Governance Frameworks for Major Public Projects

VEDRAN ZERJAV is a Professor of Project Management at the Department of Industrial Economics and Technology Management at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. MORTEN WELDE is a Senior Researcher at the Concept Research Programme at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim. GRO HOLST VOLDEN is Programme Director for the Concept Research Programme at The Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.

• About the Editors xiiiNotes on Contributors xivIntroductory Note from the Editors xviiForeword xixGenerative AI Disclosure xxiAcknowledgements xxiiPart I Introduction to Governance of Public Investment Projects 11 Introduction – Governance of Public Investment Projects 3Vedran Zerjav, Gro Holst Volden and Morten Welde1.1 Governance Arrangements for Project Development and Implementation 31.2 Governance Theory – Conceptual Foundations 41.3 Rationale – Selection of Case Settings 51.4 How to Use This Book 61.5 Intended Audience and Use 6References 72 Introductory Concepts 9Terry Williams2.1 Introduction 92.2 Public Governance 92.3 Public Projects 112.4 Project Life Cycle 122.5 Governance of Single-Defined Public Projects 132.6 Governance of Projects 152.7 Post-project Assessments 172.8 Politics 182.9 Theories 192.10 Conclusion 21References 21Part II Case Studies of Project Governance Models 253 Norway 27Gro Holst Volden and Morten Welde3.1 Context and Policy Basis 273.2 The State Project Model 283.2.1 A Brief Historical Overview 293.2.2 The Stage-Gate Model with Phases and Decision Points 293.2.3 Idea Phase 293.2.4 Conceptual Phase 303.2.5 Pre-project Phase and Investment Decision 303.2.6 Construction and Operation 313.2.7 Projects That Must Adhere to the Model 313.2.8 Parties and Roles 323.2.9 Selected Topics 333.2.9.1 How Projects Are Initiated 333.2.9.2 Option Appraisal 333.2.9.3 Cost Estimation and Budget Management 333.2.9.4 Quality Assurance of Decision Documents 343.2.9.5 Follow-Up and Ex Post Evaluation 353.2.9.6 Guidance, Training, and Exchange of Experiences 353.2.9.7 Portfolio Management 353.3 Experience with the Model 363.3.1 Improved Practices 363.3.2 Remaining Challenges 373.3.3 Widely Accepted and Under Continuous Improvement 37References 384 The United Kingdom 41Richard Kirkham and Nicola Young4.1 Context and Policy Basis 414.2 The UK Project Governance Model 444.2.1 A Brief Historical Overview 444.2.2 The Stage Gate Review Model, Phases, and Decision Points 454.2.3 Business Cases and HM Treasury’s Green Book 474.2.4 Projects That Must Adhere to the Model 484.2.5 Selected Topics 484.2.5.1 The IPA ‘Project Routemap’ 494.2.5.2 IPA Project Delivery Capability Framework 494.2.5.3 The Construction Playbook 494.2.5.4 Post-project Reviews 504.3 Experience with the Governance Scheme 50References 515 Ireland 53Garret Doocey and Ed Hearne5.1 Context and Policy Basis 535.2 Project Governance in Ireland – The Infrastructure Guidelines 545.2.1 History and Development of the Model 545.2.2 How Projects Are Initiated 555.2.3 The Stage-Gate Model with Phases and Decision Points 555.2.3.1 AG1 – Strategic Assessment and Preliminary Business Case 565.2.3.2 AG2 – Project Design, Planning, and Procurement Strategy 565.2.3.3 AG3 – Post-Tender – Final Business Case 565.2.3.4 Implementation 575.2.3.5 Post-completion Review 575.2.4 Projects That Must Adhere to the Model 575.2.5 Institutions and Roles 575.2.5.1 The Accounting Officer 575.2.5.2 The Approving Authority 585.2.5.3 The Sponsoring Agency 585.2.5.4 Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform, and Digitilisation 595.2.5.5 Government 595.2.6 Option Appraisal 