Evaluating Governance & Stakeholder Management in Perth Arena Project

This report examines the governance and stakeholder management issues within the Perth Arena project. It identifies insufficient governance structures, non-compliance with standard asset management frameworks, and resource inadequacies within the project team. The report highlights the importance of clear client-delivery agency roles, formal planning, risk management, and adequate staffing. It discusses stakeholder prioritization using Lynda Bourne's stakeholder circle, identifying key stakeholders such as the Project Steering Committee and the DIF Strategic Projects-Executive Director, and analyzes their interests, influence, and management strategies. The report emphasizes the need for regular communication and responsiveness to stakeholder concerns to ensure project success. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments for students.

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.

Page 5
The stakeholders are 19 in number and they are identified in Perth Arena project all of them. There
is another step of prioritizing the stakeholders based on their powers, urgency and also in their
proximity (Bourne and Walker 2006). Urgency of the stakeholders relates on the effort applied on
that stakeholder which shall cater for the same project.
The top 15 stakeholders
1. Recreation and sports minister (upwards)
2. Project director DTF (upwards)
3. Project director –venues west (upwards)
4. Works and housing minister (upwards)
5. Strategic ministers DTF ( upwards)
6. CEO- venues west (upwards)
7. Construction BGC (downwards)
8. Steering Project group (upwards)

Page 6
9. Project control group (upwards)
10. The cabinet (upwards)
11. Board – venues west (upwards)
12. Consultants – DTF (sideways)
13. Under Treasurer- DTF(upwards)
14. Consultants- venues west (sideward)
15. Expenditure and economic reform committee (upwards)
3. Key stakeholders
3.1. Project steering committee
This is a committee that was created by Perth Arena Project to ensure that all clients interest,
VenueWest, are addressed in the entire project (Walker, Bourne and Shelley 2008). The committee
also reforms the strategic advisor roles to the recreation and sport minister for the chief executive
officer and also the DTF project strategic.
Interest
This is a concern level of a stakeholder which has for the whole project. This committee has
representatives from sport and recreation minister, venueswest, strategic DTF projects, solicitor’s
state office and the DTF (Bourne and Walker 2006). As the committee in role advisory to all
clients, the interests of the projects are rated high-medium.
Influence
This influence also corresponds the stakeholder extend the involvement of the project. This
committee was appointed to ensure that there is a strategic position for all projects and they are not
involved from day to day projects (Project Management Institute 2013). The committee looks after
the risks and observes them for a better treatment hence its influence is always rated from medium
to high.

Page 7
Distance
The committee gets report as per the progress of the project. The committee is remote to that
project hence it’s not directly involved (VenuesWest 2011).
Management strategies
The steering committee has an altitude which is positive to the project. To involve the inclination,
the team project should manage the committee very close. The regular communication is able to
improve the support of that project (Ackermann and Eden 2011). Also the project management
should respond and acknowledge the concerns of steering committee.
3.2. DIF strategic projects- Executive Director
The DHW works has the responsibility for planning, procurement and scoping of Perth Arena. In
2009, Office of Strategic Projects (OSP) became reorganized to DTF (Department of Treasury and
Finance) where the DTF took the role of agency delivery which is to ensure the projects are
delivered according to the set and predetermined requirements.
Interests
Their roles are to oversee execution project and to ensure that the requirements of a contract are
satisfactory met (Godbold 2016). This is the clients reporting channel and they also translate the
high interested vest in a project as executive director is questioned especially if the project
collapses.
Influence
Executive director is attached by projects so as to ensure that the report of the project and the
progress is delivered (Western Australian Auditor General 2010). This position has minimal control
in decision making and it’s involved in high level agency report. Stakeholders have a huge impact
on the success or failure of this project.

Page 8
Distance
Executive director looks after Perth construction hence the Project director, team project report and
consultants are used more in decision making than any other. The influence of stakeholder is close.
Management strategies
The DTF has a great influence to the project the power is very low thus it is always informed the
progress of the project. The DTF represents on steering committee so that they may privy the
committee future decision making (Project Management Institute 2013). These roles are very
critical as the scope changes are planned and forecasted for ahead of time.

Page 9
4. References
Ackermann, Fran, and Colin Eden. 2011. “Strategic management of stakeholders:
Theory
and practice.” Long range planning 44, no. 3 179-196.
Bourne, Lynda, and Derek HT Walker. 2006. “Visualizing stakeholder influence-two
Australian examples.” Project Management Journal 37, no. 1 5-21.
Carroll, Archie, and Ann Buchholtz. 2014. Business and society: Ethics, sustainability,
and
stakeholder management. South-Western Cengage Learning.
Cooper, Robert G., Scott J. Edgett, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt. 2000. “New problems,
new
solutions: making portfolio management more effective.”
Research-Technology Management 43, no. 2 18-33.
Department of Treasury Western Australia. 2015. “Strategic Asset Management
Framework - Overview.” 14 January. Accessed 29 December, 2017.
https://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Treasury/Strategic_Asset_
Managem ent/01_SAMF_Overview.pdf.
—. 2015. “Strategic Asset Management Framework - Project Definition Plan.”
Accessed 2 January, 2018.
https://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Treasury/Strategic_Asset_
Managem ent/17_SAMF_Project%20Definition%20Plan.pdf.
Godbold, Alistair. 2016. Project management skills: client-side vs delivery. 3
May. Accessed January, 2018. https://www.apm.org.uk/blog/project-
management-skills-client-side-vs-delivery/.
Patanakul, Peerasit, Young Hoon Kwak, Ofer Zwikael, and Min Liu. 2016. “What
impacts
the performance of large-scale government projects?” International
Journal of Project Management 34, no. 3 452-466.
Project Management Institute. 2013. Project Management Body of Knowledge.
Turner, Rodney. 1999. The Handbook of Project-Based Management. McGraw-Hill.

Page 10
Program and Portfolio Management Assignment 3

Page 11
Page 11
VenuesWest. 2011. “Annual Report 2010 - 2011.” Annual Report 2010-2011.
Walker, Derek, Lynda Margaret Bourne, and Arthur Shelley. 2008. “Influence,
stakeholder mapping and visualization.” Construction Management and
Economics 26, no. 6 645-658.
Western Australian Auditor General. 2010. “The Planning and
Management of Perth Arena.” Performance Examination Report.
Zwikael, Ofer, and John Smyrk. 2015. “Project governance: Balancing
control and trust in dealing with risk.” International Journal of
Project Management 33, no. 4 852-862.