PPMP20010: Detailed Project Governance Report for Kerb Works

The provided report details the project governance for the Kerb Works Project, outlining the roles, responsibilities, and performance criteria of key members, including the Project Board, Director of Projects, and Project Manager. It describes governance arrangements, authorization points, delegation, information validity, scrutiny processes, status reporting, improvement strategies, and stakeholder engagement. The report highlights the importance of the Project Board's oversight, the Director's coordination, and the Project Manager's daily site coordination. It also addresses the relationship to the portfolio, emphasizing quality and safety standards. The report emphasizes the significance of communication, documentation, and adherence to the project's vision for successful project execution. The report also includes references to supporting materials and documents.

PROJECT GOVERNANCE REPORT
KERB WORKS PROJECT
PPMP20010 Project Governance
Report
1 PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Name: Kerb Works Project
Date: 20th September 2017
Project Ownership: Project Board Members, Execution Farm
Prepared by: Director Projects
Distribution List: Project Board Member, TMR
High Government Officials, Queensland
Other Board Members, Execution Farm
Tejas Mehta, Project Manager, TMR
Project Manager, Execution Farm
2 OVERALL PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY
The responsibility for this project lies with the Project Board member of the Execution
farm. The person or the group who has the full clarity about the objectives and aim of
executing the project actually takes the front driver seat and drives the project. The
individual or group should also have the equal knowledge about the internal behaviour of
the Farm, so it can only be fulfilled by some very powerful person of the farm that is the
board members. The obligation stays with the board individuals in regards to the
achievement or disappointment of the task and its destinations. In this case, the Project
Manager is merely a daily coordinator for the site related work.
3 ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
The roles, responsibilities and performance criteria for this project consist of following
members and their roles as below:
Sl.
No.
Member Roles, Responsibilities and Performance criteria
1 Member of Project
Board
Correspondence management among the powerful
partners and high profile stakeholders
Developing the Project management, Human Resource
management Plan, Procurement Management Plan etc.
Responsible for all sorts of legal bindings
Measure the execution in the middle of the project life
cycle stages
Fix the procedure of executing the project
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 1

PROJECT GOVERNANCE REPORT
KERB WORKS PROJECT
Creator of Business case & Project Charter
Shall oversee and responsible for the job in kerb works
project and maintain the change management process
Also responsible for arranging funds
2 Director of Project Coordinate between the Board members and Project
Manager
Follow Board members; instructions
Daily coordination of site by Project Manager
3 Project Manager,
Execution Farm
Coordinate daily activity at kerb works
See the daily targets from Director and provide daily
progress
Daily coordinate among the team
4 GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
The governance arrangements for this project consist of many layered officials, like the
Project Board members are at top who decides all the performance measures, required
progress rate at site, coordinate with TMR Board Members, take responsibility for
maintain the quality at site and cash flow curve (Government of Western Australia,
2017).
Then the Project Director, who needs to deal with Tejas Mehta and Project manager of
Execution farm daily. If there should arise an occurrence of any adjustment in degree or
quality prerequisite at site, it is the obligation of Project Manager to check the change
necessity alongside the technical HODs and after approval, need to forward upward way
to senior official or Project Director. At that point Project Director should re-approve the
prerequisite and include couple of more data like its effect on calendar and cost and
forward to board individuals for taking proper choice. In the event of any further inquiry
by board individuals the record might move again in same channel. In the event that the
extent of work increments because of some change in outline and particular which was
required to be executed for satisfying the site condition, for example, while executing at
the right side of the kerb the extra road was required to be blocked to avoid collision and
was not envisaged before. So there was additional scope of work. So for this situation,
site Project Manager need to simply gather the site data and pass on to senior official or
Project Director, at that point senior official or Project Director should confirm the change
either by going by at site and do a physical confirmation or from the site archives and
photos. After the check of record is done, the Project Director need to ascertain the
change necessity and reconsidered bill of amounts. Alongside above computation,
Project Director likewise need to figure the impact of progress that is the effect of
additional extent of work on time and cost of the Kerb works project. Modify the finish of
above exercise Project Director need to forward the report to the Project Board Members
for validation. Then Board member may appoint some third party consultant to check the
information and then may take some decision.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 2

