government project management case study

Featured Cases

Crianca Feliz: Brazil’s Ambitious Early Childhood Program

LaToya Cantrell, Mayor of New Orleans: A Political ‘Outsider’ Takes Charge of City Hall

Paying to Improve Girls’ Education: India’s First Development Impact Bond

Colombia’s Peace Negotiations: Finding Common Ground After 50 Years of Armed Conflict

The Mosquito Network: Global Governance in the Fight to Eliminate Malaria Deaths

Operation Pufferfish: Building and Sustaining a Department of Neighborhoods and Citizen Engagement in Lansing, Michigan

"The Toughest Beat": Investing in Employee Well-Being at the Denver Sheriff Department

Charting a Course for Boston: Organizing for Change

Expert Tips on Performing Effective Project Management in Government

By Kate Eby | October 29, 2020 (updated September 15, 2023)

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

Link copied

In government agencies, strong project management helps ensure that government programs are effective and cost-efficient for taxpayers. This article includes tips and expert advice on performing effective government project management.

Include on this page, you’ll find the role of project management in government , examples of successful implementation of project management in government organizations , a roadmap for assessing your agency's PM performance (and how to improve it), and tips on overcoming challenges within government to achieve strong project management . 

The Role of Project Management in Government

While government workers have used project management in project-based work for 50 years, they have increasingly used PM to drive public sector work forward in recent decades. Today, project management is used in all sectors and levels of government.

Below are some details about project work and project management within government agencies:

• Many people, including congressional leaders, political appointees, government workers, and citizens, advocate for improved and more efficient government operations. Most government improvement initiatives use project management to improve government operations.
• Many government projects today must deliver value in a limited amount of time and with limited resources, due to cutbacks in funding for various government agencies.
• Government agencies increasingly employ the principles of project management . But like all organizations, they still often waste significant money on inefficient project work. The Project Management Institute’s 2020 Pulse of the Profession report found that all organizations, including government organizations, waste 11.4 percent of each dollar invested in projects through poor performance — that’s $114 million for every $1 billion invested.

• Government agencies are outsourcing more work to private contractors, which requires government workers to manage the contractors, along with government employees, to move projects forward.
• Government organizations want to use effective project management to demonstrate their own value and viability.
• Project management provides a framework for better customer service, which is increasingly important within government agencies.
• As in private industry, government organizations need to give the public around-the-clock secure access to data, which requires more efficient work.

Senapathy says people wrongly perceive that good project management isn’t as important in government because it isn’t profit-driven, unlike private industry. “It is a misconception that project management is necessary only where profitability matters,” he says. “The government has similar responsibilities to the taxpayer. For every tax dollar that’s paid, you are accountable. The deal is everyone is eventually accountable. There is no free lunch.”

In fact, Senapathy says, “I think it is even more critical for the government to be invested in project management than private enterprise. Government projects are subjected to microscopic scrutiny from individual citizens in informal forums to formal congressional hearings.”

Stephen Townsend, Director, Network Programs, for the Project Management Institute , says the government must deliver value for its citizens, just as corporations do for shareholders. “That value can be through national security, roads, and infrastructure or service programs,” he says. “A strong project management discipline helps government deliver the right solutions efficiently and effectively.”

Project Management Guide

Your one-stop shop for everything project management

Ready to get more out of your project management efforts? Visit our comprehensive project management guide for tips, best practices, and free resources to manage your work more effectively.

View the guide

Benefits of Government Project Management

Here are some additional benefits of good project management for government operations:

• It provides insights into whether a project is worth taking on. “If the project has little likelihood to succeed or represents a highly risky venture, a good business case and review process can stop agencies from making poor investments,” says Townsend.
• It puts in place structures that enable teams to do work consistently across all projects and throughout the organization.
• It increases efficiency in responding to disasters or disturbances, including a pandemic. “In terms of the pandemic, having a consistent organization process allows for a seamless integration of work,” says Senapathy. “What if project management didn’t exist? The government entities and employees would all be scrambling.” Project management work and philosophies “allow us not to be reactive but proactive,” Senapathy says. “This pandemic has been the single biggest example of how quickly this country can respond ... Project management can do brilliant things.”
• It helps avoid the reinvention of project tools and techniques for each project that you take on.
• It provides workers with access to past data, past work, and best practices in project management, which helps ensure more consistent and better project execution.
• It monitors whether project deliverables are completed (and on time).
• It helps employees understand their responsibilities in completing the work.
• It helps project teams and leaders report on progress to agency and government leaders.
• It offers a structured proving ground for new project management strategies.
• It allows agencies to better adapt to new technologies, because they become part of structured project management.
• Project work can affect a range of stakeholders, including many outside the government agency doing the work. Good project management allows workers to better communicate with those stakeholders and address concerns.
• It allows people to better understand effective ways to solve problems.

Challenges of Government Project Management

Workers will encounter a number of challenges to managing government projects, including poor support from government leaders, government rules that impede the work, and limited money for worker training.

Here are some challenges to good government project management:

• Limited Knowledge about Project Management Principles: For years, government agencies inconsistently used standard project management principles in their work. Today, more government workers understand project management, but many senior managers still have limited knowledge that can affect how they deploy project management.
• Poor Institutional Support: Because of limited knowledge, leaders of government agencies may not understand the value of project management. This means many agencies offer little financial support or other resources.  
• Instability of Sponsorship: Government tends to experience high turnover in agency leadership, and elections can bring in newly elected leaders to oversee these agencies. All of this change can hinder progress on government projects.

• Agency Employees Dispersed Geographically: Some government agencies have employees in a number of geographically separate offices, which can make overseeing a PM team more difficult. (This may be more common in government than in the private sector.) 
• Government Hiring and Employment Policies: To complete a project, team leaders may rely on specialists drawn from different areas within an agency or with other agencies. Government hiring and employment policies can make that difficult.
• Less Effective Collaboration within Agencies and Departments: It’s not unusual to have structures within private companies that impede collaboration, but that tendency is more pronounced within and among government agencies. “The interplay between various departments is much more synchronous in private industry than in government,” says Senapathy. “The interplay doesn’t work as efficiently [in government].”
• Overall Bureaucratic Environment: Even beyond identifiable rules and regulations, government agencies often operate in an environment where written and unwritten rules dominate all processes. This means they are often resistant to change or quick action on problems.
• Employees Who Don’t Understand or Use Project Management Lexicon: Project management training allows workers to understand common language pertaining to effective project management. Government employees can be ignorant of or resistant to that language. “Integrating modern project management lexicon into an established culture of business language that has been in use for decades presents unique challenges of organizational change management,” says Senapathy.
• Incremental Thinking Is the Norm: Governmental agencies often only accept slow or incremental change, if any at all.
• Ingrained Processes and Tools: Governments often lack the drive that exists in many private companies to continuously innovate to improve their tools and processes.
• Minimal Funds for Training: Government agencies might have limited funds to train leaders in project management. Those funds often are also the first to be cut when budgets need to be pared down. “Prioritizing training for program management roles across several leadership levels and multiple business lines may be a significant challenge since the education-related budget is one of the earliest victims of belt-tightening,” says Senapathy.

How Good Project Management Can Bring Positive Change in Government

Good project management can do more than bring about successful projects. It can change how government works, increase flexibility, and engender a culture of innovation within government agencies.

Here are some significant ways that project management can change government agencies:

• Project Management Can Be a Lever of Change: Many government agencies are change-averse. Good project management inherently brings about positive change. Team members should recognize their potential role as change agents.
• Project Management Increases Flexibility: As mentioned above, government agencies often operate within bureaucratic, inflexible environments. But good project management should allow agency leaders and employees to make needed adjustments in how they plan and execute work.
• Project Management Fosters Innovation: Government agencies are increasingly looking for ways to better serve the public. Much of that government innovation springs from project management. An example is a new employee incentive program in the federal government called Securing Americans Value and Efficiency ( SAVE ). The program rewards employees who come up with ideas that improve efficiencies and save money.

How to Implement a Project Management Culture in Government

It can be challenging to implement a project management culture in government. But, management leaders can do it — they just have to focus on everything from education and training to the development of methodologies to appropriate oversight.

First, federal agencies should be aware of job candidates with a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification from the Project Management Institute. The certification recognizes a level of knowledge and expertise in project management. Many project managers, in private industry and government, have that certification.

ESI International, a Virginia-based project management training company, has identified several other steps to implement project management within a government organization, including the following:

• Education and Training: Proper worker education and training provide the foundation for the cultural changes that can foster good project management.
• Maturity and Capability Assessments: Organizations must assess and understand their strengths and weaknesses in doing project management work. They should also make improvements where needed.
• Methodology Development: Leaders must create and follow consistent methodologies that guide how workers tackle a project. Doing so can help workers avoid having to reinvent processes and tools for every project.
• Project Execution Support: Organizations must support project managers in the work on actual projects. This might include hiring experienced coaches and mentors who can transfer their knowledge to workers so that they help projects succeed.
• Center of Competence: A centralized office can provide strategic oversight to projects throughout a government agency. It can also provide project management expertise and support.
• Strategic Oversight: Top leaders in an organization must stay involved in the organization’s project management process. They can make sure the organization’s projects align the organization’s overall goals.

What Is Earned Value Management in Project Management?

Earned value management is a method that tracks how much work has been accomplished on a project and how much of the budget has been spent on a project at any point.

Earned value management is an important part of project management in government and often required in federal government projects. The Department of Defense and NASA has used earned value management since the 1960s.

Using this method, PMs track total project work finished, along with hours and money spent on a project. They can then compare that to the total project budget. That allows team members to assess whether they are ahead of or behind schedule. And it allows them to assess whether they are over or under budget in their spending.

“Earned value management is one of the higher-emphasized areas in all of government project management,” says Ramirez. “That’s how you get visibility into what’s going on.”

A Program Management Framework to Help Guide Federal Technology Purchases

In 2015, the Project Manage Institute published a white paper that offers guidance and a framework for how federal agencies can use project management to improve the way they buy new or modify existing computer systems. You can read more about the PMI Standards Framework . 

Common Project Management Frameworks

Regulations, guidelines, and certifications for federal government.

In 2016, the federal government approved a law to improve project management in federal work, established other regulations governing project management, and has created a special certification for government managers who prove their competence in project management. All of these are detailed below.

Program Management Improvement Accountability Act

In December 2016, President Obama signed into law the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA). In June 2018, the federal Office of Management and Budget issued Memorandum M-18-19 that established the federal government’s initial guidance to federal agencies in implementing the law. The law aims to ensure that federal workers use proven practices in managing programs and projects throughout the federal government. It achieves the following, among other goals:

• Sets up a framework to improve policy, staffing, and training in program and project management
• Ensures that management leaders conduct reviews of programs and projects to make sure they are well-managed 
• Coordinates the development of policies and processes to continually improve project and program management

Project management leaders make a distinction between management of projects and programs. In this context, a project is a defined amount of work that an organization’s employees do to create or modify a product or service. A program is a group of related projects and operational activities. Managers coordinate these projects and activities to provide more overall benefit than if employees had managed them separately.

Procurement Regulations in Project Management

The federal government mandates certain actions in project management when it involves purchasing assets for the government, including buying or modifying computer technology. Regulations include the Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act.

The Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers

The federal government has established a special certification through which federal managers can prove their competence in program and project management. The certification is called the Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers (FAC-P/PM). The certification is recognized by all federal agencies, except for the Department of Defense.

The certification focuses on essential competencies needed for program and project managers.

It offers three levels of certification:

• Entry/Apprentice: This level means the person has the ability to manage low-risk and simple projects.
• Midlevel/Journeyman: This means the person has the ability to manage projects with low- or moderate-level risks. The person also can apply basic management practices to projects.
• Senior/Expert: This person can manage and evaluate moderate to high-risk programs and projects. The person has significant knowledge and experience in project management practices.

California Project Management Recommendations for State Workers

Some states offer specific guidance about project management to state employees. The California Project Management Office, for example, has created a 461-page document providing a framework for project management in California state agencies. The document provides guidance and insights on project management methods. You can read the official documentation for more information.

Examples of Successful Government PM Implementation

Local, state, and federal government agencies have used project management to successfully complete tens of thousands of projects. Here are just a few examples:

• Michigan Office of Project Management: The state of Michigan’s information technology projects were often behind schedule, over budget, or both. To change that, the state created an Office of Project Management and built an infrastructure that helped establish a project management culture with state workers. Then leaders built a project management support structure to help all state government agencies, which allowed the state to integrate project management into much of the state’s daily business activities. To learn more about the project, visit “ Implementing a project management culture in a government organization .”
• New Orleans VA Hospital: In 2005, Hurricane Katrina destroyed thousands of buildings in New Orleans, Louisiana. Among those buildings was a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital complex where doctors and other medical providers trained medical students, conducted medical research, and served 40,000 military families. In 2006, Congress approved funding for a replacement complex of buildings that would encompass 1.6 million square feet. From the beginning, project leaders focused intently on understanding risks to the project, listening to stakeholders, and preventing inefficient changes in scope. They finished the three phases of the hospital complex on time, and the project’s final cost was 14 percent under budget. To learn more, visit “ Department of Veterans Affairs Realizes Benefits through Improved Healthcare for Veterans .” 
• Department of Justice Website: By 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice website included more than 450,000 web pages, documents, and files. Lawyers, law enforcement officials, and many other citizens valued the information provided. But more than 100 offices of the department needed to maintain their own sections of the website using a wide range of processes and technologies. The website was becoming a huge burden to maintain. The Department of Justice’s project team decided to use a Scrum Agile methodology to rebuild the website in increments. The first job in the project was to build a website content management system and launch one section of the website. Eventually, there would be 120 sections in 12 major version releases. The incremental approach allowed website users to provide feedback on the first release, which became input on making changes in the second and later releases. Each release provided users with more functions, and each took less time to finish. To learn more, visit “ Case Study: Agile Government and the Department of Justice .”

Best Practices and Expert Tips for Effective Government Project Management

Experts offer a number of recommendations that can help leaders and workers to perform effective project management. Tips include requiring the buy-in of top organization leaders, understanding risks at the beginning of the project, and employing a mix of strategies.

Here are some additional expert recommendations and tips:

• Seek Top Leadership Buy-In for the Structure and Strategies: Organization leaders need to understand the principles of good project management and approve the overall strategies to get projects done. Without that, financial and other support for the work will be tentative and can be abandoned at any time. Support from organization leaders will also translate into more support from employees throughout the organization. “The buy-in (for the project and processes) should start at the top and not at the bottom,” says Senapathy, from the Project Management Training Institute. “The government needs to emphasize the discipline of project management from the top down,” says Ramirez, from the Institute for Neuro & Behavioral Project Management. “And it has to be a focused area — just as focused as safety, cost management, the production of the technical product you’re delivering or building.”
• Think about and Listen to All Stakeholders That the Project Might Affect: A wide range of people might be affected by a project — beyond one agency and even beyond the end-users. It’s important to understand everyone who might be affected and how they might react to the work. “Stakeholders represent any individual or group who is affected by or perceives themselves as affected by the project and its outputs,” says Townsend, with the Project Management Institute. “Stakeholders can affect every aspect of a project, including its plans, costs, and schedule. Understanding who the stakeholders are, how to engage with them, and how to balance potential conflicts among them is important.”
• Create a Plan and Provide Clear Direction Before You Start: If you’re using Agile methodologies to move forward a project, planning will likely be different from other project management methods. In any case, you need to set broad goals and make sure your team understands those goals. “Starting too early can mean that goals are unclear or misunderstood (and) key requirements get missed,” says Townsend. “Good, upfront planning with regular reviews of the plan through the project lifecycle can make a big difference in success rates.”
• Monitor Progress Well: Especially in more traditional project management, it’s imperative that the team monitors benchmarks, deadlines, and progress.
• Made Quick Adjustments Based on Monitoring:  Your team must quickly make adjustments if your monitoring shows missed benchmarks or deadlines or other issues. This is especially true in government projects that could involve large budgets. “The sooner you catch things, the better you are in preventing (problems) and the draining away of millions of dollars,” Senapathy says.
• Be Selective: Don’t try to perform a wide range of projects that affect many agency operations all at once. Pick projects, and get leadership buy-in, that can improve operations in a specific area. That way you don’t cause chaos throughout your organization.
• Envision Your Success: Envision and articulate a path toward the project result and what that result will look like. You can do that in part through setting down the scope of the project.
• Make Sure Your Project Provides What the Intended Beneficiary Needs: “Most important, good project management ensures that the result meets the needs of its intended beneficiaries,” says Townsend. “If a result is produced quickly with all of the promised features but fails to meet the needs of the people who will use that result, the project has failed.”
• Bring Together Your “A-Team”: Pick some of your organization’s brightest minds to be part of the project team — even if their job description doesn’t suggest they fit. The brightest minds can envision bigger goals and foster real innovation.
• Integrate Employee Development and Career Goals with Project Management: Employees will respond more intently to project work when their job descriptions and rewards are influenced by their project management work. “There’s got to be motivation from individuals to take greater responsibility” for project success, Senapthy says.
• Think about Behavioral Economics and the Science of Human Behavior: Progress on any human work must take into account how humans make decisions, says Ramirez, from Institute for Neuro & Behavioral Project Management.  “We don’t focus enough on the behavioral piece,” he says. “Progress in the government, private sector, or any organization is going to be slower when you do not incorporate the human factors that go into it.” That means organizations must think about why people make the decisions they do, including financial incentives, job security, and agreeing with superiors.
• Know the Risks Involved in Your Project: At the outset of every project, project leaders and team members need to assess the risks and challenges inherent to the project. From there, make adjustments or take other measures to deal with those risks. “Risk management considers factors that can negatively or positively impact a project and its results,” says Townsend. “Some risks can derail projects while others may enable teams to accelerate or increase value delivery. Good risk management keeps those threats and opportunities visible throughout the project so the team can mitigate risks and take advantage of opportunities. ”Ramirez says some risk analysis doesn’t go far enough in acknowledging human factors, however. This includes a disincentive to acknowledge risks in some areas, like how a risk might affect their jobs, or the opinions and views or their superiors in the agency.  “There are many incentives to avoid considering additional risks,” Ramirez says. Those disincentives must be dealt with and considered by project leaders, he says.
• Start Small, and Scale Up: If your agency is just starting to deploy formal project management, start with a smaller project. Testing the process on a smaller or shorter-term project will allow team members to understand and tweak processes before moving on to a bigger project.
• Be Nimble and Willing to Employ a Mix of Strategies: “A real-life project needs to be nimble,” says Senapathy. That might mean that project leaders use a traditional project management framework, like Waterfall, for one portion of the project, and then use an Agile-based Scrum framework for another portion. “Keep the processes flexible,” he says. (To learn more about different project management methodologies, visit “ What's the Difference? Agile vs Scrum vs Waterfall vs Kanban. ”) “In general, since projects never fall into a theoretical bucket of a framework, it is perfectly fine to mix and match traditional and agile methodologies to gain maximum performance from available budget and schedule,” says Senapathy.

Streamline Project Management in Government with Smartsheet

Empower your people to go above and beyond with a flexible platform designed to match the needs of your team — and adapt as those needs change. 

The Smartsheet platform makes it easy to plan, capture, manage, and report on work from anywhere, helping your team be more effective and get more done. Report on key metrics and get real-time visibility into work as it happens with roll-up reports, dashboards, and automated workflows built to keep your team connected and informed. 