595.2.7 Cost Estimation and Budget Management 605.2.8 Quality Assurance of Decision Documents 615.3 Experience with the Model 625.3.1 Early Lessons 625.3.2 Portfolio Management and Budgeting for Contingency 635.3.3 Developing Capacity 635.3.4 Embedding the Reforms 64References 646 The Netherlands 67Niek Mouter6.1 Brief Outline and Description of the Context and Policy Basis for the Governance Model 676.2 Presentation of the Model 696.2.1 Brief Introduction 696.2.2 The Stage-Gate Model with Four Stages 696.2.2.1 Preparation Phase 706.2.2.2 Exploration Phase 726.2.2.3 Planning and Study Phase 736.2.2.4 Construction Phase 746.2.2.5 Portfolio Management 746.3 Experiences 746.4 Discussion 75References 767 Denmark 79Per Svejvig and Andreas Claus Hansen7.1 Context and Policy Basis 797.2 The Two State Project Models 807.2.1 A Brief Historical Overview 817.2.1.1 The New Infrastructure Budgeting 817.2.1.2 The State IT Project Model 817.2.2 The Stage-Gate Model with Phases and Decision Points 827.2.2.1 The New Infrastructure Budgeting Model 827.2.2.2 The Danish State IT Project Model 837.2.3 Projects That Must Adhere to the Model 847.2.4 Parties and Roles 857.2.4.1 The New Infrastructure Budgeting Model 857.2.4.2 The State IT Project Model 867.2.5 Selected Topics 877.2.5.1 Cost Estimation and Budget Management 877.2.5.2 Quality Assurance 877.2.5.3 Reporting of the Project Portfolio 887.3 Experience with the Two Models 88Acknowledgements 89References 898 Sweden 93Roger Pyddoke8.1 Introduction: Governance of Transport Infrastructure and Digital Investments 938.2 Presentation of the Model 948.2.1 Brief Introduction 948.2.2 Project Initiation 978.2.3 Institutions and Roles 978.2.4 Option Appraisal 978.2.5 Who Bears the Risk? 988.2.6 Quality Assurance 988.3 Experience with the Model 988.3.1 Culture and Traditions 988.3.2 Transparency and Trust 998.3.3 Cost Estimates in the Early-Phase (Choice of Concept) Studies 998.3.4 Third-Party Scrutiny of Building Start Documents 998.3.5 Compliance with Planning Regulations 1008.3.6 Ex Post Follow-Ups 1008.4 Some Observations on the Governance of Digital Investments 1018.5 Conclusion 102Acknowledgements 103References 1039 The United States 105George Edward Gibson9.1 Context and Policy Basis 1059.2 Overview of the Project Governance Schemes in Selected Agencies 1089.2.1 Budget Allocation Process 1089.2.1.1 General Services Agency 1089.2.1.2 Federal Highway Administration 1099.2.1.3 Department of Energy 1099.2.1.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1099.2.2 Overview of the Stage-Gate Project Models 1119.3 Experiences Using the Governance Scheme 114Acknowledgements 115References 11510 Canada (Federal Government) 117Olivier Choinière, Maude Brunet and Nathalie Drouin10.1 Context and Policy Basis 11710.2 Presentation of the Framework 11810.2.1 A Brief Historical Overview 11910.2.2 The Stage-Gate Model with Phases and Decision Points 12010.2.3 Projects That Must Adhere to the Model 12110.2.4 Institutions and Roles 12310.2.4.1 Governmental Project Management Framework 12410.2.4.2 Departmental Project Management Framework 12510.2.5 Selected Topics 12610.2.5.1 Front-End 12610.2.5.2 Option Appraisal 12610.2.5.3 Cost Estimation 12610.2.5.4 Quality Assurance 12710.2.5.5 Ex Post Evaluation 12710.2.5.6 Competencies 12710.3 Experience with the Model 12810.3.1 Remaining Challenges 128References 12911 Quebec 131Maude Brunet, Nathalie Drouin and Olivier Choinière11.1 Context and Policy Basis 13111.1.1 The ‘Directive’ 13111.1.2 A Brief Historical Overview 13211.2 The Stage-Gate Model with Phases and Decision Points 13311.2.1 Pre-project 13411.2.2 Initiating Phase 13411.2.3 