6.6.3  Owner resources

With Owners and NOPs sharing project risks and the alliance principles noting the concept of unanimous decision making, it makes sense for Owners to inject personnel into the alliance. Or does it?

As noted elsewhere in this report, while the responsibility to do certain things to deliver a project can be transferred by the Owner to the NOPs, accountability for the results cannot. In meeting its public accountability duty and its duty to the alliance under the PAA, what is the best use of Owner resources, what is the optimum number needed and what type of skills are required?

Alliance literature is generally silent on how many Owner representatives are required on an alliance, however, industry forums often promote the need for greater Owner representatives at all levels of the alliance.

A typical PAA will say something along the lines of:

The AMT will be made up of persons from each of the Participants and recruited from outside the resources of the Participants if necessary, selected on a 'best for project' basis...

and for the ALT

We will each appoint one or more senior representatives as members of the ALT

When putting forward Owner nominees for a project it generally starts at the procurement stage:

•  The EOI may list people who the Owner is nominating to be considered for particular positions.

•  The EOI/RFP will ask the tenderer (proponent NOP) to provide an organisation chart listing key positions and nominees for delivering the project.

•  The tenderer will generally ensure that the Owner's nominees are included in the organisation chart in the position for which they have been nominated.

In many instances the Owner's nominees will be well suited to undertake the role for which they have been nominated, in other instances they will not. If an Owner is not in the business of delivering infrastructure, how can they be expected to provide personnel (assuming they are available) on a best for project basis into an alliance created to deliver infrastructure?

Many of the reasons for including Owner personnel into the project alliance include:

•  Upskilling of Owner personnel with current industry best practice.

•  Sensitivity in dealing with key stakeholders.

•  Providing personnel when construction resources are scarce.

•  Providing the alliance with Owner personnel who have an intimate knowledge of the project often from developing the business case.

•  The benefits of collaboration including better operational input to design and a better understanding of the project value proposition.

•  Ensuring long term asset performance perspective.

•  Leadership provided by the Owner at the ALT level.

•  Owner systems that are required by the Owner.

It was found that there was a great variation in the number of Owner resources that participated in the alliances. The Study found that there was no clear correlation between the number and skill levels of Owner resources in the alliance and overall performance.

This was a surprising result and should be investigated further. It was noted that active senior level participation by the Owner on the ALT did provide enhanced clarity of alliance objectives. As noted by HM Treasury76, 76, the successful delivery of project outcomes is strongly dependent on the skills of the Owner.

The Owner should actively control project objectives and scope, provide leadership, have input into requisite quality and input into critical interfaces. To do this requires senior level commitment by the Owner organisation.