When teams have clarity into the work getting done, there’s no telling how much more they can accomplish in the same amount of time.  Try Smartsheet for free, today.

Discover why over 90% of Fortune 100 companies trust Smartsheet to get work done.

Using PRINCE2® to manage US Federal Government IT Projects

• Project management
• Project planning
• Project progress

September 30, 2015  |

  24  min read

All of our White Papers and Case Studies are subject to the following Terms of Use .

This White Paper was originally published in September 2009, and was updated in September 2015.

This paper shows how the PRINCE2® project management method supports US Federal government project managers as they deliver IT investments while satisfying requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act and Capital Planning and Investment Control.

Since enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) in 1996, the US Federal government requires its agencies to improve their management, oversight and control of investments in information technology. Central to the CCA is an obligation for agencies to select, control, and evaluate their portfolio of IT projects in accordance with the principles of Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC), an approach to IT investment management referenced in the CCA.

In the same year the CCA was signed into effect, the UK government released PRINCE2, a principles and themes based project management method designed to provide direction and oversight of government/contractor projects. Project managers can find it difficult to meet the requirements of CPIC while running a project. Industry leading project management guides suggest one approach, contractors have another, while investment oversight groups within the agency reinforce the additional requirements of CCA onto the project team.

Capital Planning and Investment Control

The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, commonly referred to as the CCA, requires US Federal agencies to “identify and collect information regarding best practices” for managing IT related projects. The CCA identifies the government’s approach to information technology investment management as Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC). Specifically, the CCA, through oversight from the President’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requires each agency to institute effective and efficient capital planning processes for selecting, controlling, and evaluating their investments in IT projects. These projects represent the strategic investment in IT capital assets that define an agency’s IT portfolio.

OMB requires each agency to institute effective capital planning.

The CCA references use of a three-phase cycle for capital asset management to provide oversight of investment budgeting and spending. First, by selecting IT capital asset investments that will support core mission functions performed by the Federal Government; Next, through controlling their projects effectively through the application of best practices in project and performance management; And then, by evaluating investment results through a demonstration that the return on investment is supporting initial business case objectives. CPIC links the strategic planning of mission attainment to the tactical performance of project delivery and IT systems operations. The three phases of CCA’s IT Investment Management process are performed annually, and applied to IT investments continuously, throughout the life of an asset’s existence within the agency’s IT portfolio.

Select, Control and Evaluate

Figure 1.1 IT Investment Management Cycle

The Control phase is an ongoing investment management process designed to monitor the progress of IT projects against budgeted cost, schedule, performance goals, and expected mission benefits. The Control Phase helps to ensure that each investment is properly managed toward the intended objectives defined by the investment’s business case. However, the Control process does not manage the investment project. The responsibility to define a project management governance model is left to the agency and the project manager. It is not defined by CPIC.

In the Evaluate phase, project outcomes are measured, and systems are determined to be fit for purpose. Performance results are assessed to: (1) identify needed changes to products or systems to maintain optimal business operations; (2) measure the project’s effect on mission and strategic goals; and (3) continuously improve the agency’s investment management processes based on lessons learned, self-assessments and benchmarking.

The Challenges of CPIC

Interpretation of the CCA and CPIC has led to conflicting and competing solutions to satisfy its many requirements. OMB continues to amend their supporting Circular A-11, which keeps agencies’ reporting requirements a moving target.

Practitioners often confuse the cyclical phases of the CCA’s Select-Control-Evaluate as a project management lifecycle, for example, thinking that a project is in development activities only during the Control phase. This is inaccurate. The three phases of the CPIC IT Investment Management lifecycle define the sequence of when budget and investment management activities occur to plan, monitor and report the progress of IT investment dollars. The “project” lifecycle of CPIC has a linear progression, from Planning and Acquisition, to Management In-Use and Disposition. It starts when a business need is first defined and IT systems planning activities warrant a new project initiative, then continues to product acquisition/development, systems operation (production), and then asset retirement. In response to this, agencies should define and operate an enterprise lifecycle management framework that integrates governance, processes and information into a decision model that includes the requirements of investment and acquisition management, enterprise architecture planning, project management office (PMO), IT systems operations and maintenance, and capital asset control.

CPIC defines the activities of budget and investment management.

Project managers react to the oversight and governance of CPIC as a set of tasks and requirements that are in addition to their effort to running the project. This has led to frustration while project managers work to deliver their projects. Project managers sometimes view CPIC reporting as a “check the box” activity. Maintaining compliance to CPIC reporting can take considerable effort if it is not integrated to the project governance approach. However, when CPIC reporting is a pre-defined output designed into the project method, CPIC becomes integral with the other daily management and decision-making activities of project management.

Additional challenges face government project managers. The goals of CPIC are focused on budget management, not project management, which creates conflict in tactical management objectives. IT Investment Management support offices within the agencies are tasked with collecting and reporting financial information from the agency’s projects, while project managers focus on performance to cost and schedule milestones, earned value management, risk and issue status, and baseline change control logs. Too often, the data and information that reports project status is gathered using tools and techniques that are in contrast with the investment management reporting requirements of the CCA, CPIC and OMB.

Finding a Solution to CPIC

Project managers are searching for a governance model that can support both the day-to-day needs of project delivery and the requirements of CPIC investment management reporting. While the PMI’s Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge® is clear in identifying tools and techniques for performing project management activities, it is by its own admission “a guide rather than a methodology”, and it is not designed to address compliance requirements, such as those defined by CCA. To operate a project in a way that will achieve the needs of CPIC, project managers must utilize a method that supports sustainment of an investment business case, clearly identifies a governance process, and lends itself to regular reviews for “Go/No-Go” decisions, as required by US government IT investment management budget cycles.

Satisfying the requirements and objectives of CPIC is not easy. However, with the right project management method the project of CPIC while controlling and delivering the project. You must use a method that defines how and when to apply project management processes and techniques. The method must be scalable to the size of the investment, and it must define governance, tools and techniques that can balance the pulling forces that may exist between government and contractor. PRINCE2 is a de facto standard project management method from the UK government. It is public domain, available for anyone to use to manage a project, it can support the many requirements of CCA and CPIC, and it can be tailored to fit most any size project.

What is PRINCE2?

commissioned by the UK government. In 1989, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) of the UK government first established PRINCE (PRojects IN Controlled Environments) for controlling information systems projects, but the method soon realized a greater following. The UK Office of Government Commerce (OGC), continued development of the method into what is now PRINCE2 (2009). Since then the UK Government created by the Cabinet Office has set up a joint venture with Capita plc called AXELOS. AXELOS is responsible for the ongoing development and maintenance of PRINCE2 and other programmes in the Global Best Practice portfolio. Improvements include greater clarity of seven principles that guide behaviour of the project team as they perform, streamlining of the processes defined within the method, and instruction on how to tailor PRINCE2 to suit most any project’s needs. PRINCE2 has gained wide acceptance throughout Europe and Africa, and is quickly gaining popularity in North America.

Figure 6.1 PRINCE2 Stage-Gates for Controlling Project Delivery 

Principles of PRINCE2

PRINCE2 is a scalable method that you can apply to projects of varying sizes and types. The seven principles of PRINCE2 are universal in nature, they are self-validating due to the many thousands of projects that have used the method, and they empower the project management practitioner by providing a confident approach to directing a project.

Business Justification

PRINCE2 projects perform continuous justification of the investment’s objectives. Project goals are tied to the requirements within the business case to validate that the project continues to serve the needs of the organization. This guides a project team through the decision-making process throughout the life of the project, which keeps progress moving toward defined business objectives. Even compulsory projects driven by legislative mandate require justification of the alternative selected. PRINCE2 provides a governance model for guiding an organization toward an effective solution.

The continued business justification of high-risk UK Government projects is scrutinized by the Cabinet Offices major projects authorities integrated assurance approach which is consistent with the way PRINCE2 supports the development and management of the business case.

Roles and Responsibilities

PRINCE2 defines the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders at all stages and processes of the method. Participation from investment oversight board members, executive sponsors, the project board (team), the project manager, team managers, suppliers, and change control authority is clearly identified throughout the PRINCE2 method. The activities necessary for sponsoring, directing and managing the project are not left to chance.

Manage by Stages

A PRINCE2 project is managed in stages, providing control points throughout the project lifecycle. The project manager plans, controls and progresses the project using a stage-gate approach. A high-level project plan is supported by detailed stage plans. Tranches that extend beyond the horizon remain at a high level until near-term work is completed to a degree of certainty that improves likelihood of the investment achieving its goals and objectives.

Management by Exception

Deviations experienced during a PRINCE2 project are managed by exception by developing plans to identify variance from baseline. Tolerances for cost, schedule, quality, scope, risk and benefit are delegated to the project management team, providing an efficient use of resources to deliver with fewer interruptions. Decisions are made at the right level, while issues outside of tolerance are escalated only when necessary.

Product Focused

A project exists to produce output, not to perform activities. PRINCE2 focuses on defining and delivering only those products that are within the scope of the project mandate (charter). PRINCE2 uses a product breakdown structure to clarify the purpose, composition, source, type, and quality expectations of a final solution that will fulfil the business case, defined to satisfy the organization’s mission.

Learn from Experience

PRINCE2 is an experiential process. Performing regular lessons learned reviews is a key activity to success with PRINCE2. While a project is, by definition, a unique endeavour, the approach to running a project is based on repeatable themes, processes, and reusable tools. When starting a project, the project manager leverages the experiences of past projects, including reuse of approaches, performance data for benchmarking metrics and targets, defining work plans, and estimating cost and schedule milestones.

Tailored to fit, PRINCE2 can best serve and support a project regardless of size, type, organization or culture. Adapting the PRINCE2 project management approach to the situation ensures alignment of processes, tools and techniques, to best support and govern the project, while avoiding success through heroics or forced compliance to process. PRINCE2 can be right-sized to the complexity and nature of the project environment.

PRINCE2’s use of principles based project management directs the decision making process.

The PRINCE2 Stages and Process Areas

PRINCE2 is a process-based method designed to direct, manage and deliver a project to plan. The project team performs across seven defined process areas to perform the many activities for delivering the objectives of the business case. PRINCE2’s seven processes integrate with one another by following a stage-gate lifecycle framework. This provides cadence to project management activities, directing results toward pre-defined goals, and success.

In the Pre-project Stage , the investment’s business objectives are determined by performing the activities in the Starting up a Project (SU) process. The business justifications for the investment are determined, scope is defined, and alternatives are analyzed. Through performance of the SU process, the business case is established, readying the project team to obtain authority to proceed with the investment.

In the Directing a Project (DP) process, the project is reviewed and approved by an executive review board to place the investment in the IT portfolio. DP processes manage the business case for the duration of the project lifecycle by providing senior level oversight of the investment’s progress.

The Initiation Stage continues the DP process to provide regular oversight and ad hoc direction of project activities. Upon approval to proceed with the investment, the Initiating a Project (IP) process establishes a solid foundation for achieving project success through the identification of project objectives and business benefits. IP also instructs the team to tailor project plans and invoke governance over project activities. Plans to control communications, scope, cost and schedule, risks and issues, quality, and product configuration management are all supported by PRINCE2. Techniques from other industry-popular project management guides easily integrate with the processes of PRINCE2 to monitor and control the investment.

As the Initiation Stage completes, the Managing a Stage Boundary (SB) process calls for the project manager to plan the next stage of the project. The project manager performs a business case review, updates the project plan, and reports status of the investment to the project board.

Subsequent Delivery Stages follow the Controlling a Stage (CS) process. CS provides guidance to the project manager to authorize work to the project resources, monitor and report progress, manage risks and issues, then take corrective action on variances to the plan. The project board delegates day-to-day team activities and decisions to progress the project on a stage-by-stage basis. Activities of the CS process assigns work to team members to ensure that they remain focused on delivering the products and goals of the project plan. The Managing Product (MP) Delivery process provides direction to the team members. As products are delivered, achievement to design specification is assured; the business case is reviewed for relevance to mission, and then the stage plan is completed. The SB process is again used to report and close the stage, and then subsequent Delivery Stages in the project plan repeat the CS and MP processes to continue solution fulfilment.

The Final Delivery Stage completes activities from the CS and MP processes during this last phase of the project. Then, using the Closing a Project (CP) process, the project manager performs final product acceptance testing, resolves or retires open risks and issues, reviews the investment’s performance to baseline, conducts a benefits realization review, and then recommends the project for closure to the executive investment review board.

Figure 11.1 The PRINCE2 Stage-Gate Management Model 

Seven Themes of PRINCE2

Project management provides little value unless it is performed with predefined intent. PRINCE2 identifies seven themes that are linked to project management. Each of the seven themes in the PRINCE2 method remains in effect during the entire project lifecycle. They are referenced according to a predetermined workflow of the method to minimize risk, and to heighten the quality of team performance and results.

Figure 9.1 The PRINCE2 Stage-Gate Management Model 

Business Case

A project initiates with a need to drive transformation through an organization to fulfil new or evolving mission requirements. The business case defines why a project exists. PRINCE2 uses the business case to carry requirements through to fulfilment, while maintaining the project team’s focus on objectives.

Organization

The PRINCE2 method defines roles and responsibilities at multiple levels for directing, managing and delivering a project. A PRINCE2 project’s organization structure includes the executive oversight, project board, program sponsorship, senior users, suppliers, team managers, support staff, and project assurance personnel. Projects must often share resources with other parts of an organization. Clear identification of the extended project team reduces confusion and minimizes conflicting demands on staff as they serve multiple requirements across the business.

The criteria under which project products are verified and accepted must be established early in the project lifecycle. PRINCE2 applies the tenets of quality management at the start, where they are central to project delivery, making the final product fit for purpose. This supports achievement of desired benefits defined by the business case. A robust quality management approach reduces the likelihood of discovering product performance issues when it is too late.

A plan is not just a schedule, but also a holistic approach to governance. PRINCE2 projects follow defined and approved plans that integrate requirements, cost, schedule, quality, risk, roles, resources, and communications. Performance to plan is measured in each stage of the project. Exception Plans define deviation from baseline, which are integrated into the master plan to steer performance back toward cost, schedule and quality goals.

Risk management is a key tenet of PRINCE2. It identifies, assesses, and controls uncertainty that may affect project outcome. Risk planning starts early in the PRINCE2 method, where it is first used to mitigate project threats while initiating the project. Where other project management standards offer a model for managing risk, PRINCE2 defines the procedures, tools, and techniques for performing the risk process.

Since change is inevitable for almost any project, controlling variance to plan must be included in the management approach for maintaining the project baseline. PRINCE2 identifies an approach to change control that addresses issues that enter the project plan. PRINCE2 integrates change control of the project lifecycle phase to configuration management of the operations and maintenance phase.

The PRINCE2 method establishes mechanisms to monitor, compare, review, and report actual performance to baseline objectives. Risks are mitigated, while quality issues and problems are addressed and corrected. Upon successful completion of scheduled goals, the next stage plan is authorized, progressing the project toward completion. Numerous reporting templates are defined by PRINCE2, that include definitions of each report’s contents and use, all supported by the various processes within the method.

The Capital Planning Lifecycle of CPIC

So, let’s go back. The Clinger-Cohen Act directs agencies to manage their IT budgets by measuring the return on investment using a Select-Control-Evaluate process. CCA also directs OMB to perform oversight of agency IT spending. In response to CCA, OMB recommends that agencies apply planning, acquisition, management, and disposition lifecycle controls to their major IT projects. Simply put, each agency must have a defined plan for buying, building, operating and retiring their IT assets, and they are accountable to report project status timely and accurately.

OMB annually releases Circular A-11, a budget management directive that requires agencies to report their annual IT budget (using the Exhibit 53 form) and report progress toward goals within the business case of each major IT project (using the Exhibit 300 form). However, A-11 does not define, nor prescribe, a project management method or approach for tactically controlling and delivering the project. Circular A-11 is only a process for reporting status of the budgeted and funded investments.

OMB provides agencies additional direction in their A-11, Part 7 Supplement: Capital Programming Guide (CPG). The objective of the CPG is to show agencies how project management activities relate to IT investment management. It helps to answer the question, “Will this investment drive transformation of the business toward the agency’s mission?” The CPG defines a Capital Planning Lifecycle: a four-phased approach to IT investment management. The lifecycle identifies strategies to achieve greater service delivery and move program effectiveness toward mission goals. The CPG recommends use of risk management, earned value management, quality assurance and control, and other project management techniques. However, these are only broad brushstrokes of guidance for the project manager. The CPG does not define a project management method that must exist beneath these phases. So then, how can project managers lead their projects toward success while meeting the requirements of CPIC?

Planning and Budgeting

The CPG’s objectives of the Planning and Budgeting phase are designed to support IT investment decision-making. Alignment of strategic planning to project performance goals is determined by utilizing an agency level enterprise architecture plan. An Integrated Project Team (IPT) is established to manage the project. The IPT formulates a clear definition of system functional requirements, performs an analysis of alternatives to select the best technology solution, and establishes operating and reporting baselines. They must apply risk management techniques to reduce the chance for incurring costs associated with delivery failure, and integrate earned value management (EVM) into the contract acquisition strategies. The agency implements an executive review process to oversee investment performance and adjust the investment as the needs of the mission change over time.

Figure 10.1 The Capital Planning Lifecycle

Upon completion of a comprehensive planning effort to define an integrated proposed budget to OMB during the Select phase. Approved through the President’s budget, the initiative receives funding from Congress to become a sanctioned project ready for acquisition.

Quality and risk management are central to PRINCE2, initiated during the Starting up a Project and the Directing a Project processes of the Pre-project stage. The PRINCE2 method supports the CPIC Planning and Budgeting phase through development of the project business case. The project manager justifies the business case to ensure that the investment is planning to build the right product, is fulfilling the right business need, and that the final products will serve the organization’s mission. Once the business case is reviewed and accepted by the investment board, the project is authorized to proceed to the Initiation Stage.

PRINCE2 keeps a focus on the business case to maintain IT business value.

CPIC’s requirement for EVM necessitates a “deliverables-based” work breakdown structure to define project scope. During the PRINCE2 Initiation stage, the product breakdown structure becomes the framework for managing solution delivery. Activities of the PRINCE2 Directing a Project process establish oversight and governance to lead investment plans toward mission goals.

Figure 10.2 PRINCE2 Project Management for CPIC

Acquisition

In the Acquisition phase of the Capital Planning Lifecycle, the project team validates decisions and objectives from the Planning and Budgeting phase. The team re-examines the mission needs to affirm investment justifications in the business case to determine a “build versus buy” acquisition strategy. The IPT addresses acquisition risks, and then the project is initiated. Teams are established, contract support secured, and then development activities of the Acquisition phase commence.

An Executive Review Committee (ERC) assesses the project team’s plan for solution delivery. Following a successful procurement, the IPT operates project governance that integrates scope, cost, schedule and quality into a comprehensive project management approach. EVM is used to monitor and control planned and actual results of both government and contractor resources applied toward development activities. Once the integrated project plan is approved by the ERC, a baseline is recorded as the project plan.

The Control phase of CPIC is used to measure and improve investment performance. It instructs project managers to perform regular monitoring of product development progress, cost, schedule and performance variance, review of scope within the work breakdown structure, and assessment of risk to the investment. Change control must be applied to maintain progress toward contractual scope. Investment control and oversight is in the hands of the project manager during the Control phase. Periodic status reports are brought to the ERC.

