Infrastructure Project Complexity and Decentred Governance The Role Of Project Practitioners Presentation to Annual Conference Political Studies Association 27 MARCH 2018 Shaun Drabsch Griffith University 1
Complexity in Governance • Each of the panel today are discussing how individual participants bring their own logics or rationalities to a governance process – in the Dutch executive, a PPP in Egypt and accountability processes in Brazil • I am undertaking a PhD research into how those participating in the development of infrastructure projects interact within the governance framework • How do they deal with complexity as a group? • Can the clash of individual rationalities create uncertainties and ambiguity in the project as well? • My field is economic policy but my literature review has led me to a detailed analysis of project management theory • Both Project Management and Public Policy theory are now focussing on the role of individuals in the practice of governance • Keen to explore the potential for interpretive political science to help explain the behaviours that emerge despite the organisational frameworks that are supposed to contain them PSA Conference Cardiff – March 2018 2
What is infrastructure and why is it so important? • Physical assets to support the delivery of public services • Discrete projects involving large investments • Staged process of analysis, procurement and delivery • Multi-level decision making structure • Project teams - a network of agency representatives and external contractors • Taxpayers want best asset solutions to support best service delivery at best value for money DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 3
Introduction In Australia there is a curious desire to depoliticise infrastructure projects. Using rigorous process as a moat to protect projects from political interference and imposing new layers of governance such as independent assessment bodies. Large investments to transform services to the public are at the very heart of the public interest. Complexity of projects and a consistently poor record of performance forces researchers to look for something to blame - many focus on community opposition to change Much of the project management literature prescribes the cure for governance failure as more governance Internal social forces of project organisation may be a significant source of uncertainty as individual agents pursue their own agendas despite, or possibly because of, the governance frameworks DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 4
The scope of megaproject research • Strong interest in large infrastructure ‘megaprojects’ Flyvberg 2003, Lessard & Miller • Longitudinal studies of project performance 2000 Hertogh & Westerveld 2010, • Case studies - mainly transport projects Giezen 2012, Koppenjan 2014 • Common starting point is large projects are Chapman 2016 immensely complex • Research focussed on the possible sources of Ward & Chapman 2003, Hertogh this complexity & Westerveld 2010 DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 5
The problem of project performance • Infrastructure Australia (2013) reported that 48% of projects failed to meet their baseline time, cost and quality objectives • Flyvberg (2003) researched 258 projects over 70 years • 9 out of 10 projects failed to control their costs by an average 28% • Performance was consistent throughout the 7 decades • New models have been tried – PPPs • Frustration with cost and time of procurement process and effectiveness of outcomes (Infrastructure Australia 2015, Productivity Commission 2014, Global Infrastructure Hub 2016) • Complexity – a growing realisation that projects are more about managing an organisational process than simply executing delivery of a physical output DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 6
Complexity in projects • Technical and logistical variability is to be expected Winter 2006, Hallgren & Soderholm, • Uncertainty can arise throughout a project process Morris 2011 • Reducing uncertainty - some risks can be identified, Giezen 2012, Liu 2017 likelihood assessed and consequence estimated Perminova 2008, Taleb 2007 • Some have observed that not all risk is manageable Giezen 2012, Sanderson 2012 • risk is not uncertainty, but one implication of it • uncertainty could positively benefit a project Atkinson 2006, van Marrewijk 2010, • Ambiguity can arise in relationships within the project Ward & Chapman 2003 and from lack of clarity in strategic direction DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 7
The certainty of uncertainty • Complexity – scale, technical, organisational, external stakeholders • Risk – variability, probablistic, predictable, manageable with systems • Uncertainty – ambiguity, lack of clarity in strategic direction, ‘black swans’ • The role of ambiguity is often ignored or overlooked in thinking about risk and uncertainty as the focus of practitioners tends to be drawn to those risks which are manageable DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 8
Black Swans are not so rare… DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 9
Improving project performance • Flyvbjerg’s core conclusion - “no learning seems to take place” • Project information is often not being shared with future projects • Project participants rely on their own knowledge/traditions/beliefs • What is stopping performance from improving? • Uncertainty and increasing complexity in major projects • Teams struggle to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances • Reliance on static systems and governance • Need dynamic and adaptive practices of governing • Willingness to reorient to new observed facts • Timely access to data, the means to quickly analyse that data and recalibrate the plan DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 10
Is governance enough? • Is project failure simply a function of poor governance? • Are there elements beyond the execution of Pinto & Winch 2016, Morris delivery? 2011 De Bruijn 2011 • The social element – is a project really an organisational process? Van Marrewijk 2008, Sanderson • Radical indeterminacy – the future is socially 2012 Hertogh & Westerveld 2010 constructed • Important role of individuals acting within a Hallgren & Soderholm 2011 governance framework – dispersal of influence • Projects as Practice – praxis, practices & practitioners Bevir & Rhodes 2017, Atkinson 2006, Muller 2011 • Confluence with ‘decentred governance’ theory in public policy DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 11
Decentred governance • Network governance – dispersed but interdependent players jostling for strategic input Schmidt 2014 • Metagovernance – the State overseeing the Bevir & Rhodes 2017 application of governance through networks • Governance is seen as the core rationality - but is van Marrewijk 2008, Atkinson only a goal for those wishing to keep control 2006 • Other individual project actors will seek to apply Bevir & Rhodes 2017, Muller their own rationality to the application of 2011, Sanderson 2012, Winter governance frameworks, shaped by their ‘webs of 2006 belief’ DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 12
Explaining project performance • Failure to learn from past projects despite a growing body of knowledge. • Need for a richer understanding of the actuality of projects (Sanderson) • The practice of governing • how practitioners interact within governance frameworks • what shapes their behaviours • Categories of uncertainty have been identified but further work on the source of these uncertainties and what causes them to arise would be instructive to future project practitioners. • Interpretive political science provides a vehicle to explain what is occurring in dynamic project organisations DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 13
My research question • What can the practices of governing explain about the effect of uncertainty and complexity on project performance? • Is it true that some uncertainties cannot be ‘risk managed’ and how well placed are governance mechanisms to deal with these uncertainties? • To what extent do the approaches of ‘projects as practice’ and ‘decentred governance’ explain the presence of ambiguity in the practice of governing infrastructure projects? • Can the ‘pra c tices’ or ‘webs of belief’ and their interpretation into ‘praxis’ by individual ‘practitioners’ help to explain observed behaviour in project assessment and delivery? • Do these webs of belief help or constrain the recognition and application of learnings from past projects? What is otherwise impeding practitioners from drawing upon the lessons of the past? DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 14
Case Study – Gold Coast Light Rail • 1996 - congested contiguous urban corridor needs a transport solution • Light Rail the early favourite vs dedicated bus corridor • 2001 – Preliminary Business Case • 2004 – Detailed Business Case • 2005 -2008 Various revisions • 2009 – Investment Decision • 2012 – Stage One opens • 2018 – Stage Two opens DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 15
Case Study - competing rationalities or webs of belief • Transport Department – public transport charter • Gold Coast City Council – road congestion and tourist mobility • State Development Department – open mind to delivery options, fixed track underpins development • Treasury – buses are cheaper, anti-PPP and anti-debt • Federal Government – aversion to infrastructure spending • External Advisors – complex transactions earn more fees DRAFT IN CONFIDENCE 16
Recommend
More recommend
