Governance and Stakeholder Management in Perth Arena Project

Page 1
Governance and stakeholder management
Student
Institution

Page 2
Table of Contents
1. Governance issues and recommendations........................................................................................3
1.1. Insufficient governance structures.............................................................................................3
1.2. Non-compliance with the standard framework.........................................................................3
1.3. Resource inadequacies in a project team...................................................................................4
2. The stakeholder circle......................................................................................................................4
3. Key stakeholders..............................................................................................................................6
3.1. Project steering committee........................................................................................................6
3.2. DIF strategic projects- Executive Director................................................................................7
4. References........................................................................................................................................9

Page 3
1. Governance issues and recommendations
1.1. Insufficient governance structures
Every project has to be governed from its start to end in order to achieve its major objectives. These
objectives explain what to be achieved. Also, the monitoring of the project progress has to be done
in respect to the set objectives. In case of a major project like Perth arena, failing to put the essential
procedures and processes of governing the projects well made it suffer (Turner 1999). The
Department of Housing and Works (DHW) assumed the role of client and delivery agency which
was a mess. As a result, there was lack of enough supervision and also directions were not clear and
suitable for the project (Western Australian Auditor General 2010).
The Audit report published and called for the appointment of a client intermediary while DHW was
set to remain as the delivering agency. The client agency ensures that there is transparency in the
decisions of a project set outside the delivery agency (Patanakul, et al. 2016). This arrangement will
minimize the risks which may result from undocumented changes to time, scope and also the cost
which may lead to failure of the project (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). This may
allow the agency to have accountability and objectives which are clear towards that project. These
projects of a government must implement the processes of the project management which processes
relevant projects which must be well understood by the delivery agency, agency of clients and also
the project of the team (Zwikael and Smyrk 2005). DHW is supposed to lead the delivery agency to
do its mandate of implementing the planning which is formal, estimating and management of the
risks, monitoring and closing processes.
1.2. Non-compliance with the standard framework
According to the framework of asset management, it was set to guide process for management of
assets owned by the government. It is a mandatory that under SAMF that those projects should
have estimated costs which should not exceed one million dollars as per project definition plan
(Western Australian Auditor General 2010). Thus there was no any similar plan of that kind which

Page 4
was prepared for that Arena Perth Project at the time when evaluation performance was done
(Department of Treasury Western Australia 2015).
As per Project Definition Plan (PDP) mostly it involves the issues of delivery project and its risks
also attached in it. For PDT to be typically drafted well, it must comprise definition of assets,
methods of procurements, cost estimates, quality management, project schedule and changes in
management procedures (Patankul, et al. 2016). The PDP is a very crucial in identifying the
potential risk early and controlling any irrelevant changes to the constrains of that projects.
1.3. Resource inadequacies in a project team
On top of failure to establish a reliable governance structure, the team participating in the DHW
project was not adequate. Due to this, the critical constitutes of SAMF were easily decided upon
before properly analyzing the risk (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). The team project
consisted two officers assigned to projects on part time bases only. The administration daily left the
director of the project to fulfill the roles of both the superintendent and the principal. This is
because of the inadequate staffs in the DHW which is side made by the director of the project
which had to really on consultants for the same processes of project management.
This may end if the roles of the clients are separated delivery agency, this will make work easier
because the work commitments will be shared among the teams of both agencies. In this resource
allocation its capable of handling the important projects (Western Australian Auditor General
2010). The issues are overcome by analyzing resource constraints in team project and then
resolving bottleneck problems where the projects may not be assigned as per the demand.
2. The stakeholder circle
This is a circle which addresses the premises which a project can exist if it is only informed in
consent of its own stakeholder community (Cooper, Edgett, and Kleinschmidt. 2000). The
stakeholder was developed by the Lynda Bourne. It is a process which involves five steps which
include identifying, prioritization, engagement and monitoring of all stakeholders.