As part of the CPIC Evaluate Phase, the IPT and ERC conduct reviews of project progress to reaffirm the acquisition decision. The ERC recommends corrective action plans where necessary to keep the project moving toward its strategic and mission goals. Solution acceptance activities of the Acquisition phase include a complete review of delivered products to affirm that they meet all requirements and objectives defined by the business case. Product quality reviews, system testing, and recording IT assets into a configuration management baseline also happen. Any product deviations discovered during solution acceptance are addressed through rework or an accepted variance to plan. Additionally, contract performance requirements are assessed to determine the contractor’s success to the cost, schedule and performance goals of the contract.

PRINCE2 uses a stage-gated approach to controlling project progress.

The PRINCE2 Controlling a Stage process continues to provide justification of Acquisition phase activities performed during Subsequent Delivery Stages. The PRINCE2 processes provide oversight of product development activities, guiding the project team as they fulfill business case requirements. The project manager conducts a review of the investment’s status to the detailed business case. Impact assessments are performed on any new or existing risks and issues. The project manager assesses progress towards cost, time, quality and benefit goals. Exception plans are introduced to address and correct variances to baselines. The project manager reviews completed work packages against defined specifications. Configuration records and stage plans are updated upon acceptance. Then, following the Managing a Stage Boundary process at the end of each Delivery Stage, the Project Board authorizes continuation to the next stage plan for the project.

Management In Use and Disposition

Once the IT system goes into production, the Evaluate Phase of CPIC prescribes that the project manager performs regular Operational Analysis (OA) to measure investment performance to predefined goals, and to determine, measure and report on the return on investment. Operational Analysis requires regular monitoring of achievement toward original business objectives. Performance goal baselines are defined, thresholds set and measurements taken to improve service over time while driving operational costs down. This continues until the asset is taken out of service (retired) during the Disposition Phase.

Management in Use involves post project operations of the IT system. To enter this phase of the Capital Planning lifecycle, the delivered IT solution must meet the defined requirements of PRINCE2’s Product Descriptions. The IT solution must also perform to the objectives of the business case. The PRINCE2 Managing Product Delivery (MP) and Closing a Project (CP) processes ensure that the project has met its requirements and is ready to enter the final phases of the Capital Planning lifecycle.

Since introduction of the Clinger-Cohen Act in 1996, agency CIOs and project managers across the US Federal government have been working to improve their IT investment management practices. The OMB A-11, Part 7 Supplement: Capital Programming Guide provides project managers guidance on the four phases of the Capital Planning Lifecycle, while oversight performed using Capital Planning and Investment Control monitors the value returned from the dollars invested in IT assets. However, without a project delivery method that supports the control and reporting requirements of CCA and CPIC, teams continue to struggle to operate projects that exhibit best practices that produce the right measures required by OMB. Best practices defined in commercially driven project management guides fail to provide an approach that connects project management methods to the IT portfolio results defined by CPIC business cases.

In contrast PRINCE2 is a scalable and proven project management method, having supported government and commercial projects for more than two decades. It supports continuous justification of the IT investment by focusing on sustainment of the business case, driving results to the organization’s mission.

PRINCE2 is scalable to the enterprise, has no cost to use and supports US government IT Investment Management controls.

The processes of PRINCE2 are scalable to suit various sized projects, ranging from only thousands of dollars to those that are tens of millions in scope. Project team performance is governed through stage-gated project plans, measuring progress of product delivery, not activities. Most important, PRINCE2 defines the roles of stakeholders, the project board and delivery teams. It establishes governance, process and controls to bring the investment from concept to fulfillment of the mission objectives, all the while improving the project management practices of the agency.

Richard Tucker is a management consultant with more than 20 years of experience in IT project management and Federal capital investment management. He provides practical knowledge and advice to US Federal agencies and departments. He is a certified PRINCE2 Practitioner and a Project Management Professional (PMP). He is an active member of the Federal CPIC Forum and contributor to numerous online communities where he shares his interest and experiences in project management methodology and tools implementation.

Richard Tucker, PMP Certified PRINCE2 Practitioner ICOR Partners, LLC www.icorpartners.com

• PRINCE2® to manage US Federal Government IT Projects

Agile Problem Solving in Government: A Case Study of The Opportunity Project

Citizen expectations, changing technologies, a mass proliferation of data, and new business processes are among the key external forces that challenge agencies to serve constituents in new ways.

At the same time, growing demands for fast response to problem solving reduce the time that agencies have for developing strategies that enable them to achieve mission objectives. In recent years, agile development has advanced in both industry and government as a method of designing software that builds functionality in rapid increments that involve both developers and users. Agile methodology is increasingly being used in non-IT efforts as well.

The Opportunity Project (TOP), a program run out of the U.S. Census Bureau at the U.S. Department of Commerce, has for several years served as a catalyst in adapting agile techniques to solve complex agency mission problems, through a process that brings together agencies, industry, and citizens. The Project’s website refers to its goal as “a process for engaging government, communities, and the technology industry to create digital tools that address our greatest challenges as a nation. This process helps to empower people with technology, make government data more accessible and user-friendly, and facilitate cross-sector collaboration to build new digital solutions with open data.”

TOP works with Federal government agencies to identify significant challenges, and then facilitates partnerships among agency leaders, industry and non-profit innovators, and citizen users to collaborate as teams in developing innovative approaches to address those challenges. The teams leverage agile techniques to build prototype technology and process solutions over a 12-14 week time frame, and then show their work to the public so that agency stakeholders from all sectors can learn from and adapt the solutions. TOP represents a unique, cross agency program that provides a model for how agencies can work with private sector partners to develop practical approaches to complex problems in an agile, iterative fashion.

In this report , Joel Gurin and Katarina Rebello outline the key elements and critical success factors involved in The Opportunity Project. Drawing insights from several TOP case studies, the authors provide lessons for other agencies, and indeed for governments at all levels, on how agile problem solving can enable public-private collaboration that helps address some of their most significant mission-focused issues.

This report continues the Center’s longstanding focus on how agile techniques can help improve government. Prior studies on this topic include A Guide to Critical Success Factors in Agile Delivery by Philipe Krutchen and Paul Gorans, which was an early assessment of the promise of agile for the public sector; and Digital Service Teams: Challenges and Recommendations for Government by Ines Mergel, which provided insights into digital services activities that leveraged agile techniques for governments in the U.S. and around the world.

Review our infographic on the report.

Read the FedScoop article, " How federal agencies can use agile development to apply open data ."

Watch our video overview:

Project governance and portfolio management in government digitalization

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

ISSN : 1750-6166

Article publication date: 20 June 2019

Issue publication date: 17 July 2019

This paper aims to increase the current understanding of the connection between operational level information and communication technology (ICT) projects and national level digital transformation by researching how project governance structures and practices are applied in an e-government context.

Design/methodology/approach

An elaborative qualitative study through public documentary analysis and empirical multi-case research on Finnish central government is used.

The study constructs a multi-level governance structure with three main functions and applies this in an empirical setting. The results also describe how different governance practices and processes, focusing on project portfolio management, are applied vertically across different organizational levels to connect the ICT projects with the national digitalization strategy.

Originality/value

This study integrates project governance and portfolio management knowledge into public sector digitalization, thus contributing to project management, e-government and ICT research streams by improving the current understanding on the governance of ICT projects as part of a larger-scale digitalization. This study also highlights perceived gaps between current governance practices and provides implications to managers and practitioners working in the field to address these gaps.

• Project governance
• Public sector
• ICT project
• E-government
• Digitalization
• Project portfolio management

Lappi, T.M. , Aaltonen, K. and Kujala, J. (2019), "Project governance and portfolio management in government digitalization", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy , Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 159-196. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-11-2018-0068

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Teemu Mikael Lappi, Kirsi Aaltonen and Jaakko Kujala.

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and noncommercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Digital transformation, or digitalization, is one of the global megatrends that drive private – and public sector – organizations’ reforms through the adoption of information and communication technology (ICT) solutions to optimize operations and provide better services to customers – or citizens. Digitalization challenges institutions’ and individuals’ technological, organizational and cultural mindsets and capabilities, which can be a struggle especially in the public sector, as governments have to also cope with legal, political and public accountability-related issues while aiming towards national level digitalization, or “e-government” ( Cordella and Tempini, 2015 ). However, understanding of the impact of processes behind this reformation connecting different government levels – the strategic governance level (e.g. government, parliament), the middle executive level (e.g. ministries, agencies) and the operational (ICT project) level – is limited. Hence, more exploratory, empirical research is called for ( Snead and Wright, 2014 ). Even though Finland has been recognized internationally as one of the most advanced e-government countries ( OECD, 2015 ), the ICT development projects keep struggling also in Finland. These struggles are due to complexities and uncertainties in related issues, such as governance, organizing and technology ( Omar et al. , 2017 ; Walser, 2013 ).

Public sector digitalization, like any strategic transformation process, is executed eventually through ICT projects ( Anthopoulos and Fitsilis, 2014 ; McElroy, 1996 ), ranging from a simple agency-specific online portal to vast, multi-organizational operations management systems. In both digitalization and ICT project perspectives, it is essential to connect the projects with digitalization strategy by ensuring that the project objectives are correctly aimed and properly conducted. In other words, one must ensure that digitalization and associated ICT projects are governed appropriately ( Crawford and Helm, 2009 ; Marnewick and Labuschagne, 2011 ). One technique to govern projects is project portfolio management (PPM) – a mechanism that on the management level consolidates a group of projects into one entity to ensure the strategic contribution and fit of the projects and maximize the value of the whole portfolio ( Kaiser et al. , 2015 ; Meskendahl, 2010 ; Müller, 2009 ). Though there have been some contextual studies on PPM application in regional governments level ( Hansen and Kræmmergaard, 2013 ; Nielsen and Pedersen, 2014 ), knowledge of the topic in e-government context is still limited. Furthermore, the vertical processes between different central or state government levels, and how PPM can be applied to facilitate these processes and the governance of ICT projects, must be researched ( Jenner, 2010 ; Snead and Wright, 2014 ). The Finnish Ministry of Finance (VM) introduced PPM in 2012 to consolidate central government ICT projects, but its impact and utilization have not been analyzed properly, further empirically motivating this study.

What kind of governance structure is applied to ICT projects in public sector digitalization?

How can PPM facilitate the governance of ICT projects vertically across different levels?

This study integrates project governance and portfolio management knowledge into public sector digitalization context, thus contributing to project management, e-government and ICT research by improving understanding of the governance of ICT projects as part of a larger scale digitalization. By describing and analyzing practices related to the governance of ICT projects, this study provides implications for managers and practitioners working in the field. This paper includes a review of applicable literature on e-government, governance and PPM, followed by the research and methodology of this study and the results and discussion, with suggestions for further research.

2. Theoretical background

2.1 public sector digitalization and e-government.

Public administrations across the world have been striving towards digitalization, enabled by rapidly evolving technology and motivated by cost-efficiency and quality. This transformation mostly centers around developing and applying digital solutions to streamline internal and external processes and providing better services for citizens ( Asgarkhani, 2005 ; Fishenden and Thompson, 2013 ; Janowski, 2015 ). However, to fully use the potential of digital solutions and services, public sector strategies, structures and organizations need to reform accordingly to support renewed solutions and services. This combination has been commonly referred to as e-government ( Layne and Lee, 2001 ; Lee, 2010 ), and it is achieved through a transformation process that consists of phases from strategy formation to project execution ( Anthopoulos and Fitsilis, 2014 ; Pedersen, 2018 ). E-government has strong citizen value and collaboration perspectives, thus sharing common ground with preceding public reformation initiatives, such as the market-lead New Public Management (NPM) ( Arnaboldi et al. , 2004 ) or coordination encouraging Joined-up Government ( Cordella and Bonina, 2012 ). Though the etymology of “e-government” has somewhat suffered from inflation and been complemented with more generic and ambiguous terms, e-government is still widely used to assess the maturity of ongoing digitalization and to benchmark and provide guidelines for future efforts ( OECD, 2015 ; Rorissa et al. , 2011 ; Valdés et al. , 2011 ). The purpose of e-government or public sector digitalization is not only to provide information and services to citizens but also to create strategic connections internally and externally between government layers and agencies, enterprises and citizens. However, digitalization is challenging in many ways ( Pedersen, 2018 ) and may cause resistance, as it requires significant organizational and technological adjustments, such as architecture adoption ( Irani, 2005 ). The primary reasons for e-government struggles include ambiguous mission statements and poor project management (scope, schedule, stakeholders) causing, for example, resource overuse, longer time to market and unmet client expectations, but there are also governance-related remedies to counter these challenges ( Altameem et al. , 2006 ; Kathuria et al. , 2007 ).

2.2 Project governance

Governance is a function of management for establishing policies to oversee the work – and ensure the viability – of an organization. It is a rather ambiguous term that has been perhaps most efficiently defined by McGrath and Whitty in their review article from 2015 as follows: “the system by which an entity is directed and controlled” (p. 774).

Furthermore, from organizational perspective, governance defines the structures used by the organization, allocating rights and responsibilities within those structures, and requiring assurance that management is operating effectively and properly within the defined structures ( Too and Weaver, 2013 ). Governance takes place on different levels of an organization that are most commonly divided into three ( Loorbach, 2010 ; Kathuria et al. , 2007 ; Too and Weaver, 2013 ): the highest level – the strategic, corporate or board of directors and governance system; the middle level – tactical, business or executive and management system; and the lowest level of functional, or operational project delivery system activities. A governance structure is essentially a framework describing the functional roles and responsibilities of these levels within an organizational system, while also identifying the links between them needed for effective and efficient execution ( Müller, 2009 ).

Project governance exists within the corporate governance framework and comprises the value system, responsibilities, processes and policies that allow projects to achieve organizational objectives and foster implementation beneficial to stakeholders and the organization itself ( Müller, 2009 ; Turner, 2006 ). However, the temporary nature of project organizations separates the governance of project organization from that of a permanent organization ( Lundin et al. , 1995 ; McGrath and Whitty, 2015 ). Project governance is a multidimensional concept: it takes place in all levels within an organization by shifting the scope and objectives between ( Biesenthal and Wilden, 2014 ; Brunet, 2018 ), outside the organization and project through stakeholders and networks ( DeFillippi and Sydow, 2016 ; Ruuska et al. , 2011 ; Winch, 2014 ), and also a process with the project life cycle ( Samset and Volden, 2016 ; Sanderson, 2012 ; Stewart, 2008 ). Project governance creates a decision-making framework for project organizations to execute projects ( Joslin and Müller, 2016a ; Oakes, 2008 ). In other words, to ensure that organizations efficiently “Do the projects right.” Besides the how , another important aspect governance of projects is the what , i.e. to ensure that organizations effectively “Do the right projects” ( McGrath and Whitty, 2015 ; Müller, 2009 ). To assure that a project contributes to an organization’s strategic objectives, one must constantly align, revise and communicate long-term and short-term project goals and use motivation and control to make performances comply with goals ( Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984 ; Srivannaboon and Milosevic, 2006 ).

2.3 Project portfolio management

PPM is a project management technique used to align and control a group of projects according to the objectives and benefits of an organization. There are three central objectives for PPM: strategic alignment (ensure strategic direction of projects); balancing across projects (in terms of strategically important parameters, such as resources or risks); and value maximization (in terms of company objectives) ( Martinsuo and Lehtonen, 2007 ; Petro and Gardiner, 2015 ). Meskendahl (2010) complements these objectives by adding the use of synergies (reduce double work and enhance utilization regarding technologies, marketing, knowledge and resources) to the list. In practice, the managerial activities related to PPM are the initial screening, evaluation and prioritization of project proposals; the concurrent evaluation and reprioritization of individual projects; and the allocation and reallocation of shared resources ( Blichfeldt and Eskerod, 2008 ; Jonas, 2010 ). These managerial practices are conducted through decisions by portfolio owners and managers at certain process gates or portfolio management board meetings and must balance a multitude of conflicting goals within an organization. PPM therefore attempts to answer project-related questions such as: “What should we take on? What should be terminated? What is possible? What is needed ( Dye and Pennypacker, 1999 )?”

With regard to ICT projects, the technological alignment through enterprise architecture and standardized processes and software tools can be applied to PPM ( de Reyck et al. , 2005 ). However, in the public sector, both ICT PPM and project performance can be diminished with rigid decision-making processes, excess requirements of conformity, communication issues and strong organizational regulations ( Mosavi, 2014 ; Walser, 2013 ). These political aspects, if integrated into existing decision-making and corporate management practices to avoid excess bureaucracy, can be reversed to strengthen PPM ( Martinsuo and Dietrich, 2002 ). For example, ICT PPM has been important in managing organizational efforts to digitalize local governments ( Hansen and Kræmmergaard, 2013 ), but in general the trade-off between centralization of power and project autonomy can be considered a prevailing and central challenge in the application of PPM in public sector ICT projects ( Kaiser et al. , 2015 ).

2.4 Synthesis: analysis framework

To synthesize the reviewed literature, an analysis framework based on the research questions was constructed. Project governance consists of the practices that take place through functions within different levels of organizations. The term “practices” encompasses all the different activities, procedures and processes that are applied to align, control and safe-guard the ICT project objectives and performance for the value and strategic targets of the organization. Hence, the first part of the framework builds vertically on the multi-level governance structures ( Too and Weaver, 2013 ; Kathuria et al. , 2007 ; Loorbach, 2010 ) and includes the three organizational levels: strategic (the highest), executive (middle management) and operational (project) with distinguished responsibilities and performance scopes. Horizontally the framework consists of the e-government and project governance-related functions ( Anthopoulos and Fitsilis, 2014 ; Irani, 2005 ) to describe and categorize the types of project governance practices and their subsequent objectives. As the focus of this research is on the application of PPM as a mechanism that connects the ICT projects with the higher level objectives by alignment and assurance, the second part of results describes in more detail the PPM specific goal alignment and performance compliance practices ( Müller, 2009 ; Kaiser et al. , 2015 ; Blichfeldt and Eskerod, 2008 ) that can be associated with the “requiring assurance” function – or vertical alignment ( Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984 ) of project governance. Even though PPM does have additional purposes and objectives such as balancing and value maximization, these are not included in the analysis framework as the purpose is not to explore the overall utilization of PPM in e-government.

3. Research process

3.1 research approach and empirical settings.

A qualitative research strategy built upon gaining an in-depth understanding of the unique empirical setting was considered most suitable for this study ( Sarker et al. , 2013 ; Yin, 2013 ). As studies on PPM and governance in specific contexts have been requested ( de Haes and van Grembergen, 2009 ; Müller et al. , 2008 ), this research applies an inductive, multi-case method to explore and elaborate ( Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Ketokivi and Choi, 2014 ; Yin, 2013 ) the practices associated with the governance of ICT projects, and how they are perceived vertically on and between different government levels, in this case, public sector digitalization ( Snead and Wright, 2014 ). The framework presented in Figure 1 was used in the inductive analysis. The purpose of this study was not to test the completeness of the proposed framework but to use it as a guide to synchronize the analysis and interpretation of the empirical data among researchers, and as a lens through which the elaboration and refining of the findings with the selected theoretical approaches were processed ( Ketokivi and Choi, 2014 ).

