The NOPs felt that although the content and timing of the interactive workshops were up to the proponent, the NZTA advisors still wanted to exercise a degree of control over content and attendance, particularly in the early part of the TOC Development Phase. This was perhaps to gain assurance that the NOPs "knew what they were doing" and that value was being generated. Later in the TOC Development Phase, once the interactive process had bedded down, this control was perceived to relax.
The defined communication channels used during the TOC Development Phase allowed the proponents to reasonably correspond openly with NZTA on key issues during this period in a relatively collaborative manner. However, further improvements could have been achieved if:
• there was further clarity on probity requirements;
• NZTA applied sufficient and capable resources to the project during the Development Phase; and
• more time was allocated for the preparation of Project proposals during the Development Phase.
The proponents trusted NZTA's judgement to maintain appropriate confidentiality. Proponents were able to have "commercial in confidence" discussions on issues they raised, as well as on a key issue (accepting the risks of the statutory consents) that was raised by NZTA during the TOC Development Phase.
In terms of effectiveness, the interactive process achieved clarity of scope and a good understanding of risks.