Governance and Stakeholder Management

Running head: GOVERNANCE AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT
Governance and Stakeholder Management
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1GOVERNANCE AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
1. The Governance problems and possible solutions...................................................................2
2a. Stakeholder Circle and their influence of power...................................................................4
2b. Key stakeholder identification...............................................................................................4
· Analysing interest, influence and distance of the key stakeholders......................................4
· Suggestion to manage the key stakeholders..........................................................................5
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................6

2GOVERNANCE AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT
Introduction
The Perth Athena Project is an under construction area mostly set up of a multi-purpose
sports and entertainment and had been planning to start operating by 2012. The project is a
classic case of misunderstood or lack of knowledge for project cost and timeframes to take the
responsibility of the scope, plan, tender and contract for the entire arena had failed to audit and
plan for the entire project and failed miserably (Walker, James and Mills 2015). The following
report would thus consist of a summary of five of the governance problems that had caused the
failure and their supposed solutions. This would be followed by a stakeholder circle that had
been influenced by the project failure and their powers in the project with a legend to clarify
each stakeholder. Using this stakeholder circle, their interests would be analyzed with their
influence and distance with the project and justification of their management strategies.
1. The Governance problems and possible solutions
There had been several wrong assumptions made and that had caused the failure of the
entire project. Out of the problems listed as per the case study, five of the Governance problems
are to be described in details as below with the possible feasible solutions they might have had to
mitigate the problems faced.
Governance problems in the project: There have been several governance problems
related to this project and these are as listed below:
 Lack of Governance structure: The project for Perth Athena had a tentative
time of completion by 2012, therefore the team for taking the responsibility of
handling the project had been appointed in 2007 (Liu, Yan, and Wilkinson 2016).
However, even after the project was handed over to the authorities, there have
been no appropriate structure established for the governing bodies to look after
the project and even a client agency was not appointed even by 2009.
 Lack of asset management framework: The team of Department of Housing
and Works or DHW had been appointed to scoping, planning, tendering and
contracting the arena for the upcoming project. However, the DHW team had
failed to put together the critical components of the Strategic Asset Management
Framework and also there were to applied internal frameworks from the DHW
team. There had been no key plans of management for the project.
 Inadequate setup of Project Team: The project team required for the Perth
Athena Project was faltering in the basic planning and the maximum trouble had
occurred in the resource planning for the project team (Nicholas and Steyn 2017).
The lack of resource allocation in a project management team would thus be
essentially problematic.
 Poor record keeping techniques: The problems that arose with applying wrong
techniques to keep the essential records about the project had disobeyed the State
Records Act of 2000. This fails to keep the appropriate evidence of planning,
reporting and monitoring which further fails to keep any records of the contract
negotiations.