The digitalization of the Finnish public sector is observed through publicly available documentation and four case organizations and projects, described in detail below. The context and setting can provide many research opportunities; therefore, to improve the scope and contribution, some limitations have been made. The study does not focus on the, admittedly important, formation, content or consensus of digitalization strategy ( Bowman and Ambrosini, 1997 ), the horizontal alignment between organizations ( Kathuria et al. , 2007 ), or the alignment between ICT and business functions within organizations ( de Haes and van Grembergen, 2009 ; Papp, 1999 ) and is empirically limited to the central government, as depicted in Figure 2 .

Since the 1980s, Finland has, through the introduction of everyday digital solutions such as mobile phones, steadily driven toward digitalization, led by the VM. Recently, as with many other nations and public administrations, digitalization is characterized by global phenomena, such as artificial intelligence, data security, availability and analytics and virtual reality. The digitalization of the Finnish public sector has focused on providing customer-centric electronic services and establishing platforms and infrastructures, such as national service architecture. Though Finland has managed to perform well in international comparisons of digitalization and e-government ( Vainio et al. , 2017 ), there has also been criticism from external parties about the governance, efficiency, and strategy of the digitalization ( OECD, 2015 ). VM introduced PPM in 2012 to consolidate and align ongoing and coming ICT projects, but its utilization and application are still ambiguous.

VM’s Public ICT Department (JulkICT), as the main governance authority of Finnish public sector digitalization, represents the strategic and executive levels. Under VM, the national architecture program (KaPA) was selected to represent the operational level.

VM’s tax administration (VERO) is responsible for the assessment and collection of taxes for individuals and corporations and providing guidance and service in associated matters. From VERO, a product-based implementation project was selected to represent the executive and operational levels.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s National Land Survey of Finland (MML), is responsible for map data material and land surveying, including parceling and reallocating land. MML safeguards land ownership and credit-granting systems by maintaining information. MML has conducted two agile development projects, aiming to digitalize real-time map information utilization, included in the research for executive and operational level insight.

The Finnish Transportation Agency (LIVI), under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, is responsible for roads, railways, waterways, and the development of the Finnish transport system. LIVI started its first known ICT alliance project in 2016, which was selected to represent the executive and operational levels.

The cases were chosen to provide the most heterogeneous perspective on the project level possible. The availability of data and support material, and the timeliness of the cases – especially the LIVI case – were also considered. Additional information about other organizations, projects and programs was provided through public documentation, such as national audit committee reports examining the governance practices in different ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Labor and Economy), and in selected programs and projects.

3.2 Data acquisition and analysis

The acquired data consists of three main categories: case-specific empirical data collected by the authors ( RQ1 , RQ2 ); public documentation related directly to digitalization, governance and projects ( RQ1 ); public documentation indirectly related to the topic ( RQ1 ). Supporting the qualitative research agenda, eleven semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions were conducted between 2015 and 2017 to provide in-depth descriptive input from respondents. The respondents were carefully selected from each case due to their knowledge and competence on the subject matter as they were either owners of or key stakeholders in their respective projects. The respondents also held senior managerial or specialist positions in different levels of their organizations, thus supporting the level-based dichotomy applied in this study. Further information could have been acquired by interviewing also the managing executives, team members, or other project stakeholders, but as the additional material provided already extensive amount of objective, supporting data, this was not seen mandatory. The interviews focused on the practices within the organization, projects associated with the governance of digitalization and ICT projects and the use of PPM. The interviews were documented and accompanied by rich supporting material from the interviewees. The interview documents were examined between researchers to interpret the findings and to reduce personal biases. The first category of public documentation consisted of laws, decrees, instructions, manuals, guidelines and tools and templates directly associated with digitalization and ICT projects. The second category included different reports, reviews and benchmarking guidelines providing insight into the topic. Over 1,500 pages of public documentation were acquired from public administration websites and other public data repositories. The details of the research data are provided in Appendix .

The data analysis began with thoroughly reading the materials and constructing rough case descriptions with interesting findings and themes. Then the raw data were imported and categorized in NVivo software. The coding criteria and interpretation rules for the project governance practices were drawn from the analysis framework, initially reviewed and agreed upon, and updated throughout the process among the researchers. The governance structure analysis ( RQ1 ) was conducted in two parts: public documentation (Categories 2 and 3 in Appendix ), and empirical case documents (Category 1) to provide rich, within-case insights. Both datasets were analyzed in two phases. First, the evidence of practices was reviewed and coded against the theoretical lens to determine the appropriate governance function. In the second phase, the applicable organizational levels of the coded practices were determined. Finally, the results of the coded findings were iterated among researchers to construct aggregated practices per organizational level under each framework dimension. A similar process was then applied for PPM practices ( RQ2 ) in different organizational levels in the empirical cases and PPM-related public documentation (Category 1 and 2).

The findings – the project governance structure ( RQ1 ) and PPM-related assurance practices ( RQ2 ) – are presented in the Section 4, complemented by within and cross-case analyses. Evidence supporting the reliability of the research, presented in the accompanying tables, refers to data in Appendix by stating the category and index; for example, [2.1] refers to the first item in Category 2 (“Act on Information Management Governance in Public Administration”).

As the research aim and questions imply, the results describe the perceived governance structure and PPM practices in two respective sections. The governance subsection explores and aggregates the digitalization and project governance practices, as shown in Tables I and II . The elaboration of the found practices is conducted according to the earlier introduced theoretical lens ( Figure 1 ), and it elaborates the perceived commonalities, peculiarities and gaps within and between governance functions and different organizational levels. Similarly, the following PPM analysis explores and aggregates the findings on PPM practices related to assurance from the empirical cases and public documents, as seen in Table III .

The most interesting finding is evidence in the public documents on the “should be” practices, such as laws, regulations, decrees and instructions, and an equal amount of evidence, coming mostly from the empirical cases, on the “are not” – practices that are not in place or have failed, such as audit reports pointing out the lack of control or structural complexities. This discrepancy somewhat restricted the analysis of what actually takes place and the possibility of drawing explicit implications on how practices affect governance. Hence, it would have been almost tempting to deduce propositions through negative assertions ( Johnson-Laird, 1999 ), but a critically realistic inductive analysis was still applied.

4.1 Governance structure of information and communication technology projects in digitalization

The primary objectives for public sector digilization in Finland are set through government agendas and high-level proclamations about general principles. These goals were not well connected to levels below, as all administrative sectors (ministries and the agencies under them) should create their own strategies, which they have already been doing for some time. The most concrete objective mentioned in the digitalization guidelines is “to ensure that digital services are prioritized”, which is difficult to measure. The same document also emphasizes the characteristic difference between governing digitalization and public sector administration. The former requires a cross-administrative, process-oriented approach to meet the central purpose of providing better services to citizens more efficiently, whereas the latter is based on regulatory, organizational and financial procedures that are limited by hierarchal and jurisdictive settings.

As Table I suggests, laws are considered central governance mechanisms, especially in Finland (where obedience is a considered a national virtue), but the terminology used especially in the higher level ICT governance act [2.1] is ambiguous: “follows,” “participates,” “suggests,” “enables” leave room for subjective interpretation. Respondents [1.6] have criticized the particular act: “The biggest challenge in executing the law has been that there is no clear understanding and consensus within the administration about the descriptions and specifications.” Multiple overlapping laws and regulations – namely the ICT governance act (ICT-specific, under VM), sourcing act (sourcing process-specific, under the Ministry of Labor and Economy) and administrative sector-specific (for example, social and health) acts – may also create strong tensions and complexity for ICT sourcing and project management and require special competences from the participants and responsible authorities. The general approach is to reform the decrees and laws instead of focusing on the problems related to the processes and compliance, as reported by National Audit Office of Finland (VTV) when describing the status of statement processes related to ICT system sourcing. On the operational level, the main ICT governance act [2.1] is regarded as a “dead letter” with more hype than actions. The national service architecture defines the overall picture of digital infrastructure but does not yield support to an interoperability analysis of project deliverables or support the empowerment of technical and project actors. “It is a nice PowerPoint” [1.10] was a common reference on the project level. ICT projects, sourcing, and systems are also governed by various technical factors, such as recommendations from JUHTA (The Advisory Committee on Information Management in Public Administration) and VAHTI (The Government Information Security Management Board), rendering the ICT development as a separate entity from operative process development, as seen by VTV. Most tangible governance models associated with digitalization and projects are left on the executive level. Project manuals and supporting tools and constructs seem to be agency specific, and no formal consolidation or integration takes place. VM aims to construct an explicit governance model (through the Ministerial Committee of Economic Policy) for digitalization, but the draft model seems to follow the same passive mode as the laws above [1.7].

The main responsibility of public sector digitalization in Finland lies on JulkICT, but in practice, they rarely possess any authority over agencies or projects. Money, namely, budgeting, is the strongest governance practice, and the most concrete way to govern organizations and projects. From a project perspective there are three ways to allocate money: the default, “business as usual” method by allocating funds from the agency’s annual budget; the government spearheads projects derived directly from government initiatives (such as KaPA, or VERO’s income register project); and the special budgets, namely, the 100 M€one-off digitalization launch pool. A fourth way to gain financial resources is the productivity fund under VM budgeting committee authority, but this is not systematic, as it also involves non-ICT projects. However, on the operational level, like LIVI, the second and third methods are considered more confusing than supporting, as the money cannot provide long-term capabilities, so the “business as usual” method prevails.

At least one document [2.22] clearly described the roles and responsibilities regarding ICT projects: the owner (the ministry of the administrative sector and its sub-agencies) manages the project from pre-project to post-project and is responsible for statement request process, reporting to the master portfolio, and other compliance practices. On operational level, the roles and responsibilities can be determined by tools such as project manuals, which do not, however, well support non-traditional project delivery models or methods, such as agile development or project alliances. All projects and programs have at least one steering group, and the decision-making power and authority for steering groups are from organizational (agency) level positions. For example, the KaPA program steering group head could make decisions over the program as he was also the ICT director of VRK. The role of stakeholders was identified at executive and operational levels, as seen in Table II . For example, the hierarchal structure of stakeholders in the SaDE program [3.5] was described as Political decision makers > Developer communities > Early adapters > End users. This structure seems to contradict the customer-centric approach of digitalization strategy. However, though the structural complexity of roles and responsibilities was recognized by respondents, and the general principles wove the simplification of administration and reduction of norms, the activities seemed to lead toward further complexity – as seen in [1.7], where the introduction of an investment approach came with yet another informative steering group (the digitalization investment steering group). Also, organizations without any formal authority or governance authority, namely, the D9 digitalization team and DigiNYT committee, were involved in digitalization and ICT projects. External members from non-governmental organizations and the private sector were included in these two groups, but curiously – and maybe unfortunately – no research institutions were represented. Finally, JulkICT supervision, as stated by VTV, does not affect project or program (SaDE and KaPA) execution, as they are not included in the formal project or program structures.

The assurance requirement is conducted on strategic level mainly through reports and statements by direct supervising bodies such as government and committees under parliament or audit organizations. However, the tone of these statements is passive: “needs to be considered,” and the corrective actions are only “proposed” or “suggested” instead of allocated or empowered to specific, responsible authorities. A practical assurance platform for this level, introduced by JulkICT, is the master portfolio aiming to consolidate “most projects [>1M€] across central government.” This platform, along with the decree-mandated statement process for “significant projects” [>5M€] using the VM business case template, includes the only consolidated and shared ICT project assurance practices that reach across levels. JulkICT uses the master portfolio to consolidate status reports for TIETOKEKO, which is the organization coordinating ICT development across the ministries of administrative sectors. TIETOKEKO also receives consolidated reports of ICT projects and, if necessary, makes statements on them but does not conduct any steering activities. Interestingly, JUHTA is not mentioned in this control process description, though it is recognized elsewhere as a significant actor [1.6].

On operational level, assurance equals reporting and documentation, but informal communication is used too. The reporting procedures and structures vary within cases, but all were characterized by complexity: the same or similar information about project and program progress must be reported in multiple directions and irregular intervals. Additionally, as with LIVI, that reporting content plays a role: “Too much information and too many details will backfire.” The capability of JulkICT controllers to assess forecasts and benefits and their tendency to anchor themselves with given numbers is perceived as burdensome, seeming to imply issues with data integrity – a fact that JulkICT also recognized, as “The traffic lights are nicely on green all the time” even though there were known issues [1.3]. Generally, the assurance and authority seem to be characterized by goodwill and assumptions. The applied project measurements were agency-specific, not connected with any results-based incentives, nor were there any sanctions from the owner organization, JulkICT, or TIETOKEKO for exceeding a budget. Post-project benefits realization was supposed to be applied systematically but was not, even among the significant projects.

The segmentation of projects combined with structural complexities made pre- and post-project assessment difficult, as described in the LIVI and MML cases. Finally, different project types require different approaches to assurance as seen in the LIVI and MML cases. However, the formal and rigid assurance processes and procedures do not necessarily support this, which leaves, for example, the agile project level control and steering on “clerical civil disobedience” [1.6]. From a technical perspective, a curious control element is the project’s deliverable validation. ICT projects, especially agile ones, as in the MML case, tend to have a vague concept of a deliverable target, so validating and measuring the outcomes against predetermined targets is challenging. Also, as in the LIVI case, the formal compliance processes and structures, namely, project contracts, need to support flexibility and constant acceptance instead of a fixed stage-gate type of process.

To synthesize the current governance of Finnish public sector digitalization and ICT projects, an external audit report [3.7] identified following issues: strategy formation, target setting, reporting, results-based management and the preparation of regulations. This report is consistent with the findings of this study, which also illustrate how the project governance functions – the application of structures, allocation of roles and responsibilities and requiring assurance – have multiple, vague and ambiguous interfaces between elements and levels, and thus yield to the complexity of the governance structure, as described in Figure 3 .

4.2 Project portfolio management assurance requirement practices

The pre-project business case analysis was conducted in all cases as an initial goal alignment practice, but only the significant projects are subject to a more rigorous JulkICT statement process. The strategy toward which a project’s fit is reviewed is in “default” projects the agency’s or ministry’s own strategy. The national digitalization strategy, which is perceived to be impractically vague, is not introduced or applied. The “special” projects reflect the strategic objectives of the government, as they are derived directly from government initiatives. The statement process and master portfolio have a mixed reception at the operational level, as seen in Table III , where they are considered either unnecessary bureaucracy or the de facto practices.

Architectural review in the business case template is mostly superficial and does not receive a formal review from a dedicated technological authority under JulkICT, though the resources and competence do exist. The master portfolio could be used to prioritize and categorize projects but presently is not, though development initiatives have been taken. At the executive level, the applied portfolios are a good start for goal alignment, but, if accompanied by a roadmap that sets program-like mechanisms, the result is more structured. However, it seems lucrative, especially in digitalization, to focus on luxury items like artificial intelligence, but mandatory, hardware-related issues, namely, legacy systems and infrastructure, cannot be neglected either. Deriving projects merely from the technological trends is not feasible. An important factor regarding goal alignment at the executive level is the allocation of resources, especially budget, directly to the portfolio that empowers the owner and increases motivation and delivery capability. However, increased organizational complexity is an imminent risk if the portfolio also allocates fixed human resources and operative process responsibilities, as for example in VERO’s robotics portfolio, turning the portfolio into a new matrix organization. If the portfolio and organizational structures conflict, the governance chain clarity may be endangered. At the operational level, the communication during the prospect phase is actually supported by strict, bureaucratic structures. Project actors can easily determine the responsibilities of administrative sectors and agencies and clearly understand what triggers the inclusion of certain substance specialists. However, this clarity seems to apply only to organizational and administrative aspects, not to the technological or economic sides of pre-project planning. The business case template by VM does not, however, coordinate any formal procedures that would ensure inter-organizational co-operation; it merely asks actors to “describe connections.” Therefore, it seems that besides the formal mechanisms, a lot of communication and coordination within and between levels and organizations is left to the individual’s responsibility. The pre-project phase can extend over a year if the project owner must ensure all elements that are not included in the business case template but needed to secure all practical and technological aspects.

Performance compliance in PPM includes formal review, control and motivation. The motivation from incentives or rewards encouraging either project-level performance, reporting and compliance, and aligning with higher level objectives through portfolios did not take place in any cases, nor is there a formal process describing it. These practices are based on managerial competences and leadership capabilities within organizations, or, to a very limited extent, the remuneration packages of project-level actors, which in Finnish public sector organizations are quite restricted.

The results indicate that there is a control gap at the executive level. Despite having the highest possible legitimate authority, JulkICT considers themselves mostly a quality control and support mechanism for project- and (master) portfolio-related control activities that “Should take place anyway” [1.2-3, 1.6]. This declaration implies a discrepancy between the understanding of actors’ roles and purposes and the mechanisms of digitalization and related ICT projects. As discussed, the control of projects and portfolios are mostly connected to complex reporting and merely informative measurements. Measurements were applied to projects directly or through agency and master portfolios, but there were no consolidated metrics or objectives on any portfolio level. The complexity also characterizes many projects reaching over several areas of organizational responsibility, or, as in the VERO case, the newly introduced sub-portfolio scopes. Besides challenging project ownership, this complexity impedes control by and toward the steering group, consisting of process owners and the VERO-level ICT department. However, control is not just about reporting but also includes steering and planning, which do not come from (master) portfolios or the organizations associated with them but from the owner organization’s chain of command, i.e. steering group and agency line management. The master portfolio is currently only a visual platform yielding a public consolidation report, not otherwise used for formal review or communication. It does possibly enable planning, balancing and optimizing resources, but only one review report [3.4] recognized and suggested this option. This report also gave explicit suggestions on how to develop a master portfolio toward successful PPM. The master portfolio reformation must consider governance and technical ownership, obligations and motivations for budgeting, the comprehensiveness of most ICT projects, the transparency and confidentiality of information and the consolidation and development of project culture.

5. Discussion

In this section, both the project governance and subsequent PPM assurance practices are elaborated through the main organizational levels, the highest strategic, the middle executive and operational project levels. The discussion presents the main empirical findings in respect to the inherent objectives of project governance and PPM on these levels to identify the emerging gaps between findings and current knowledge.

5.1 Strategic level governance and project portfolio management

Instead of building a foundation and purpose for digitalization, the results of this study indicate that strategic level governance is dictated by politically driven, abstract digitalization strategy (or a lack thereof) and different laws and regulations are used mostly for legitimization. The biggest gaps identified were related to the content and formation of digitalization strategy. The strategy consists of various intermittent statements and agendas that do not yield a tangible goal statement, obscuring a consensus or shared understanding of the goals and priorities ( Bowman and Ambrosini, 1997 ). This obscurity creates tension between the project and digitalization strategy, as a project is already a temporary organization that should connect with permanent settings rather than a temporary, short-term political ambitions ( Jonas, 2010 ; Lundin et al. , 1995 ). A feasible policy could be to establish a permanent strategy process and a tangible artefact, in which the political impact from temporary government agendas could be used to establish priorities and principles for vision setting, but a process aimed toward a prioritized, scheduled roadmap of digitalization could be sustained over government terms.

In the parliamentary and democratic public sectors, laws are the most evident mechanism for establishing norms and policies at a strategic level. However, the results of this study indicate two imminent, yet even somewhat paradoxical, issues with the laws: some of them legitimize but do not give authority and at the same time many cause governance overlaps. First, as discussed in Section 4.1, the ambiguity and interpretation challenges of the main ICT governance acts cause distractions. Second, the laws applicable to project processes and technological elements tend to be too detailed in Finland, per a respondent in the MML case. Excessive detail leads to a narrower scope for a single law, restricting its applicability and comprehensiveness. For example, digitalization project processes must comply with at least four different laws, depending on the scope of the project. Updating laws is a time-consuming parliamentary process seriously restricting the rapid evolution of digitalization and flexible ICT projects ( Lappi and Aaltonen, 2017 ). It would still be reasonable to revise and reform the applicable laws from governance perspective into a comprehensive entity that empowers clearly the responsible authorities, reduces the overlap and leaves the functional details out of legal scope.

