5.1 The project governance arrangements for any project should vary depending on the stage it has reached. Specific terms of reference will be needed for key personnel undertaking particular roles at any stage, as well as assurance that they have adequate skills, resources, and authority to undertake that role. Slow decision making and late changes of mind have been cited as a factor in a number of delayed projects.
5.2 Whatever project governance structure is implemented, careful consideration should be given as to how each of the following roles will be undertaken:
• Decision taking. Timely decisions, accurately communicated, are essential to project momentum, and such decisions must be capable of being implemented. Particularly at some stages, the ability of the project governance arrangements to resolve complex issues, some of which will have conflicting requirements that will need trade-offs and compromises, is fundamental to the progress of the project. Other examples of project decisions are: prioritisation; funding solutions; trade-offs between performance, cost and timescale; maturity to progress to the next stage; and project termination or cancellation;
• Supporting the project team and driving the progress of the project, including risk identification and management;
• Control and communication of information. This enables direction (e.g. about policy, related and dependent projects, change), guidance and best practice, corporate management information, assurance that the project is where it should be and visibility of key work streams, as well as any formal disclosure requirements;
• Advocacy. The project governance structure should identify the person or group that is responsible for the business case and for securing its approval. This is sometimes referred to as the project owner or Senior Responsible Owner. This role requires awareness of the broader perspective and an ability to put the project in that context; it includes championing the project and its benefits, and managing the project in the environment above the project team level. The role includes ensuring that the relationships with other projects forming a programme or capability are coordinated and that the programme risks are managed coherently. It is vital that project advocacy does not lie within the Authority's project delivery team. A lack of a senior champion within the Authority has often been cited as a reason for projects to falter;
• Accountability. Clarity is needed on who is accountable for the delivery of the project benefits;
• Neutral challenge. In their determination to deliver, project teams and stakeholders can become blinkered. There should be a forum for neutral questioning to give assurance that matters are fully understood and to avoid a conspiracy of optimism. Realism can be hard and there will be stages, for example prior to major approvals or key points such as launching the competition when an independent review should be commissioned to offer objective scrutiny;
• Stakeholder management. The stakeholders need to be kept involved so that they understand issues and are able to voice their support or opposition at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum. Engagement needs to be at a level that is proportionate to their importance to the project (this will vary over time). "Loose cannons" are not helpful. Part of stakeholder management is identifying the stakeholders who will be key at any step and whose acceptance of a decision is essential to ensure smooth progress. Leaving stakeholder buy-in until late in the day and then trying to convince them of the merits of previous decisions is a recipe for delay. Project governance can be an effective way of managing information flows and communication;
• Supply-side management, after selection of the preferred bidder; and
• Benefits audit. The methodology for tracking benefits delivery should be set at the project's outset, reviewed regularly and proactively managed within the project governance framework.