses adifferent framework is the MoD. The MoD has always hadan ‘‘extended life-cycle”, both very early and very late. Theframework came in as the relationship with industry changed,becoming more co-operative, and ensuring that boththe whole industrial base and UK sovereign capability areconsidered. Contracting defence budgets gave motivationfor value-for-money and to procuring more accurate predictions.The CADMID process, part of SMART acquisition,was introduced in 1998, following McKinsey work,which also showed the need for a stronger customer withinthe MoD. This became known as ‘‘Capability Management”and was led by a Deputy Chief of Defence Staff.The framework is anchored within the MoD Main Board.Following the McKane report [16], the procurement andlogistics agencies were unified into ‘‘DE&S”. This encompassedthe other espoused goal of the framework: to managethe MoD’s projects as a single portfolio in order to getthe best capability for the MoD as a whole. The UK MoDsystem works with different types of projects, each having adifferent categorisation. There are two Gates: the InitialGate to release funds for assessment, and the Main Gateto release funds for the main project. Projects go to theInvestment Appraisal Board via two routes simultaneously,from the advocate of the project (the SRO) andvia independent scrutiny (within MoD but independentof the project). A preliminary ‘‘Foundation Review” is alsobeing brought in. The system is vertically integrated, in thatGates look at the entire project, including the industrialbase. Each project is undertaken by an ‘‘Integrated ProjectTeam” (IPT), responsible on the project to the SRO, butresponsible overall within DE&S. Thus, the MoD considersthe whole portfolio of projects; the ‘‘Capability” customerconsiders the programme; and the IPT, theindividual project. The Chief of Defence Material reportsto corporate targets on DE&S overall performance. Currenttransitions of the framework consist of minor changesfollowing the McKane report.Please cite this article in press as: Williams T et al.An investigation of governance frameworks for public projects in Norway and the UK. Int J Project Manage (2009),doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.04.001