The aim of assurance at the strategic level is to derive development plans and prioritized objectives from corporate strategy, based on a shared understanding of common goals ( Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984 ; Kathuria et al. , 2007 ), establishing a subject for goal alignment. In this research and PPM context, this would mean a portfolio on the highest organizational level that interacts with a strategic roadmap to get and enable prioritized objectives. However, therein lies the most current issue of vertical alignment of this multi-case study: no strategy or roadmap is connected with the existing VM master portfolio. The VM master portfolio could be used more effectively to update digitalization internally and externally to provide improved political and public compliance evidence and communication ( Mosavi, 2014 ). Simultaneously, if the digitalization strategy, roadmap and master portfolio were integrated, the target setting and the connections to lower levels (executive level ministries and agencies) would be more feasible.

5.2 Executive level governance and project portfolio management

Based on the empirical findings, the two dominant governance gaps in the executive level could be synthesized into excess amounts of structural complexity, as seen in Figure 3 , and an absence of authority. The topic and context itself are so complex that adding structural confusion by adding permanent (D9, DigiNYT) or temporary (Spearhead investment steering group) organizations with an ambiguous purpose and authority will not reduce challenges such as control integrity due to burdensome reporting ( Joslin and Müller, 2016a ; Walser, 2013 ). For example, JulkICT’s sense of ownership and authority contradicts any ownership perspectives discussed in project governance literature and can restrict decision-making efficiency, especially in ICT projects ( Andersen, 2015 ; Drury et al. , 2012 ; Olsson et al. , 2008 ). The lack of authority has led to the emerging application of goodwill as an assurance approach, which could be mended with law reformation or by streamlining the budget process so that it flows through the ministries and agencies that actually have the legitimacy and power to govern ICT projects. Emphasizing and clarifying ownership structure would also mitigate the prevailing satisfaction for less mentality but would impose a balancing issue between the centralization and decentralization of power ( Janssen and van der Voort, 2016 ). As JulkICT saw, the organizations conducting projects know the best way to manage them. However, the overall digitalization project delivery capability of central government could be managed as a whole even if the execution and substance-specific knowledge were left in the agencies. Shared and common practices related to project delivery, such as sourcing and choosing the appropriate delivery model, could be included in the discussed governance model, under a project management office (PMO), for example ( Mosavi, 2014 ; Unger et al. , 2012 ). Equally important aspects of more central governance are the common technological elements of digitalization and ICT projects, namely, architecture, interoperability and data ( Irani, 2005 ; Janssen and Klievink, 2012 ).

Executive-level PPM assurance aims to establish a formal review process for the continuous balance and value maximization of a portfolio and prioritizing projects and their resources according to aligned objectives ( Müller et al. , 2008 ; de Reyck et al. , 2005 ). Based on the evidence, the capabilities and motivation to achieve these goals exist, but the lack of authority has rendered the VM master portfolio a mere reporting template. This notion resonates with how institutions gain legitimacy, or through what mechanisms central government constitutes power in digitalization ( Scott, 2013 ). To improve this, the JulkICT and master portfolio legitimacy might be worth re-establishing, along with the content of the actual portfolio for a more complete picture of all central government ICT projects and sub-portfolios (Project Management Institute, 2013) of different agencies and a formal, stage-gate process ( Cooper, 2008 ) to facilitate the steering and control of portfolios.

5.3 Operational level governance and project portfolio management

The implications from the results were that the operational level assurance of related to ICT projects is characterized by a low amount of metrics and a high amount of reporting, both by the project managers and by external auditors within the public sector administration. The external audits do not yield any corrective actions if they do not include a motivational element for the project owner, such as sanctions ( Müller, 2009 ). The amount of project documentation and reporting shown in the empirical data is currently both a burden and source of confusion for project managers due to the complex governance structure, a fact that especially detracts from the performance of agile ICT projects ( Lappi and Aaltonen, 2017 ; Nuottila et al. , 2016 ). Different project types, namely, agile, and delivery models, such as alliance, have varying approaches to project deliverables and measurements ( Love et al. , 2010 ; Vlietland et al. , 2016 ); therefore, the applied governance structure should recognize and support these models and the established assurance practices. The deliverables also connect to another governance aspect of assurance – the post-project benefits realization ( Marnewick, 2016 ; Serra and Kunc, 2014 ). According to JulkICT, this aspect is already challenging, as they cannot demand the analyses afterward and have difficulties establishing determinants for the benefit or impact of ICT project results, systems, and services. Benefits cannot be realized if the users, either personnel of public administration or the customers, the citizens, do not use them.

Assurance has a strong motivational aspect ( Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984 ). Controlling and measuring through portfolios does take place, but it is conducted either at agency-level portfolios, or in “special” or significant projects, toward the master portfolio. There was no evidence that either of these control modes provided any steering constituting feedback, which partly caused poor motivation among project managers to report properly. In the personal perspective of project and portfolio actors, the application of project and portfolio results-based incentives could support motivation – not to mention the possibility of sharing project benefits and risks similar to an alliance model ( Lahdenperä, 2012 ; MacDonald et al. , 2012 ). Finally, an important aspect concerning the operational level assurance through PPM is the selection of projects during pre-screening ( Archer and Ghasemzadeh, 1999 ; Bridges, 1999 ). Currently, each case organization conducts their project evaluation to the best of their knowledge, applying either the business case tool by VM or some other template. To support the higher, executive-level, portfolio control process, the operational level project evaluation tool and review process could be scaled to fit all project sizes and types, though the formal statement process still applies only to the significant (>5m €) projects.

6. Conclusions

This research explored the governance of public sector ICT projects in a complex and high-impact phenomenon – government digitalization. The research describes the project governance and PPM practices of government ICT projects through five thematic focus areas and proposes a three-leveled project governance model for digitalization and ICT projects. This provides the managers and practitioners working in the public sector digitalization context means to better understand how the project governance practices impact ICT projects from e-government perspective. By illustrating and elaborating how these practices are conducted on and between different levels within central government organizations, this research provides new understanding on the sought-after vertical process explorations ( Snead and Wright, 2014 ), thus contributing to e-government research. Similarly, project management academics benefit from this research, as it brings a contextual stream into the PPM discussion, which has so far received limited attention ( Müller et al. , 2008 ). Prior research on public sector digitalization and e-government transformation has focused primarily on the macro-level, social phenomenon and the factors that enable or distract from the transformation progress ( Gil-Garcia and Martinez-Moyano, 2007 ). Not until recently the connections between the e-government transformation process and the individual ICT projects and acts of project management have been distinguished and elaborated ( Melin and Wihlborg, 2018 ). This research draws on this initiative and enhances understanding of how the ICT project management and e-government transformation can be integrated through project governance practices. The targets set for government digitalization can be connected to ICT projects through forming a concrete digitalization strategy to align and prioritize projects within portfolios, which can also enable the control and balancing functions. This study also highlights the gaps between current academic discussions on governance mechanisms in a specific contextual setting, thus providing new insights into both e-government and governance research. The findings of this research suggest that governance can also be perceived from technical and delivery method standpoints, besides the commonly used organizational and process perspectives, thus bridging the current gap between ICT and project management research ( Joslin and Müller, 2016b ; Müller and Martinsuo, 2015 ).

The governance of public sector digitalization and projects seem to struggle with one underlying dilemma: To govern and align individual ICT projects with the national digitalization effort would require more than just operational level technological and mechanical ICT project governance practices. There is also a need for capability and willingness to govern also the higher-level social, economic and political elements such as processes and organization structures towards citizen and service centric transformation, as proposed for example in the classical NPM models ( Cordella and Bonina, 2012 ). Instead of relying on governance through the traditional organizational silos, the focus should change toward governing the more effective citizen or entrepreneur service processes – bearing in mind of course the administrative restrictions or substance contextualities, such as in the defense sector, for example ( Gilchrist et al. , 2018 ). To synthesize the findings of this particular research, the following policy implications on governance and PMM on different organizational levels are proposed in Table IV .

Besides the addressed research scope limitations, this research has several more limitations to discuss. First, as a qualitative case study, drawing generalizable implications is impossible; however, this was not an aim of this research. Second, the data were limited to four public cases and publicly accessible documents; drawing reliable conclusions on such a sample is limited. Third, the research was subject to both respondent and researcher bias; the former were mitigated with supportive material and multiple respondents’ presence when possible and the latter through rigorous triangulation among research and respondents ( Yin, 2013 ). Fourth, as Finland is regarded as one of the most advanced nations in the utilization of digital solutions, the managerial implications provided in this study should be considered restricted and without international comparison; no definite conclusions should be made.

This research opened doors for many interesting research opportunities. First, an interesting topic for future research would be to assess how governable the public sector digitalization and the key actors in it are ( Müller et al. , 2014 ) and how this could be perceived in maturity aspects of e-government ( Andersen and Henriksen, 2006 ; Esteves and Joseph, 2008 ). Second, as discussed, a comparative study of the synthesized findings between similar studies from other countries or through a literature review would reveal how broadly applicable or specific to Finland the results are. Third, a longitudinal participation or observation research – simultaneously, by multiple cross-disciplinary researchers, if possible – through different cases (organizations, projects) would validate the findings of this research and bring insight into underlying institutional mechanisms this study did not address thoroughly. Fourth, drawing further from institution theory, specifically institutional entrepreneurship ( Maguire et al. , 2004 ; Wijen and Ansari, 2007 ), an interesting research topic would be to study the performance and activities of the central actor as the active agent or “institutional entrepreneur hero” ( Micelotta et al. , 2017 ) of institutional change: digitalization. Finally, studying the processes of transitioning from strategic alignment to social alignment ( Gilchrist et al. , 2018 ) and forming and building a consensus of the national digitalization strategy ( Bowman and Ambrosini, 1997 ; Floyd and Wooldridge, 1992 ; OECD, 2014 ) could also provide valuable insight into the topic.

Analysis framework of the study

Finnish public administration chart and research focus

Finnish central government digitalization and ICT project governance structure

Governance structure, public document analysis

Governance structure, empirical case analysis

PPM Assurance practices

Acquired research data details

Altameem , T. , Zairi , M. and Alshawi , S. ( 2006 ), “ Critical success factors of E-Government: a proposed model for E-Government implementation ”, 2006 Innovations in Information Technology , pp. 1 - 5 .

Andersen , E.S. ( 2015 ), “ Illuminating the role of the project owner ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 5 No. 1 , pp. 67 - 85 .

Andersen , K.V. and Henriksen , H.Z. ( 2006 ), “ E-government maturity models: extension of the Layne and lee model ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 23 No. 2 , pp. 236 - 248 .

Anthopoulos , L. and Fitsilis , P. ( 2014 ), “ Trends in e-Strategic management: how do governments transform their policies? ”, International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age , Vol. 1 No. 1 , pp. 15 - 38 .

Archer , N. and Ghasemzadeh , F. ( 1999 ), “ An integrated framework for project portfolio selection ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 17 No. 4 , pp. 207 - 216 .

Arnaboldi , M. , Azzone , G. and Savoldelli , A. ( 2004 ), “ Managing a public sector project: the case of the Italian treasury ministry ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 213 - 223 .

Asgarkhani , M. ( 2005 ), “ Digital government and its effectiveness in public management reform: a local government perspective ”, Public Management Review , Vol. 7 No. 3 , pp. 465 - 487 .

Biesenthal , C. and Wilden , R. ( 2014 ), “ Multi-level project governance: trends and opportunities ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 32 No. 8 , pp. 1291 - 1308 .

Blichfeldt , B.S. and Eskerod , P. ( 2008 ), “ Project portfolio management – there’s more to it than what management enacts ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 26 No. 4 , pp. 357 - 365 .

Bowman , C. and Ambrosini , V. ( 1997 ), “ Perceptions of strategic priorities, consensus and firm performance ”, Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 34 No. 2 , pp. 241 - 258 .

Bridges , D.N. ( 1999 ), “ Project portfolio management: ideas and practices ”, in Dye , L.D. and Pennypacker , J.S. (Eds), Project Portfolio Management–Selecting and Prioritizing Projects for Competitive Advantage , 1st ed ., Center for Business Practices , West Chester, PA , pp. 45 - 54 .

Brunet , M. ( 2018 ), “ Governance-as-practice for major public infrastructure projects: a case of multilevel project governing ”, International Journal of Project Management , Elsevier Ltd and Association for Project Management and the International Project Management Association .

Cooper , R.G. ( 2008 ), “ Perspective: the Stage-Gates idea-to-Launch process – update, what’s new, and NexGen systems ”, Journal of Product Innovation Management , Vol. 25 No. 3 , pp. 213 - 232 .

Cordella , A. and Bonina , C.M. ( 2012 ), “ A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: a theoretical reflection ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 29 No. 4 , pp. 512 - 520 .

Cordella , A. and Tempini , N. ( 2015 ), “ E-government and organizational change: reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 279 - 286 .

Crawford , L.H. and Helm , J. ( 2009 ), “ Government and governance: the value of project management in the public sector ”, Project Management Journal , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 73 - 87 .

DeFillippi , R. and Sydow , J. ( 2016 ), “ Project networks: governance choices and paradoxical tensions ”, Project Management Journal , Vol. 47 No. 5 , pp. 1 - 12 .

de Haes , S. and van Grembergen , W. ( 2009 ), “ An exploratory study into IT governance implementations and its impact on business/IT alignment ”, Information Systems Management , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 123 - 137 .

de Reyck , B. , Grushka-Cockayne , Y. , Lockett , M. , Calderini , S.R. , Moura , M. and Sloper , A. ( 2005 ), “ The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 23 No. 7 , pp. 524 - 537 .

Drury , M. , Conboy , K. and Power , K. ( 2012 ), “ Obstacles to decision making in agile software development teams ”, Journal of Systems and Software , Vol. 85 No. 6 , pp. 1239 - 1254 .

Dye , L.D. and Pennypacker , J.S. (Eds) ( 1999 ), Project Portfolio Management: Selecting and Prioritizing Projects for Competitive Advantage , 1st ed ., Center for Business Practices , West Chester, PA .

Eisenhardt , K.M. ( 1989 ), “ Building theories from case study research ”, Academy of Management Review , Vol. 14 No. 4 , pp. 532 - 550 .

Esteves , J. and Joseph , R.C. ( 2008 ), “ A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 118 - 132 .

Fishenden , J. and Thompson , M. ( 2013 ), “ Digital government, open architecture, and innovation: why public sector it will never be the same again ”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , Vol. 23 No. 4 , pp. 977 - 1004 .

Floyd , S.W. and Wooldridge , B. ( 1992 ), “ Managing strategic consensus: the foundation of effective implementation ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol. 6 No. 4 , pp. 27 - 39 .

Gil-Garcia , J.R. and Martinez-Moyano , I.J. ( 2007 ), “ Understanding the evolution of e-government: the influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 24 No. 2 , pp. 266 - 290 .

Gilchrist , A. , Burton-Jones , A. and Green , P. ( 2018 ), “ The process of social alignment and misalignment within a complex IT project ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 36 No. 6 , pp. 845 - 860 .

Hansen , L.K. and Kræmmergaard , P. ( 2013 ), “ Transforming local government by project portfolio management: identifying and overcoming control problems ”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy , Vol. 7 No. 1 , pp. 50 - 75 .

Hrebiniak , L.G. and Joyce , W.F. ( 1984 ), Implementing Strategy , 1st ed ., MacMillan , New York, NY .

Irani , Z.E.Z. ( 2005 ), “ E-government adoption: architecture and barriers ”, Business Process Management Journal , Vol. 11 No. 5 , pp. 589 - 611 .

Janowski , T. ( 2015 ), “ Digital government evolution: from transformation to contextualization (editorial) ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 221 - 236 .

Janssen , M. and Klievink , B. ( 2012 ), “ Can enterprise architectures reduce failure in development projects? ”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 27 - 40 .

Janssen , M. and van der Voort , H. ( 2016 ), “ Adaptive governance: towards a stable, accountable and responsive government ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 5 .

Jenner , S. ( 2010 ), Transforming Government and Public Services: Realising Benefits through Project Portfolio Management , Gower , Farnham .

Johnson-Laird , P.N. ( 1999 ), “ Deductive reasoning ”, Annual Review of Psychology , Vol. 50 , pp. 109 - 135 .

Jonas , D. ( 2010 ), “ Empowering project portfolio managers: how management involvement impacts project portfolio management performance ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 28 No. 8 , pp. 818 - 831 .

Joslin , R. and Müller , R. ( 2016a ), “ The relationship between project governance and project success ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 34 No. 4 , pp. 613 - 626 .

Joslin , R. and Müller , R. ( 2016b ), “ The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 9 No. 2 , pp. 364 - 388 .

Kaiser , M.G. , El Arbi , F. and Ahlemann , F. ( 2015 ), “ Successful project portfolio management beyond project selection techniques: understanding the role of structural alignment ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 126 - 139 .

Kathuria , R. , Joshi , M.P. and Porth , S.J. ( 2007 ), “ Organizational alignment and performance: past, present and future ”, Management Decision , Vol. 45 No. 3 , pp. 503 - 517 .

Ketokivi , M. and Choi , T. ( 2014 ), “ Renaissance of case research as a scientific method ”, Journal of Operations Management , Vol. 32 No. 5 , pp. 232 - 240 .

Lahdenperä , P. ( 2012 ), “ Making sense of the multi-party contractual arrangements of project partnering, project alliancing and integrated project delivery ”, Construction Management and Economics , Vol. 30 No. 1 , pp. 57 - 79 .

Lappi , T. and Aaltonen , K. ( 2017 ), “ Project governance in public sector agile software projects ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 10 No. 2 , pp. 263 - 294 .

Layne , K. and Lee , J. ( 2001 ), “ Developing a fully functional E-government: a four stage model ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 18 No. 2 , pp. 122 - 136 .

Lee , J. ( 2010 ), “ 10year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: a qualitative Meta-synthesis ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 27 No. 3 , pp. 220 - 230 .

Loorbach , D. ( 2010 ), “ Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework ”, Governance , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 161 - 183 .

Love , P.E.D. , Mistry , D. and Davis , P.R. ( 2010 ), “ Price competitive alliance projects: identification of success factors for public clients ”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol. 136 No. 9 , pp. 947 - 956 .

Lundin , R.A. , Söderholm , A. and Soderholm , A. ( 1995 ), “ A theory of the temporary organization ”, Scandinavian Journal of Management , Vol. 11 No. 4 , pp. 437 - 455 .

McElroy , W. ( 1996 ), “ Implementing strategic change through projects ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 14 No. 6 , pp. 325 - 329 .

McGrath , S.K. and Whitty , S.J. ( 2015 ), “ Redefining governance: from confusion to certainty and clarity ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 8 No. 4 , pp. 755 - 787 .

MacDonald , C. , Walker , D.H.T. and Moussa , N. ( 2012 ), “ Value for money in project alliances ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 5 No. 2 , pp. 311 - 324 .

Maguire , S. , Hardy , C. and Lawrence , T.B. ( 2004 ), “ Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada ”, The Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 47 No. 5 , pp. 657 - 679 .