Planning Phase 13511.2.4 Execution Phase 13511.2.5 Closing Phase 13611.2.6 Projects That Must Adhere to the Model 13611.2.7 Parties and Roles 13611.2.8 Selected Topics 13711.2.8.1 How Projects Are Initiated 13711.2.8.2 Option Appraisal 13811.2.8.3 Cost Estimation and Budget Management 13811.2.8.4 Quality Assurance of Decision Documents 13911.2.8.5 Follow-Up and Ex post Evaluation 13911.2.8.6 Guidance, Training, and Exchange of Experiences 13911.2.8.7 Portfolio Management 13911.3 Experience with the Model 14011.3.1 Remaining Challenges 141References 14112 Australia 143Dominic Ahiaga-Dagbui and Jon Frazer12.1 Context for the Governance Model 14312.2 Project Governance Models for Infrastructure Investments 14412.2.1 Structure of the Federal Government’s Gateway Review Process 14412.2.2 Assurance Reviews 14512.2.3 State-Based Gateway Reviews and Special Pathways 14612.2.4 Flexibility, Exceptions, Special Programmes, and the Gateway Review Model 14612.2.5 Project Initiation in the Gateway Review Process 14812.2.6 Options Analysis 14812.3 Experience with the Models 14912.3.1 Improvements in the Quality of Advice on Projects 14912.3.2 The Battle Over Infrastructure Decisions: Governance, Politics, and Options Analysis 15012.3.3 Ex Post Evaluation as Part of the Gateway Review Process 15212.3.4 Effectiveness of Assurance Review 15212.3.5 Poor Transparency 15412.4 Conclusion 154Acknowledgements 154References 15513 Governance Arrangements for EU-Funded and Nationally Funded Public Investment in the EU 157Cristiana Belu Manescu and Ana-Maria Dobre13.1 Introduction 15713.2 Governance Arrangements for EU Cohesion Policy-Funded Investments 15813.2.1 Principles 15913.2.2 Beneficiaries and Territorial Coverage 16013.2.3 Decision-Making, Programming, and Implementation 16013.2.3.1 Decision-Making and Programming 16013.2.3.2 Implementation: Programmes and Projects Selection and Delivery 16113.3 Governance Arrangements of Nationally Financed Investments 16213.3.1 Strategic Planning/Initiation of Project 16313.3.2 Elements of Appraisal and Selection of Large Infrastructure Projects 16413.3.2.1 Appraisal 16513.3.2.2 External Assurance Process 16613.3.3 Budgeting Aspects 16613.3.3.1 Budgeting to Complete Projects in Construction 16613.3.3.2 Budgeting for Maintenance 16713.3.3.3 Identifying New Fiscal Space 16813.3.4 Monitoring and Implementation 16813.3.5 Ex Post Reviews 16913.4 Conclusions 169References 17014 On the No-Objection at the World Bank: How a Practice Can Tell Us a Lot About Project Governance 173Lavagnon Ika and Javad Bakhshi14.1 Introduction 17314.2 The No-Objection and Its Governance Implications at the Project Level 17414.3 The No-Objection and Its Governance Implications at the Organizational Level 17614.4 No-Objection and Its Governance Implications at the International Governance Level 17914.5 Conclusions 181References 182Part III Comparative Analysis and Lessons for Policy Implementation 18515 The Country Frameworks Summarized 187Gro Holst Volden, Morten Welde and Vedran Zerjav15.1 The Countries Studied 18715.2 Establishment and Purpose of the Frameworks 18815.3 Scope of the Frameworks 19015.4 Parties and Roles 19315.4.1 Main Parties and Roles 19315.4.2 Other Parties and Roles 19515.5 Stage-Gate Processes 19515.6 Evidence of Positive Effects 19815.7 Lingering Issues with Project Governance 19915.8 Schemes May be Contested 20015.9 Summary of Experiences 201Reference 20116 Conclusions 203Vedran Zerjav, Morten Welde and Gro Holst Volden16.1 What Do We Learn and Where Do We Go from Here? 20316.2 Project Governance Models and Governance Theory 20716.3 Advice for Policymakers 208References 210Index 211