PROJECT GOVERNANCE REPORT
KERB WORKS PROJECT
5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE PORTFOLIO
The Relationship to the Portfolio for this project is to streamline a definitive objective of
the association with that of the Kerb works by maintaining the quality and safety standard
as per contract terms and all the concrete work is required to be done at night. The
principle relationship is to keep up a similar target of the association with that of the
program and further with project. The kerb works being the road work and is being done
in between a running road and all the passer-by can have a look at the quality of the
work. So the reputation of the farm is interlinked with the quality of work at site. This way
the portfolio is required to be interlinked with the project to get benefited by sharing the
common goal.
6 AUTHORISATION POINTS
The authorisation points for this project are the Board Members only or any third party
who is being nominated by them, but not the Project Director or Project Manager.
All the decisions taken by the members need to be documented to forward the message
among the farm to all employees including Project Manager to follow and get aligned
with their vision.
7 DELEGATION
The delegation arrangements for this project are only limited to Board members. If they
wish, they can delegate to any other third party. Resource management is under the
purview of Board Members and Project Director as it were (Sankaran, Remington, & &
Turner, 2008). While couple of obligations should be assigned for appropriate execution
of the task like the day by day coordination of the task list, cost and scope with Tejas
Mehta and own team are delegated to Project Director.
8 INFORMATION VALIDITY
The manner in which information validity for this project is assured is only been done by
the project Board Members and the Project Manager and Project Director are the
facilitators of the information or data. All the data with respect to objective,
acknowledgment criteria, investigate and of extension things and so forth are just passed
from the board level toward Project Manager through Project Directors.
9 SCRUTINY
The scrutiny arrangements for this project are in the purview of Project Board Members
of Kerb works. So it can be done by the representative of the Board Members or Board
Member by own. Like all other management plan, the scrutiny management pan
development is also the responsibility of the Board Members.
10 STATUS REPORTING
The status reporting arrangements for this project are the Project Manager need to
collect their daily plan and handover the progress to the Project Director.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 3

PROJECT GOVERNANCE REPORT
KERB WORKS PROJECT
11 IMPROVEMENT
The improvement arrangements for this project are the essential viewpoint which is the
primary vision of board individuals as every one of the choices with respect to project’s
are taken by them, so it too remains their obligation to deal with a straightforwardness,
clarity, receptiveness, dependably approachableness to board individuals and so forth to
keep up the inspiration level and feeling of being engaged with project choices among
the colleagues. For keeping up the above criteria all the important activities like open
assembling on normal premise must be done to get clear thought with respect to
execution level of the project.
12 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The stakeholder engagement arrangements for this project are required to be kept up by
board individuals with the powerful outer partners and inward partners of Kerb works
project. Undertaking board individuals from contractual worker association need to deal
with the high power and high intrigue level TMR board individuals and Superintendent of
MRC on everyday schedule to trade the task execution and issues raising up from site
level or endorsement of some change ask for or for getting endorsement of some
statutory applications which are required to be acquired for keeping up legitimate
advance at site. So the project board individuals must have formal and casual
correspondence alongside above partners. Board individuals should likewise have every
day correspondence with the inner partner to adjust the basic vision of the association
alongside that of the task and colleagues. Undertaking chief need to speak with every
single inside partner just however on regular schedule, as this position turns into the
extension between board individuals from pathway development project and the
execution colleagues at site
References
Government of Western Australia. (2017). Good governance guide for public sector agencies.
Retrieved September 18, 2017, from ttps://publicsector.wa.gov.au:
https://publicsector.wa.gov.au/public-administration/public-sector-governance/good-
governance-guide-public-sector-agencies
Sankaran, S., Remington, K., & & Turner, C. (2008). Relationship between project
governance and project performance: a multiple case study of shutdown maintenance
projects in a maritime environment. Newtown Square, PA: PMI® Global Congress
2008.
ENTER YOUR NAME WITH STUDENT ID PAGE 4