Marnewick , C. ( 2016 ), “ Benefits of information system projects: the tale of two countries ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 34 No. 4 , pp. 748 - 760 .

Marnewick , C. and Labuschagne , L. ( 2011 ), “ An investigation into the governance of information technology projects in South Africa ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 29 No. 6 , pp. 661 - 670 .

Martinsuo , M. and Dietrich , P. ( 2002 ), “ Public sector requirements towards project portfolio management ”, PMI® Research Conference 2002: Frontiers of Project Management Research and Applications , Project Management Institute , Newtown Square, PA .

Martinsuo , M. and Lehtonen , P. ( 2007 ), “ Role of single-project management in achieving portfolio management efficiency ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 25 No. 1 , pp. 56 - 65 .

Melin , U. and Wihlborg , E. ( 2018 ), “ Balanced and integrated e-government implementation – exploring the crossroad of public policy-making and information systems project management processes ”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy , Vol. 12 No. 2 , pp. 191 - 208 .

Meskendahl , S. ( 2010 ), “ The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success - A conceptual framework ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 28 No. 8 , pp. 807 - 817 .

Micelotta , E. , Lounsbury , M. and Greenwood , R. ( 2017 ), “ Pathways of institutional change: an integrative review and research agenda ”, Journal of Management , Vol. 43 No. 6 , pp. 1885 - 1910 .

Mosavi , A. ( 2014 ), “ Exploring the roles of portfolio steering committees in project portfolio governance ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 32 No. 3 , pp. 388 - 399 .

Müller , R. ( 2009 ), Project Governance , Gower , Farnham .

Müller , R. and Martinsuo , M. ( 2015 ), “ The impact of relational norms on information technology project success and its moderation through project governance ”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 8 No. 1 , pp. 154 - 176 .

Müller , R. , Martinsuo , M. and Blomquist , T. ( 2008 ), “ Project portfolio control and portfolio management performance in different contexts ”, Project Management Journal , Vol. 39 No. 3 , pp. 28 - 42 .

Müller , R. , Pemsel , S. and Shao , J. ( 2014 ), “ Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: a literature review ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 32 No. 8 , pp. 1309 - 1320 .

Nielsen , J.A. and Pedersen , K. ( 2014 ), “ IT portfolio decision-making in local governments: rationality, politics, intuition and coincidences ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 31 No. 3 , pp. 411 - 420 .

Nuottila , J. , Aaltonen , K. and Kujala , J. ( 2016 ), “ Challenges of adopting agile methods in a public organization ”, International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management , Vol. 4 No. 3 , pp. 65 - 85 .

Oakes , G. ( 2008 ), Project Reviews, Assurance and Governance , Gower , Aldershot .

OECD ( 2014 ), Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies , OECD , Paris .

OECD ( 2015 ), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Estonia and Finland: Fostering Strategic Capacity across Governments and Digital Services across Borders , OECD , Paris .

Olsson , N.O.E. , Johansen , A. , Langlo , J.A. and Torp , O. ( 2008 ), “ Project ownership: implications on success measurement ”, Measuring Business Excellence , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 39 - 46 .

Omar , A. , Weerakkody , V. and Sivarajah , U. ( 2017 ), “ Digitally enabled service transformation in UK public sector: a case analysis of universal credit ”, International Journal of Information Management , Vol. 37 No. 4 , pp. 350 - 356 .

Papp , R. ( 1999 ), “ Business‐IT alignment: productivity paradox payoff? ”, Industrial Management and Data Systems , Vol. 99 No. 8 , pp. 367 - 373 .

Pedersen , K. ( 2018 ), “ E-government transformations: challenges and strategies ”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy , Vol. 12 No. 1 , pp. 84 - 109 .

Petro , Y. and Gardiner , P. ( 2015 ), “ An investigation of the influence of organizational design on project portfolio success, effectiveness and business efficiency for project-based organizations ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 33 No. 8 , pp. 1717 - 1729 .

Rorissa , A. , Demissie , D. and Pardo , T. ( 2011 ), “ Benchmarking e-Government: a comparison of frameworks for computing e-Government index and ranking ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 28 No. 3 , pp. 354 - 362 .

Ruuska , I. , Ahola , T. , Artto , K. , Locatelli , G. and Mancini , M. ( 2011 ), “ A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 29 No. 6 , pp. 647 - 660 .

Samset , K. and Volden , G.H. ( 2016 ), “ Front-end definition of projects: ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 34 No. 2 , pp. 297 - 313 .

Sanderson , J. ( 2012 ), “ Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a critical discussion of alternative explanations ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 30 No. 4 , pp. 432 - 443 .

Sarker , S. , Xiao , X. and Beaulieu , T. ( 2013 ), “ Qualitative studies in information systems: a critical review and some guiding principles ”, MIS Quarterly , Vol. 37 No. 4 , pp. 3 - 18 .

Scott , W.R. ( 2013 ), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities , 4th ed ., Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Serra , C.E.M. and Kunc , M. ( 2014 ), “ Benefits realisation management and its influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 33 No. 1 , pp. 53 - 66 .

Snead , J.T. and Wright , E. ( 2014 ), “ E-government research in the United States ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 31 No. 1 , pp. 129 - 136 .

Srivannaboon , S. and Milosevic , D.Z. ( 2006 ), “ A two-way influence between business strategy and project management ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 24 No. 6 , pp. 493 - 505 .

Stewart , R.A. ( 2008 ), “ A framework for the life cycle management of information technology projects: ProjectIT ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 26 No. 2 , pp. 203 - 212 .

Too , E.G. and Weaver , P. ( 2013 ), “ The management of project management: a conceptual framework for project governance ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 32 No. 8 , pp. 1382 - 1394 .

Turner , J.R. ( 2006 ), “ Towards a theory of project management: the nature of the project governance and project management ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 24 No. 2 , pp. 93 - 95 .

Unger , B.N. , Gemünden , H.G. and Aubry , M. ( 2012 ), “ The three roles of a project portfolio management office: their impact on portfolio management execution and success ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 30 No. 5 , pp. 608 - 620 .

Vainio , A. , Viinamäki , O. , Pitkänen , S. and Paavola , J.-M. ( 2017 ), “ Public services – international comparison ”, available at: http://tietokayttoon.fi/julkaisu?pubid=21601

Valdés , G. , Solar , M. , Astudillo , H. , Iribarren , M. , Concha , G. and Visconti , M. ( 2011 ), “ Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government maturity model in public agencies ”, Government Information Quarterly , Vol. 28 No. 2 , pp. 176 - 187 .

Vlietland , J. , Van Solingen , R. and Van Vliet , H. ( 2016 ), “ Aligning codependent scrum teams to enable fast business value delivery: a governance framework and set of intervention actions ”, Journal of Systems and Software , Vol. 113 , pp. 418 - 429 .

Walser , K. ( 2013 ), “ IT project governance - why IT projects in public administration fail and what can be done about it ”, European Conference on E-Government , Academic Conferences International Limited , Kidmore End , pp. 543 - 550 .

Wijen , F. and Ansari , S. ( 2007 ), “ Overcoming inaction through collective institutional entrepreneurship: insights from regime theory ”, Organization Studies , Vol. 28 No. 7 , pp. 1079 - 1100 .

Winch , G.M. ( 2014 ), “ Three domains of project organising ”, International Journal of Project Management , Vol. 32 No. 5 , pp. 721 - 731 .

Yin , R.K. ( 2013 ), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , SAGE Publications , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Teemu Mikael Lappi (M.Sc) is a doctoral student, researcher and a Lecturer in the Industrial Engineering and Management research unit at University of Oulu, Finland. Lappi received his master’s degree in Industrial Engineering and Management at University of Oulu in 2004. He has worked for 13 years in various specialist and management positions in manufacturing and software industries, most recently as Business Development Director in a multinational software solution company. Lappi’s dissertation topic and research interests include project governance, project business management, information systems, agile and e-government.

Dr Kirsi Aaltonen is an Associate Professor of Project Management at University of Oulu, Industrial Engineering and Management research unit and Docent of Project Business at Aalto University, Industrial Engineering and Management. Her current research interests are in areas of governance, stakeholder and uncertainty management in large and complex projects. Her publication list includes more than 50 academic papers and book chapters in the area of project business. Aaltonen has published for example in Scandinavian Journal of Management , International Journal of Project Management , International Journal of Production and Operations Management , Project Management Journal and International Journal of Managing Projects in Business .

Dr Jaakko Kujala is a Professor in Industrial Engineering and Management research unit at the University of Oulu, Finland. He has over 10 years' experience in industry while working in international automation system project business before his career in the academia. His publications include more than 100 academic papers, book chapters and books on project business and on the management of project-based firms. His current research interests include coordination of complex project networks, stakeholder management and simulation as a research method.

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Practitioner
• Foundation & Practitioner
• Practitioner (Bridging from PRINCE2 6th Edition)
• PRINCE2® 6th Edition

PRINCE2 Agile®

• PRINCE2 Agile and PRINCE2 Plus Pack
• Introduction to MS Project
• Training seminars
• Free downloads
• Virtual learning
• Virtual FAQs
• PRINCE2 games

About PRINCE2®

• Why should you do PRINCE2?
• What is PRINCE2?
• PRINCE2 case studies
• PRINCE2 FAQs
• PRINCE2 methodology
• PRINCE2 qualifications
• PRINCE2 blended learning
• PRINCE2 virtual learning
• How does PRINCE2 work with the PMBOK guide?
• PRINCE2 examination format
• PRINCE2 Consulting
• PRINCE2 training for the public sector
• Corporate development

Australia locations

Europe locations, germany locations, netherlands locations, new zealand locations, poland locations, south africa locations, united arab emirates locations, united kingdom & ireland locations.

• Get a quote

15% off e-learning, plus packs & blended courses

20% off virtual courses

• PRINCE2 process model
• PRINCE2 infographic
• PRINCE2® Process Map
• PRINCE2 Templates
• PRINCE2 for Business
• PRINCE2 Exam Resources
• PRINCE2 Qualification & Complementary Courses
• Resources for Project Managers
• PRINCE2 Training Tips
• PRINCE2 and PMI
• PRINCE2 Agile
• PRINCE2 Case Studies

US Federal Government IT Projects

How PRINCE2 supports US Federal government project managers as they deliver IT projects and investments.

This paper shows how the PRINCE2 project management method supports US Federal government project managers as they deliver IT investments while satisfying requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act and Capital Planning and Investment Control.

Since enactment of the Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) in 1996, the US Federal government requires its agencies to improve their management, oversight and control of investments in information technology. Central to the CCA is an obligation for agencies to select, control, and evaluate their portfolio of IT projects in accordance with the principles of Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC), an approach to IT investment management referenced in the CCA.

In the same year the CCA was signed into effect, the UK government released PRINCE2™, a principles and themes based project management method designed to provide direction and oversight of government/contractor projects. Project managers can find it difficult to meet the requirements of CPIC while running a project. Industry leading project management guides suggest one approach, contractors have another, while investment oversight groups within the agency reinforce the additional requirements of CCA onto the project team.

The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996, commonly referred to as the CCA, requires US Federal agencies to "identify and collect information regarding best practices" for managing IT related projects. The CCA identifies the government's approach to information technology investment management as Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC). Specifically, the CCA, through oversight from the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requires each agency to institute effective and efficient capital planning processes for selecting, controlling, and evaluating their investments in IT projects. These projects represent the strategic investment in IT capital assets that define an agency's IT portfolio.

To read more download the full case study by clicking here .

Return to Blog Home

A Two-Pronged Approach to Improving Government Case Management Work

Government organizations have a bad rap for being inefficient. But with outdated technology and limited spending, they aren’t exactly set up for success. And the expectations from stakeholders are high, with funding provided primarily by taxpayer dollars.

Case management work is at the core of your government department’s or agency’s mission—even if you and your team may not call it that. Gartner®  describes case work  as a universal workstyle of government and states that, as such, the integration of government services depends on designing and developing case management solutions as composable products and services that can be shared across the programs, verticals, and levels of government. This work drives your organization’s overarching goal, whether that is delivering public services, ensuring compliance, or furthering your state, local, or national interests.

Because many government organizations depend on legacy, siloed systems, case management work is often inefficient and delivers a less-than-ideal experience for stakeholders. In an effort to make government casework more efficient, agency CIOs should consider two key stakeholders: citizens and government employees.

Improve government case management work in these two areas.

Prioritizing citizens ..

First, focus on the most apparent stakeholder for public sector organizations: citizens. Whether directly or indirectly, all government organizations are set up to serve the citizens of their jurisdiction in some way, and citizens are negatively impacted by the inefficiencies of government work. Maybe business and recreational licenses take longer to obtain, or government-sponsored benefits such as Medicare and Medicaid are delayed. Disparate systems and siloed data across departments and agencies means that citizens have to file similar versions of the same form with several agencies. We think of this burden placed on individuals trying to navigate bureaucratic processes as the ‘citizen time tax.’

Not only do governments strive to deliver goods and services effectively and efficiently, they are increasingly looking for ways to  improve the citizen experience  when interacting with the government. Unfortunately, the current state of government tech and the fragmented processes within government workflows often don’t support this goal.

Empowering employees.

Much like the private sector, public sector organizations have come to realize that employees are a critical stakeholder. Providing a positive employee experience greatly impacts an organization’s ability to retain its talent. For many public sector institutions that are facing a “silver tsunami” of retiring public servants, carrying forward institutional knowledge is a critical concern. This makes more effective technology an imperative for government agencies.

When it’s difficult for staff to do their jobs on a day-to-day basis—when they’re bogged down by rote, administrative tasks that take them away from the higher, value-add work they were hired to perform—they may seek professional advancement elsewhere, often outside of the public sector altogether. With case management such a core tenet of government work, the outdated systems many agencies have in place today fall short in helping the government set their staff up for success.

Implementing a case management solution to enable adaptability and efficiency.

Recognizing that government work is built on a foundation of case management is the first step in optimizing workflows because it opens the door for a solution built for that unique need. Case management work involves myriad different parts and can easily get messy. With a case management solution built on a low-code platform, government departments and agencies can unify disparate data systems, streamline disjointed workflows, and in turn, improve both the employee and citizen experience by getting to decisions faster and more efficiently. This means when a crisis emerges, vital community businesses can apply and receive economic relief sooner, and interruptions to public service delivery can be avoided. Overall, citizens can expect the same level of responsiveness from their government institutions that they experience as consumers in the private sector.

Employees also greatly benefit from low-code case management solutions with increased visibility into the data that matters to their mission, less time spent jumping over, around, and simply going through red tape, and being able to focus more energy on the overall goal, rather than on unnecessary bottlenecks and roadblocks. When employees are freed up to focus on the work they were hired to do and operate at a more strategic level, they’re more likely to stay motivated and engaged and less likely to experience burnout–a key concern for many public sector organizations today.

To learn more about the benefits that a low-code case management tool can bring to your government organization and what to look for in a solution, check out the new eBook,  The Secret to a Streamlined Government .

Note: This blog was originally published on Appian.

Related Blog Posts

Enhancing School Security with Information Technology: Relevant Solutions and Funding Opportunities

States Move To Enact and Expand Data Privacy Legislation

A Tale of Two Budgets: FY24’s Status and What’s Next for IT in FY25

Navigating the 2024 Election Security Landscape: Challenges and Opportunities

AI Takes Center Stage in State and Local: Capitalizing on Sales Opportunities in 2024

Navigating the Citizen Experience: Priorities and Trends in the 2024 SLED Market

Artificial Inundation: AI Is the Future and We’re Living in It

Greener Pastures: IT Insertion Points for Federal Environmental Remediation Initiatives

Defense Health Agency’s Recent Advancements Toward a More Interoperable Future

Modernizing State Unemployment Insurance Systems: IT Addressable Opportunities

2024 Higher Education Outlook: The Role of Technology in Institutional Resilience

K-12 Education: Security Challenges and Solutions for the Modern World

A Quick Federal Shutdown Break Down

Why IT Solution Enterprise Agreements Are Essential for the Federal Government

Powering Public Sector Progress: The Role of Data Analytics in SLED Governments

Modernizing Federal Acquisition: Insights from the Frontline

Navigating Geospatial Intelligence: Key Drivers and IT Opportunities

5 Tips for Procurement Process Optimization for the Public Sector

How to Build a Case Management Process in the Public Sector

How State Governments Can Reduce Returned Mail in the Medicaid Unwinding Program

The Growing Importance and Opportunities of Edge Computing in the Public Sector

GovIT Podcast Series: TD SYNNEX Public Sector Discusses Securing Success in the Federal Government’s Busy Buying Season

GovIT Podcast Series: Leveraging SLED Fiscal Year-End Sales Opportunities

Smart Cities Need Smart Solutions

Cloudy With a Chance of SLED Opportunities

Top Takeaways from the FY24 Federal Budget Request: Civilian Agency Edition

The DoD’s FY24 Budget: Intel and Insights from the Latest Request

The Navy’s Latest Cybersecurity Pursuits and How to Bring Your A-Game

The Growth of Esports in Education: A Guide for Vendors and Resellers

DISA's Priorities for Fiscal Year 2023 and Strategies for Success

Navigating the Evolving Threat Landscape: State and Local Governments Prioritize Cybersecurity in 2023

Vulnerability in SLED: How the Threat Landscape is Changing to Target Education, Small Municipalities

The IC’s Push for Secret Transparency

Summer’s Over, But the HEAT is On

State and Local Outlook: Over the Horizon Opportunities for FY23

Catch Breaches Before They Happen with Tripwire on AWS

Using Sumo Logic on AWS to Get Rid of Alert Fatigue

Grid Modernization Dollars are Coming: What it Means for IT Vendors?

Why Government CIOs Need to Rethink Their Tech Procurement Strategy

Be Ready for The Next Big Cybersecurity Threat

Keep Ransomware at Bay with Menlo Security on AWS

Take Control of Your Workplaces With Archibus IWMS on AWS

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Case studies & examples

Articles, use cases, and proof points describing projects undertaken by data managers and data practitioners across the federal government

Agencies Mobilize to Improve Emergency Response in Puerto Rico through Better Data

Federal agencies' response efforts to Hurricanes Irma and Maria in Puerto Rico was hampered by imperfect address data for the island. In the aftermath, emergency responders gathered together to enhance the utility of Puerto Rico address data and share best practices for using what information is currently available.

Federal Data Strategy

BUILDER: A Science-Based Approach to Infrastructure Management

The Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) adopted a data-driven, risk-informed strategy to better assess risks, prioritize investments, and cost effectively modernize its aging nuclear infrastructure. NNSA’s new strategy, and lessons learned during its implementation, will help inform other federal data practitioners’ efforts to maintain facility-level information while enabling accurate and timely enterprise-wide infrastructure analysis.

Department of Energy

data management , data analysis , process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

Business case for open data

Six reasons why making your agency's data open and accessible is a good business decision.

CDO Council Federal HR Dashboarding Report - 2021

The CDO Council worked with the US Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Treasury, the United States Agency for International Development, and the Department of Transportation to develop a Diversity Profile Dashboard and to explore the value of shared HR decision support across agencies. The pilot was a success, and identified potential impact of a standardized suite of HR dashboards, in addition to demonstrating the value of collaborative analytics between agencies.

