Link to thesis. - Concept - NTNU

ARTICLE IN PRESS4 T. Williams et al. / International Journal of Project Management xxx (2009) xxx–xxx2.3. NorwayThe triggering incident in Norway was a series of unsuccessfulmajor projects and repeated project overspend duringthe 1980–90s. Deputy Secretary General of the Ministryof Finance, Peder Berg, led a government committee investigatinga number of project cases [17]. The Ministry ofFinance initiated the development of an obligatory QualityAssurance Scheme in 2000, with mandatory externalassessment of projects, performed by consultant companies,before the financing decision by Parliament. Thiswas mandatory for all state-financed projects over NOK500 million/£42 million, excluding Oil and Gas. The goalwas to ensure improved quality-at-entry. It was a bottom-upprocess within the Ministry, with Peder Berg as adriving force. The decision to introduce this governanceframework was made by the Prime Minister’s Office. In2005 there was a second generation of the framework,reflecting the need to do something at an earlier stage.The same entity is responsible for the governance frameworkacross all sectors, with few exceptions. For both generationsof the QA Scheme the intention was to establish asystem where politics and administration is well divided,with the interplay between these two sides well understood.The whole framework is a control measure. Controlrules are documented in the contracts between the Ministryof Finance and consulting companies, the control objectbeing the documents assessed in the regime. There aretwo gateways: QA1 focuses on the rationale of the project.It covers the early choice of concept and strategy, and thedecision to initiate project pre-planning, using a compulsorydossier of four documents, and looking at many alternatives.QA2 considers the decision to finance the project,looking at one alternative only, and controlling the ProjectManagement Plan, with several sub-documents and a focuson cost. QA1 and QA2 provide a tool for control from thetop; Parliament–Government–Ministry–Agency. Verticalintegration stops at the agency-level and the private sectoris not addressed. There are several coordination Forumswhere the Ministry of Finance gathers key interested peoplefor discussions, often resulting in common understandingand definition of terms and professional standards. TheConcept Research Programme supports the developmentof the regime and studies the practices of the agenciesand consultants.As soon as the new framework was introduced in 2005,the need to develop new common definitions and guidelineswas evident. Using the same model as that in the previousintroduction period, a number of development processeshave been started, resulting in a series of new guidelines.2.4. Comparison of frameworksThe three initiatives seem to have been prompted bysimilar developments and motivations; the OGC and Norwegianinitiatives are both anchored at the top politicallevel and organised under the Ministry of Finance. OGCgoals are more explicit, administratively focused and measuredin terms of money; in Norway there are more clearlypolitically anchored goals, which do not specify theexpected effect of implementation. All frameworks aimedto include transparency, being open to scrutiny, and particularlycandid about the basis for decision-making. Alsoincluded were learning, willingness to change, the settingof common, high professional standards and politicalanchoring of the framework on a high level, or non-politicalQA/Gateway review. The process of development, however,was genuinely different. In Norway the initiatingprocess was bottom-up, as was the implementation of theimprovement. In the UK both processes were top-down,as was the implementation of the management system. Differentstrategies were chosen: Norway breaking with traditionand introducing a new arrangement, the UK buildingon tradition. The Norwegian and MoD’s frameworks aremandatory; the OGC framework currently works by influence.The Norwegian framework is a bottom-up process oflearning from cases, transferring experience to other sectorsand building ‘‘the new profession”. The UK OGC andMoD frameworks, to some extent, are a top-down introductionof a common ‘‘quality system”, the Centres ofExcellence representing the ‘‘new profession”. Both Norwayand the OGC have established a support organisationlooking for systemic trends: in the UK as a permanent publicentity; in Norway as an external research programme.The MoD reports on systemic trends at a top level. TheOGC looks only at systemic trends; Norway and theMoD also report on single cases. Norway has a centralizedco-ordination forum, while the OGC has established distributed‘‘Centres of Excellence”. (The MOD is already asingle, organised entity.)Comparison of the two frameworks highlights some differences.Vertical and horizontal integration is different. Anotable characteristic of the Norwegian framework, and itscomponents, is its simplicity, with a more macro-analyticperspective; the UK side is more comprehensive, and adequatefor more detailed control measures at a lower hierarchicallevel, being more micro-analytic from a PPM pointof view. The organisation implementing the UK governanceframework also supplies the answer to the question:‘‘how to achieve”, whereas the Norwegian framework onlyanswers ‘‘what to achieve”. The use of external consultantsis similar in both countries, but in Norway companies areassigned to carry out reviews; in the UK this is done byindividuals. The Norwegian framework is mandatory, soconsultants do not have to persuade the agencies and projectorganisations. In the UK, the assessment requires onlya small amount of effort from senior consultants [18],review roles are defined in detail, and there is a standardreport format; in Norway the QA-team performs a completeindependent analysis of the project, over manymonths, with roles agreed in the Forum; within theMoD, assessments are made internally, roles and the dossierformat being defined in detail. In Norway the controlmeasures were focused initially on cost and risk, but arePlease 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