2. Key messages: Apply project governance standards for project results . Risk of Governance Gaps" in project implementation, exponentially increasing in multi-stakeholder contexts such as infrastructure projects ? Upfront reduced chances for impact and sustainabilityResearch shows need for prof
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
1. Project Governance:Overcoming governance gaps to improve project results Patrick S. Renz, Prof. Dr. oec. HSG
2. 2 Key messages: Apply project governance standards for project results Risk of “Governance Gaps” in project implementation, exponentially increasing in multi-stakeholder contexts such as infrastructure projects ? Upfront reduced chances for impact and sustainability
Research shows need for professional steering and controlling of projects, i.e. project governance beyond project management
in a non ad-hoc way
Providing in-time management information, preventing post-mortem disillusions
Cities and financing partners ideally enhance their processes calling on new good project governance processes and structures, as a standard including project benchmarks
Research by Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, St. Gallen University and Aid Governance Foundation developed multi-stakeholder project governance and benchmark methodologies
3. 3 Research findings St. Gallen University:Governance Gaps Effective organisations are characterised by a clear positioning and a professional and innovative implementation process.
Suboptimal linkage between hierarchical levels or between multi-stakeholder influences may cause the loss or waste of project resources and impact potentials.
Scientific research calls this problem a governance-gap.
Organizations are often not aware of the systematic existence of such gaps.
4. 4 Research at Lucerne University & Aid Governance Foundation:26 projects in comparison
Participative assessment with 90 indicators.
Good results in the audit and mission management.
Sustainability, impact orientation (system) and stakeholder commitment show potentials.
Risks and integrity management usually function ad-hoc.
5. 5 Inner versus outer focus:Project Management vs Project Governance
6. 6 Six modules proved to be sufficient, but require operationalizationAn all-encompassing project governance model
System: leads to a systemic understanding of the project context. It enables the identification of meaningful projects.
Mission: facilitates the strategic direction and support role, as well as the control role.
Integrity: helps to identify and resolve challenges threatening the integrity of the project.
Extended stakeholder management ensures a broad identification and continuous monitoring of the claims and expectations of stakeholders
Risk: assures systemic risk identification and an integrative risk management cycle.
Audit: delivers a value-adding approach to the audits of projects.
7. 7 Relevance of good project governance
8. 8 Applied in a variety of projects and contexts Application in over 10 countries–throughout positive feedback Bangladesh