Federal Chief Data Officer's Council

data practices , data sharing , data access

CDOC Data Inventory Report

The Chief Data Officers Council Data Inventory Working Group developed this paper to highlight the value proposition for data inventories and describe challenges agencies may face when implementing and managing comprehensive data inventories. It identifies opportunities agencies can take to overcome some of these challenges and includes a set of recommendations directed at Agencies, OMB, and the CDO Council (CDOC).

data practices , metadata , data inventory

DSWG Recommendations and Findings

The Chief Data Officer Council (CDOC) established a Data Sharing Working Group (DSWG) to help the council understand the varied data-sharing needs and challenges of all agencies across the Federal Government. The DSWG reviewed data-sharing across federal agencies and developed a set of recommendations for improving the methods to access and share data within and between agencies. This report presents the findings of the DSWG’s review and provides recommendations to the CDOC Executive Committee.

data practices , data agreements , data sharing , data access

Data Skills Training Program Implementation Toolkit

The Data Skills Training Program Implementation Toolkit is designed to provide both small and large agencies with information to develop their own data skills training programs. The information provided will serve as a roadmap to the design, implementation, and administration of federal data skills training programs as agencies address their Federal Data Strategy’s Agency Action 4 gap-closing strategy training component.

data sharing , Federal Data Strategy

Data Standdown: Interrupting process to fix information

Although not a true pause in operations, ONR’s data standdown made data quality and data consolidation the top priority for the entire organization. It aimed to establish an automated and repeatable solution to enable a more holistic view of ONR investments and activities, and to increase transparency and effectiveness throughout its mission support functions. In addition, it demonstrated that getting top-level buy-in from management to prioritize data can truly advance a more data-driven culture.

Office of Naval Research

data governance , data cleaning , process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

Data.gov Metadata Management Services Product-Preliminary Plan

Status summary and preliminary business plan for a potential metadata management product under development by the Data.gov Program Management Office

data management , Federal Data Strategy , metadata , open data

PDF (7 pages)

Department of Transportation Case Study: Enterprise Data Inventory

In response to the Open Government Directive, DOT developed a strategic action plan to inventory and release high-value information through the Data.gov portal. The Department sustained efforts in building its data inventory, responding to the President’s memorandum on regulatory compliance with a comprehensive plan that was recognized as a model for other agencies to follow.

Department of Transportation

data inventory , open data

Department of Transportation Model Data Inventory Approach

This document from the Department of Transportation provides a model plan for conducting data inventory efforts required under OMB Memorandum M-13-13.

data inventory

PDF (5 pages)

FEMA Case Study: Disaster Assistance Program Coordination

In 2008, the Disaster Assistance Improvement Program (DAIP), an E-Government initiative led by FEMA with support from 16 U.S. Government partners, launched DisasterAssistance.gov to simplify the process for disaster survivors to identify and apply for disaster assistance. DAIP utilized existing partner technologies and implemented a services oriented architecture (SOA) that integrated the content management system and rules engine supporting Department of Labor’s Benefits.gov applications with FEMA’s Individual Assistance Center application. The FEMA SOA serves as the backbone for data sharing interfaces with three of DAIP’s federal partners and transfers application data to reduce duplicate data entry by disaster survivors.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

data sharing

Federal CDO Data Skills Training Program Case Studies

This series was developed by the Chief Data Officer Council’s Data Skills & Workforce Development Working Group to provide support to agencies in implementing the Federal Data Strategy’s Agency Action 4 gap-closing strategy training component in FY21.

FederalRegister.gov API Case Study

This case study describes the tenets behind an API that provides access to all data found on FederalRegister.gov, including all Federal Register documents from 1994 to the present.

National Archives and Records Administration

PDF (3 pages)

Fuels Knowledge Graph Project

The Fuels Knowledge Graph Project (FKGP), funded through the Federal Chief Data Officers (CDO) Council, explored the use of knowledge graphs to achieve more consistent and reliable fuel management performance measures. The team hypothesized that better performance measures and an interoperable semantic framework could enhance the ability to understand wildfires and, ultimately, improve outcomes. To develop a more systematic and robust characterization of program outcomes, the FKGP team compiled, reviewed, and analyzed multiple agency glossaries and data sources. The team examined the relationships between them, while documenting the data management necessary for a successful fuels management program.

metadata , data sharing , data access

Government Data Hubs

A list of Federal agency open data hubs, including USDA, HHS, NASA, and many others.

Helping Baltimore Volunteers Find Where to Help

Bloomberg Government analysts put together a prototype through the Census Bureau’s Opportunity Project to better assess where volunteers should direct litter-clearing efforts. Using Census Bureau and Forest Service information, the team brought a data-driven approach to their work. Their experience reveals how individuals with data expertise can identify a real-world problem that data can help solve, navigate across agencies to find and obtain the most useful data, and work within resource constraints to provide a tool to help address the problem.

Census Bureau

geospatial , data sharing , Federal Data Strategy

How USDA Linked Federal and Commercial Data to Shed Light on the Nutritional Value of Retail Food Sales

Purchase-to-Plate Crosswalk (PPC) links the more than 359,000 food products in a comercial company database to several thousand foods in a series of USDA nutrition databases. By linking existing data resources, USDA was able to enrich and expand the analysis capabilities of both datasets. Since there were no common identifiers between the two data structures, the team used probabilistic and semantic methods to reduce the manual effort required to link the data.

Department of Agriculture

data sharing , process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

How to Blend Your Data: BEA and BLS Harness Big Data to Gain New Insights about Foreign Direct Investment in the U.S.

A recent collaboration between the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) helps shed light on the segment of the American workforce employed by foreign multinational companies. This case study shows the opportunities of cross-agency data collaboration, as well as some of the challenges of using big data and administrative data in the federal government.

Bureau of Economic Analysis / Bureau of Labor Statistics

data sharing , workforce development , process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

Implementing Federal-Wide Comment Analysis Tools

The CDO Council Comment Analysis pilot has shown that recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) can effectively aid the regulatory comment analysis process. The proof-ofconcept is a standardized toolset intended to support agencies and staff in reviewing and responding to the millions of public comments received each year across government.

Improving Data Access and Data Management: Artificial Intelligence-Generated Metadata Tags at NASA

NASA’s data scientists and research content managers recently built an automated tagging system using machine learning and natural language processing. This system serves as an example of how other agencies can use their own unstructured data to improve information accessibility and promote data reuse.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

metadata , data management , data sharing , process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

Investing in Learning with the Data Stewardship Tactical Working Group at DHS

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) experience forming the Data Stewardship Tactical Working Group (DSTWG) provides meaningful insights for those who want to address data-related challenges collaboratively and successfully in their own agencies.

Department of Homeland Security

data governance , data management , Federal Data Strategy

Leveraging AI for Business Process Automation at NIH

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), one of the twenty-seven institutes and centers at the NIH, recently deployed Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning (ML) to automate the process by which it receives and internally refers grant applications. This new approach ensures efficient and consistent grant application referral, and liberates Program Managers from the labor-intensive and monotonous referral process.

National Institutes of Health

standards , data cleaning , process redesign , AI

FDS Proof Point

National Broadband Map: A Case Study on Open Innovation for National Policy

The National Broadband Map is a tool that provide consumers nationwide reliable information on broadband internet connections. This case study describes how crowd-sourcing, open source software, and public engagement informs the development of a tool that promotes government transparency.

Federal Communications Commission

National Renewable Energy Laboratory API Case Study

This case study describes the launch of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Developer Network in October 2011. The main goal was to build an overarching platform to make it easier for the public to use NREL APIs and for NREL to produce APIs.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Open Energy Data at DOE

This case study details the development of the renewable energy applications built on the Open Energy Information (OpenEI) platform, sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) and implemented by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

open data , data sharing , Federal Data Strategy

Pairing Government Data with Private-Sector Ingenuity to Take on Unwanted Calls

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) releases data from millions of consumer complaints about unwanted calls to help fuel a myriad of private-sector solutions to tackle the problem. The FTC’s work serves as an example of how agencies can work with the private sector to encourage the innovative use of government data toward solutions that benefit the public.

Federal Trade Commission

data cleaning , Federal Data Strategy , open data , data sharing

Profile in Data Sharing - National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise

The Federal CDO Council’s Data Sharing Working Group highlights successful data sharing activities to recognize mature data sharing practices as well as to incentivize and inspire others to take part in similar collaborations. This Profile in Data Sharing focuses on how the federal government and states support children who are being placed for adoption or foster care across state lines. It greatly reduces the work and time required for states to exchange paperwork and information needed to process the placements. Additionally, NEICE allows child welfare workers to communicate and provide timely updates to courts, relevant private service providers, and families.

Profile in Data Sharing - National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Programs

The Federal CDO Council’s Data Sharing Working Group highlights successful data sharing activities to recognize mature data sharing practices as well as to incentivize and inspire others to take part in similar collaborations. This Profile in Data Sharing focuses on how the Health Resources and Services Administration collaborates with the Department of Education to make it easier to apply to serve medically underserved communities - reducing applicant burden and improving processing efficiency.

Profile in Data Sharing - Roadside Inspection Data

The Federal CDO Council’s Data Sharing Working Group highlights successful data sharing activities to recognize mature data sharing practices as well as to incentivize and inspire others to take part in similar collaborations. This Profile in Data Sharing focuses on how the Department of Transportation collaborates with the Customs and Border Patrol and state partners to prescreen commercial motor vehicles entering the US and to focus inspections on unsafe carriers and drivers.

Profiles in Data Sharing - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service

The Federal CDO Council’s Data Sharing Working Group highlights successful data sharing activities to recognize mature data sharing practices as well as to incentivize and inspire others to take part in similar collaborations. This Profile in Data Sharing focuses on how the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) collaborated with the Centers for Disease Control to notify state, local, tribal, and territorial public health authorities so they can connect with individuals in their communities about their potential exposure.

SBA’s Approach to Identifying Data, Using a Learning Agenda, and Leveraging Partnerships to Build its Evidence Base

Through its Enterprise Learning Agenda, Small Business Administration’s (SBA) staff identify essential research questions, a plan to answer them, and how data held outside the agency can help provide further insights. Other agencies can learn from the innovative ways SBA identifies data to answer agency strategic questions and adopt those aspects that work for their own needs.

Small Business Administration

process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

Supercharging Data through Validation as a Service

USDA's Food and Nutrition Service restructured its approach to data validation at the state level using an open-source, API-based validation service managed at the federal level.

data cleaning , data validation , API , data sharing , process redesign , Federal Data Strategy

The Census Bureau Uses Its Own Data to Increase Response Rates, Helps Communities and Other Stakeholders Do the Same

The Census Bureau team produced a new interactive mapping tool in early 2018 called the Response Outreach Area Mapper (ROAM), an application that resulted in wider use of authoritative Census Bureau data, not only to improve the Census Bureau’s own operational efficiency, but also for use by tribal, state, and local governments, national and local partners, and other community groups. Other agency data practitioners can learn from the Census Bureau team’s experience communicating technical needs to non-technical executives, building analysis tools with widely-used software, and integrating efforts with stakeholders and users.

open data , data sharing , data management , data analysis , Federal Data Strategy

The Mapping Medicare Disparities Tool

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ Office of Minority Health (CMS OMH) Mapping Medicare Disparities Tool harnessed the power of millions of data records while protecting the privacy of individuals, creating an easy-to-use tool to better understand health disparities.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

geospatial , Federal Data Strategy , open data

The Veterans Legacy Memorial

The Veterans Legacy Memorial (VLM) is a digital platform to help families, survivors, and fellow veterans to take a leading role in honoring their beloved veteran. Built on millions of existing National Cemetery Administration (NCA) records in a 25-year-old database, VLM is a powerful example of an agency harnessing the potential of a legacy system to provide a modernized service that better serves the public.

Veterans Administration

data sharing , data visualization , Federal Data Strategy

Transitioning to a Data Driven Culture at CMS

This case study describes how CMS announced the creation of the Office of Information Products and Data Analytics (OIPDA) to take the lead in making data use and dissemination a core function of the agency.

data management , data sharing , data analysis , data analytics

PDF (10 pages)

U.S. Department of Labor Case Study: Software Development Kits

The U.S. Department of Labor sought to go beyond merely making data available to developers and take ease of use of the data to the next level by giving developers tools that would make using DOL’s data easier. DOL created software development kits (SDKs), which are downloadable code packages that developers can drop into their apps, making access to DOL’s data easy for even the most novice developer. These SDKs have even been published as open source projects with the aim of speeding up their conversion to SDKs that will eventually support all federal APIs.

Department of Labor

open data , API

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Census Bureau collaborate on national roads and boundaries data

It is a well-kept secret that the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Census Bureau were the original two federal agencies to build the first national digital database of roads and boundaries in the United States. The agencies joined forces to develop homegrown computer software and state of the art technologies to convert existing USGS topographic maps of the nation to the points, lines, and polygons that fueled early GIS. Today, the USGS and Census Bureau have a longstanding goal to leverage and use roads and authoritative boundary datasets.

U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Census Bureau

data management , data sharing , data standards , data validation , data visualization , Federal Data Strategy , geospatial , open data , quality

USA.gov Uses Human-Centered Design to Roll Out AI Chatbot

To improve customer service and give better answers to users of the USA.gov website, the Technology Transformation and Services team at General Services Administration (GSA) created a chatbot using artificial intelligence (AI) and automation.

General Services Administration

AI , Federal Data Strategy

resources.data.gov

An official website of the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, and the Office of Government Information Services.

This section contains explanations of common terms referenced on resources.data.gov.

An analysis of software project management (case study: Government agencies)

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Module 8. Public governance in practice: A developing economy case study

Public governance in practice.

Learning objectives:

• advise on public governance context
• infer the complexity associated with public governance
• critically review Key Performance Indicators within public governance.

In this module, we hope to make you aware of the fact that corporate governance and project governance are not the end-all and be-all of the discipline of governance. Public governance is equally important and a relatively  emergent field. The key differentiating factor in public governance is that the wellbeing of all relevant stakeholders (users, interest groups, and society as a whole) must be equally considered while designing public investment projects. Therefore the center point to start planning this framework is our stakeholders.

By now, you are familiar with what constitutes good and effective governance. As we have seen, the governance of projects has emerged as a significant approach in the current project management literature. The PMI has recognised this as a formal approach and more and more organisations are on the road to adopting governance as a formal method to achieve their goals and objectives.

Private as well as public organisations embark on projects with the greatest of intentions to see them through to completion. However, in the public sector and for emerging countries, many projects tend to fail due to governance and management challenges within their system. For the economic development of emerging countries, effective governance is required for public-private development initiatives to succeed. Traditionally, project results have been assessed in terms of finishing them within the tradition of the iron triangle: scope, time and money. However, this no longer seems to be the case. In the seventh edition of PMBOK (2021), project evaluations are increasingly being extended to governance, to also include their capacity to fulfill strategic goals over long periods of time.

Reading: Success and failure rates of eGovernment in developing/transitional countries

Have a look at some of the project failure statistics presented in the following article, “Success and failure rates of eGovernment in developing/transitional countries” by Richard Heeks. The article suggests that there is enough evidence to suggest that more than one-third of e-government programmes in developing and transitional nations are unsuccessful completely, that another half are unsuccessful partially, and that around one-seventh are successful.  Please click the link below.

With regard to public projects executed in long-term development environments, unfortunately there is a long-term record of project failure. Complexity, corruption, strong closed networks and the various political uncertainties are quite prevalent in emergent countries and often projects are derived, designed and planned from their own specific social and environmental conditions, ultimately turning  into unmanageable projects.  One of the characteristics of having good governance in place is the ability to guide these types of projects through a variety of uncertainties and unanticipated outcomes. Fortunately, public governance is at the top of the agenda for implementation and practice in many emergent countries (PMBOK, 2021).

Reading: Governance frameworks for public project development and estimation

The paper published by PMI on “Governance frameworks for public project development and estimation” by Klakegg et al. (2008) highlights some unique characteristics of governance in the public/government sector. Please click the link below and review these characteristics.

Adapting project management approaches for public sector initiatives is important. It is critical for project managers to understand the project environment, particularly as this is often unique to the public sector and their key stakeholders (i.e., decision-makers).  It is therefore crucial that project managers aim for a governance framework suitable to this environment, one that enables transparency and accountability since the public sector has a significant and widespread impact on the lives of locals in emerging countries, as well as on the operations of the private sector aiding the development of these nations.  Because of this, we feel it is critical that you get familiar with the nature of these types of projects as well as the governance structures that will be necessary for success.

OECD. (2021). Government at a glance 2021. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en

PMBOK guide. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.

The following case study sheds light on some of the key aspects faced in developing economies. This case is a contribution from John Connell who is currently working in collaboration with other researchers on the project titled “Smallholder farmer decision-making and technology adoption in southern Laos: opportunities and constraints” at the College of Business, Law & Governance, JCU.

GOVERNANCE CASE: USING GOVERNANCE TO ACHIEVE IMPROVED SERVICE-DELIVERY IN DEVELOPING ECONOMIES (Lao Peoples Democratic Republic).

By john connell, case outline.

‘Governance’ can often appear to focus on the application of systems that constrain undesirable behaviours. While this is certainly one of its functions, ultimately good governance should result in a range of outcomes that benefit the population. In low income and developing economies, the establishment of ‘good governance’ includes the improvement of delivery of various services (e.g., health, education etc.) aimed at enhancing livelihoods and establishing more robust local economies. Conversely then, setting pragmatic outcome targets (e.g., increased agricultural production), can provide an entry-point for establishing good governance mechanisms which can then be applied more generally and have broader implications.

This case study provides a brief overview of Lao PDR, its political and economic structures and processes. It then introduces three external initiatives provided by foreign aid projects designed to enable good governance. They each supported practical activities, (e.g., construction of local infrastructure, increased agriculture output, etc.) which invoked application of good governance to achieve the desired pragmatic outcomes, thereby simultaneously demonstrating the benefits of good governance and strengthening the institutional mechanisms, enhancing sustainability and replication.

These initiatives were implemented in three contexts: a United Nations Development (UNDP) Program; bi-lateral agriculture development project; and an NGO-led development project, which took place at three levels of government – national, ministerial and provincial, respectively.   The author was involved in the first of these in a limited way, and was directly involved in the design and implementation of the second two. These both remain works in progress, but have had tangible results both in terms of pragmatic outcome and acceptance of improved governance norms.

In this discussion, good governance will be based on the elements as defined by the UNDP ( United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia, n.d.) and the Pacific ; 1) Participation, 2) Rule of Law, 3) Transparency, 4) Responsiveness, 5) Consensus Oriented, 6) Equity and Inclusiveness, 7) Effectiveness and Efficiency, 8) Accountability (refer to figure 20 ).

Lao PDR context for governance

Lao PDR is the only landlocked country of South-East Asia, bordered in the north by Myanmar and China, in the east and west by Vietnam and Thailand, and in the south by Cambodia (see figure 21). It has a low population density (pop 7.5 million). With almost three-quarters of the country blanketed in mountains and wooded hills the topography has limited the development of extensive agriculture to the few river valleys where cultivation of paddy rice developed. The Mekong River forms most of the border with Thailand and rivers have historically provided transport routes and food sources (fish), and in recent times increasingly a source of hydro power. Between the mountain chain along the eastern side of the country and the Mekong River, there are three high plateaus: Xiangkhouang, Khammouan, and the Bolovens. The Bolovens Plateau in the south near Cambodia has highly fertile volcanic soils where the production of horticulture crops including coffee and rubber have developed. While hydroelectricity and mining are playing an increasing role in the national economy, about 70% of the population remain directly engaged in, or dependent on agriculture (Asian Development Bank, 2018).

The development of good governance in Lao PDR has taken place within a dynamic context.   Laos as it was then known, had side role in the Vietnam war hosting parts of the Hochiminh trail, which resulted in it being subjected to extensive bombing. After years of fighting, in 1973 the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP) succeeded in forming joint provisional government with the Royal Lao Government. Following several rebellions, in 1975 the LPRP took control of the country. The country at this point had a population of just over 3 M and was still essentially a rural economy of subsistence farmers with a few urban centres and a limited bureaucracy. The dominant factors that guided life were a Buddhist culture, and family or social connections, in which loyalty, respect and reciprocity dictated behaviour. In effect, any introduction of governance norms would be replacing these close-knit kinship and social ties; an historical state of affairs within which formal governance structures would have been perceived to have limited utility.

On taking power the LPRP, generally known as the Party, introduced several common socialist mechanisms that included collective farming and central planning. Collectives were introduced (1978) and then abandoned (1983) judged as being unsuitable in the still very rural context of Lao PDR. A far bigger experiment was undertaken in 1989 with the institution of the New Economic Mechanism (NEM) that opened the economy to private sector activity. Internally there have been major shifts in power, beginning with a process of de-centralization to the provinces in the ‘80s, re-centralization in 1991, and finally the sharing of power beginning in 2000, with what is called de-concentration.

External influences, which to a large degree were determined by sources of economic support to Lao PDR, have shifted from its socialist partners (Russia and Vietnam), to foreign donor development aid or largely Western official development and aid (ODA) to growing investment by Chinese entities in more recent years. The country itself was essentially isolated from Western engagement until construction of the first cross-Mekong Bridge (1994). Through all these periods of development, the Party retained control of government as a single party state. The Central Committee with its Politburo are the highest policy decision making authorities and these set all policy directions. Membership of the Party can be gained only by invitation. The National Assembly, the Party’s executive and law-making body, is formed by a generally election but only from candidates selected by the Party. Altogether this provides limited opportunity for any open review of government policy. At the same time, the major shifts in policy and power as described above, show that significant change and development is highly constrained.

Positive changes in governance have taken place across the board with respect to the rule of law, equitable service delivery, and general participation with civil societies that have led to tangible improvements economic and social life. This has occurred as new and younger persons with higher educational backgrounds are brought into the Party, and with the recognition by the Party itself that good governance is necessary to foster economic development and for Laos to engage more broadly internationally (Slater & Keoka, 2012).

Good governance, as defined by the Government of Laos (GoL), has four pillars: 1) people’s representation and participation; 2) public service improvement; 3) rule of law, and, 4) public financial management (Slater & Keoka, 2012). These overlap with those defined by UNDP but noticeably exclude transparency and accountability.  Despite these improvements, Lao PDR is still regarded as having poor international rankings for transparency, ease of doing business and corruption (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2022).

#1 SPECIFIC INTERVENTION – DECENTRALISED PLANNING FOR PUBLIC WORKS 

As a requirement of the Lao government, all ODA projects in Lao PDR work through and with the appropriate government agency: agriculture, health, education etc. These projects have all attempted in various ways to improve effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies they partnered with. Beginning in 2012 the UNDP through its Governance and Public Administration Reform (GPAR) (United National Development Programme, n.d.). National governance and public administration reform programme secretariat support project program brought a focus on governance specifically. This was composed of serval components of which the District Development Fund (DDF) ( O’Driscoll, Oudomsine & Bounyakheth , 2021) will be examined in more detail here.

The DDF provided funds for ‘block grants’ of, on average, about $27,000 to fund projects identified and then managed by District agencies. In working towards project objectives, Districts conducted participatory planning exercises with village communities and then generated a shortlist of projects which were then submitted these for approval. These typically funded construction of small infrastructure projects such as classrooms, water supplies, paths and small bridges, etc. These were overwhelmingly successful in delivering the stated infrastructure within budget.

The DDF initiative in its identification of projects from the bottom-up essentially put into action governance elements of ‘participation’ and ‘responsiveness’. As a result, the DDF has demonstrated that local administrations could be effective in the management and delivery of small investments (as distinct from large externally or centrally managed projects).  The practical nature of the public works activities required Districts to comply with a degree of ‘transparency’ in use of funds, and to accept ‘accountability’ for their performance in the delivery of the projects.

The extensive rollout of DDF across 66 of the 148 District of Lao PDR was ambitious with a few glitches along the way, but demonstrated the above attributes governance in a substantial manner, not as a special case or as a pilot. In a broader sense the DDF provided to counter balance to the negative lessons of de-centralization in the ‘80s.  These lessons were taken to heart and in the later years of the program. The Lao government co-funded DDF to expand its application, and more generally adjusted its planning approaches to provide a greater role for Districts to determine development objectives ( O’Driscoll, Oudomsine & Bounyakheth , 2021).[8] The DDF has thus led to profound and sustainable changes.

#2 SPECIFIC INTERVENTION: ENHANCING SERVICE DELIVERY – AGRICULTURE EXTENSION

The key agency responsible for agriculture is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). The implementing arm of MAF at the District level are the District Agriculture and Forestry Offices (DAFO) with the Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Offices (PAFO) providing a coordinating role across its Districts. The effectiveness of the DAFO was regarded as poor both technically and in terms of its working approaches.

As ODA began to play a significant role in the still rural Lao PDR, many of the projects included components for agriculture development. These focussed on the introduction of improved production practices for smallholder farmers (improved production practices commonly include use of inputs such as new rice varieties and fertilizer; vaccination of livestock against disease; new cash crops such as maize, coffee, etc.) and the training DAFO technical staff in the use of more effective extension approaches. These projects have been successful in terms of demonstrating improved models of production and in real production increases by smallholder farmers. Despite their success once project funding ended these activities were not continued or expanded to new areas.

Primarily, like more government services the DAFO received minimal budgets that did not cover even basic operating costs to mobilise field staff. Apart from the general scarcity of public funds, there was an unwillingness to fund the DAFO due to the beliefs that: (a) staff were not effective; and (b) there was no guarantee the DAFO would use the funds to carry out intended work.

In addition, all the ODA projects operated in parallel to the existing government structures through their own Project Management Units (PMUs). These retained control of all project planning and funds, and reported back to the donors. As a result, while field staff gained experience, no management skills were conveyed to the administration sections of the DAFO and there was little lasting capacity building.

The Department of Agriculture Extension and Cooperatives (DAEC) is the agency within MAF that has oversight for the operation of agriculture extension. To address negative perception of the DAFO and justify fund allocation, a team from College of Business Law and Governance (CBLG) with DAEC designed the project Enhancing District Delivery and Management of Agriculture Extension in Lao PDR (2013-2016) (Connell, Case, & Jones, 2017). This aimed to demonstrate that it was possible to improve DAFO performance, build management skills capacities in a sustainable way and, thereby, justify creation of a mechanism for funding activities internally within the GoL system (as opposed to reliance on external ODA).

The key elements of the design were: (a) the DAFO to select an existing agricultural activity with potential for commercial levels of production, and to frame their plans for its development across the whole District. By focusing on gross output, rather than on improved yields and techniques, the project hoped to align with District economic goals and thereby engage the District Governor; (b) provide DAFO limited operating funds ($5000/yr) for a guaranteed period of 3yrs; (c) devolve all management decisions to the DAFO.

The Project developed an Extension Management System (EMS) to provide pragmatic management tools for the DAFO which included: planning, fund management, delivery approaches, and reporting. The project was managed by staff at DAEC supported by the international research team, with reporting meetings held at the provincial level each six months. In these meetings, DAFO from each district within the province reported their progress, and the project team could ‘advise’ on next steps. Critically these meetings provided the context to engage the key District authorities outside of the agriculture sector, i.e., the District Governor’s Office and the District Planning and District Finance Offices. It was these entities who, in the long run, would decide on fund allocation for the DAFO. Thus, by involving them at an early stage, it would ensure they were informed and understood the work and be invested in it to some degree.

The project operated in 5 districts of two provinces that covered a range of economic and agro-economically environments, and worked with products that ranged from rice (a regions staple) to livestock (poultry) and horticulture (vegetables and coffee). Capacities of DAFO staff in these districts varied greatly. Staff from two of the DAFO had experience working in earlier related projects, whereas staff in the three other DAFO had quite limited capacity. Within the four seasons (2013-2016) during which the project operated, each of DAFO achieved significant increases in production and the smallholder farmers involved were able to shift from small-scale toward commercial production of commodities in their respective Districts. These results were exceptional compared to many contemporary agricultural projects.  The production outcomes were all the more unusual insofar as the project team was not constantly on the ground in the districts and did not provide any special training to the DAFO staff. The project opportunity to influence performance had been limited to the framework provided by the EMS and the six-monthly reporting meetings.

The operation of the DAFO using EMS led to dramatically improved ‘effectiveness’.  The EMS itself provided pragmatic tools for management, empowered staff and enabled them to operate with autonomy. Within this new regime, the DAFO staff had to report not only on their activities as was common in the past, but also their progress towards targets identified and specified in 3-year plans. In this way, over the course of the project they began to adopt a results-orientated rather than activity-orientated approach to delivery. This was reinforced by the fact that they were reporting to authorities (Governor, Planning and Finance) who were less interested in the details of agriculture production than the gross outputs being achieved.

Other aspects of governance had played a role as well. The role of product selection by the DAFO (participation) gave them a sense of ownership of the work. The reporting of results gained against the targets in their plans (transparency) to district authorities brought them recognition, but also a degree of ‘accountability’.

Interviews with District administrative staff toward the end of the project confirmed that the DAFO were beginning to be seen as being able to perform effectively, to generate results and thus, worthy of being funded. However, these ideas had not been fully consolidated by the time the project ended and did not align with the 5-Year GoL planning cycle. Thus, the following dynamic remains somewhat speculative:

Allocation of regular and significant funding to DAFO, would engender internal demand for improved governance, that don’t apply in the same way as when ODA funds are being applied. The domestic funding of DAFO would bring with them expectations of results, (effectiveness, and accountability) and scrutiny of the use of those funds. Systems for monitoring of both production results and fund use come to be required (transparency).

While the EMS has been through several reviews within MAF, it has not been taken up for general application amongst the many other projects in the sector. Application of EMS would require a more broadly based application, as was the case for the DDF. It is still being applied within several NGO projects, and under consideration to be used by several broader bi-lateral aid projects as a means to confer sustainability to extension in a systemic way.

#3  SPECIFIC INTERVENTION: RATIONALISING LOCAL TRADE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 

Agriculture products remain to a large extent grown by smallholder farmers with farm sizes around 1 – 2 hectares. This brings with it inherent variability in terms of quality of the products produced, whether this be rice, chili or coffee. It is also involving the product moving through the hands of various middlemen before it reaches major traders who then ship it inter-province or cross-border (Vietnam, Thailand, China).

Traders face various speed bumps as they ship any of the products to the end markets. The first of these occurs in assembling necessary paper work with the various offices at the Provincial level, each having their own requirements and fees. These typically will include the Departments of Agriculture; Commerce and Trade, and Transport. Time to navigate these procedures can run to days, which then affects product quality, weight-loss and other forms of degradation. En route to its destination, vehicles pass checkpoints for paperwork inspection. Inspection fees (informal) must be paid irrespective of the paperwork was in order or not.

The effects of these procedures are felt in different ways. The additional costs for traders directly result in depressing prices that farmers receive. When traders resort to circumventing the procedures to save themselves costs, the shipments become ‘informal’. This results in Lao products missing recognition and branding once they arrive across the border in Vietnam, Thailand, China. Loss of legitimate fees collected, of course means a loss of scarce revenue for the state. In extreme cases traders have suffered complete loss of shipments and, in others, traders have given up on a particular trade as too costly or risky, thereby denying farmers a market outlet. Thus, impacts can be felt both by the farmers and in legitimate trade being undermined.

These issues are well recognised. Various Prime Ministerial (PM) orders and decrees have been issued to facilitate trade. The order No 02/PM (01/02/2018), subsequently reinforced by No 12/PM (16/10/2019) and No. 03/PM (21/01/2020) (Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 2018), require that: trade documents should be processed using a one-stop-shop approach; that fees for export license be reduced by 50%; border checks be streamlined; and finally internal checkpoints be abolished. Across the country these have been implemented quite variably particularly in the areas that have remained outside the main corridors of development; as a legacy of earlier decentralisation; a desire to continue old fee collections; or because of inefficiencies in implementation. All these failings resonate with aspects of poor governance.

These failings and inefficiencies were very much to the fore when it came to designing a project (2019) in the northern province of Bokeo, where Plan International an International NGO was supporting a small Lao NGO, MHP ( Maeying Huamjai Phattana ” or, women mobilising for development) to develop the Rural Enterprise for Agriculture Livelihoods (REAL) project.

The core of the design for the REAL project included two activities to directly support farmers’ income: (a) improved production practices; and (b) engagement in the value-chain. However even with success in these, incomes could easily be undermined by poor trading practices. Thus, a third element was added, to achieve better “trading practices”. This is an ambitious activity for a small NGO to attempt as it has very limited influence to change the roles of the various Departments noted above. It could also be seen by certain powerful stakeholders to be ‘meddlesome’ insofar as it might confront vested interests.

To be effective in bringing about some degree of change in trade practices and to avoid confrontation, the strategy for this component involved: (a) engaging a senior entity from the central level of government who would bring clear oversight of all relevant laws and regulations – such a person would also command some respect from the Provincial authorities; (b) conducting ‘annual reviews’ of the trade procedures and noting any departures from national regulations and costs that this incurred for provincial trade. Holding the reviews annually meant that the various local agencies would know that if nothing was achieved it would turn up again the following year. And here, the involvement central entities would add additional ‘transparency’ to the issues that might otherwise be avoided or contested if discussed within Provincial confines only.

As the entity based at the central government level, REAL formed a partnership with a team at the National Agriculture Research Institute (NAFRI) which also had support from the Prime Minister’s Office to assess and facilitate trade streamlining nationally. They saw that the REAL project would provide an additional site and support to enable change.

The province had already formed a Provincial Trade Facilitation Committee aimed at rationalising trade procedures to follow new national directives. This was composed of the various Departments and chaired by a Deputy Provincial Governor who would thus exercise authority over the Department and make binding decisions.  This has already acted to apply the PM directives already, mainly in terms of introducing one-stop-shops for trade documents and reducing the cost and time taken for processing these. These changes are directly under its control at the Provincial level.

The first of the annual trade reviews was conducted in February 2022 with the workshop following in March The March workshop took place as an activity of the Provincial Trade Facilitation Committee, chaired by the Deputy Provincial Governor.  The finding of the review were that procedures and costs at the Provincial level were indeed streamlined and costs reduced. These costs can amount to 1-1.5% of the value of a shipment. However, within the districts the PM directives for streamlining trade was not consistently applied, with some district official stating they were not aware of the new procedures. As a result, up to four internal check points still operated, collecting fees or charges irrespective of whether documentation was in order or not. These informal fees can add up to another percentage point or more on the cost of trade, as well as causing delays. As a result is was directed in the workshop that (a) all districts conduct a review of their procedures and (b) identify how new trade regulation can be put into practice. In this way the initiative for change will be driven by the relevant Provincial Departments themselves.

The benefits of achieving good governance for the trade of agriculture products have profound implications. In effect in would see the ‘rule of law’ being applied. The way that REAL has worked to progress towards this is by achieving a degree of ‘transparency’ through enlisting external partners (NAFRI), conducting public review of findings and building consensus through workshop reporting and discussion.

Reflections

Good governance has evolved in the developed economies over many years and, arguably, has been forced upon those economies in response to gross failures in the past. As suggested early in this paper, when the social and economic networks are regionally confined and limited, matters of process and regulation are not so important. Once the society/economy reaches a point where the volume of interactions increases, and where these interactions begin to take place outside of familiar networks, then the need for governance becomes more necessary. It would seem that Lao PDR is now well on the way to understanding the need for and embracing the ideals of good governance.

The importance of good governance is now recognised by the government of Lao PDR, so that it can achieve a more efficient and productive economy and society. While the generic ‘good’ of governance is recognised, these can be resisted due to entrenched practices or disruption of personal benefits. Recognising the ‘good’ is not enough.

In this way it has been useful for external agencies to play a role with relevant Lao entities who contribute both strategies, and funds. The DDF is perhaps the most successful of the initiatives discussed in this case study. The support of external funds for concrete and needed local infrastructure provided a common goal. The DDF procedures brought ‘transparency’, and the outcomes demonstrated ‘efficiency’ enabled a more de-centralised decision making and implementation process to be demonstrated. Because the activity was conducted on such an extensive basis, this brought a degree of normalcy with it and has resulted in the government continuing to provide its own funding and enabling planning and implementation from lower levels of government. This has brought with it elements of good governance necessary to made this function.

While the other two initiatives cannot claim the same degree of impact primarily, they still provided demonstration of the efficacy of good governance. The EMS procedures enabled the DAFO to operate at far higher level of effectiveness (effectiveness). Their report on results and fund expenditures put them on the pathway towards justifying continued funding. This would have created a further internal demand that the DAFO produce results (accountability) and use funds for the stated purpose (transparency).  This may yet be recognised if the EMS continues to be applied more extensively in the manner that DDF was.

Finally, the initiative to achieve streamlined trade employed a strategy of ‘transparency’ so that well known challenges could be recognised and addressed more openly. By engaging entities from outside of the province this helped to build a consensus that would overcome inertia and compel change.

All three of these initiatives have independently used a similar strategy of posting concrete or pragmatic and agreed outcomes which then require various elements of good governance to be applied to ensure their success. This can demonstrate the value of the good governance elements but, in addition, the initiatives need to be applied widely enough to be accepted. The EMS and Trade initiatives outlined above were still at a proof-of-concept stage at the time of writing and broader application will be needed to establish practices and gain recognition.

Case Study References

Asian Development Bank. (2018). Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Agriculture, natural resources and rural development sector assessment, strategy and road map. https://www.adb.org/documents/lao-pdr-agriculture-assessment-strategy-road-map

Bertelsmann Stiftung. (2022). Country report: Laos. https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/LAO

Connell, J., Case, P., & Jones, M. (2017).  Enhancing d istrict d elivery and m anagement of a griculture e xtension in Lao PDR . Australian Center for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR). https://www.aciar.gov.au/project/asem-2011-075

Lao People’s Democratic Republic. (2018). Prime Minister’s Office: order on improvement and coordination mechanism for running business in Lao PDR . http://db.investlaos.gov.la/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pm02_order-db_v-eng.pdf

Slater, R., & Keoka, K. (2012). Trends in the governance sector of the Lao PDR . Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/publikationen_undservice/publikationen/alle-deza-publikationen.html/content/publikationen/en/deza/diverse-publikationen/study-lao-pdr

United National Development Programme. (n.d.). National governance and public administration reform programme secretariat support project https://www.la.undp.org/content/lao_pdr/en/home/projects/national-governance-and-public-administration-reform-programme-s.html

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (n.d.) What is good governance?   https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf O’Driscoll, G., Oudomsine, T., & Bounyakheth, B . (2021). The district development fund of Laos . United Nations Capital Development fund. https://www.uncdf.org/article/7171/the-district-development-fund-of-laos

A Manual for Project Governance and Asset Management Copyright © 2022 by Carmen Reaiche and Samantha Papavasiliou is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.