Introduction

The Western Australian Schools Public-Private Partnership (PPP) intended to construct and manage eight new schools by engaging the private sectorregarding expertise and funding. As the state government outsourced some of the responsibilities, they believed that this would enhance the delivery of projects and, at the same time, get value for its monies. However, managing such a complex idea of such a grand scale would have significant issues. Efficient management is critical for achieving these goals, controlling or minimising risks, and being accountable for the stakeholders interests and public policy goals. Transparency and accountability in decision-making regarding PPP arrangements can be fundamental to PPP success (Western Australian Auditor General, 2018).

For the WA Schools PPP project, the governance issue emerged mainly from managing multiple stakeholdersconcerned about various power and interest levels. The study incorporated the Western Australian government, private consortia, financial institutions, and many other groups, all of whom had conflicting goals and influenced the project in different measuressince this report will also focus on governance problems in the project, an assessment of the power of key stakeholders will be done through the Stakeholder Circle alongside recommendations of the most suitable management strategies to enhancethe project governance and delivery.

1. Governance Problems and Suggested Solutions

Governance Problems

1.1 Lack of Clarity in Roles and Responsibilities In the course of employing the concept of PPP in the WA Schools PPP project, it was observed that all the players in the project had poorly defined responsibilities. Therefore, there must be aclear differentiation between the two sectors for the smooth running of PPP activities. In this case, having integrated or shared responsibilities meant overlapping duties or an apparent lack of accountability, which caused problems and cost more time than was necessary.

1.2 Inadequate Risk Management There was no robust system in the project to control against possible risks. Accomplishments in construction delays, cost escalation and operational inefficiencies were found to be poorly handled. While implementing the infrastructure delivery role, it was partially in the private sector and entirely in the public sector when it comes to bearing the risk of delay, which translates to dissatisfaction and cost implications.

1.3 Poor Communication Between Stakeholders In project governance, especially PP, communication is crucial primarily because many parties or stakeholders, such as the government, contractors and the public, are involved. In the case of the WA Schools project, there were conflicts of interest and communication failures between the Department of Education and the private consortium. This led to a lack of communication, wrong targets being set,and delayed decision-making.

1.4 Limited Accountability and Transparency Decision-makers are not held accountable, and there is no way to tell what is happening. One weakness of the PPP model can often affect accountability since some process roles are divided between public and private organisations. For that, the Auditor General identified problems in communication, particularly poor performance monitoring and inadequate reporting of project results.

Suggested Solutions

1.5 Clear Governance Structure and Defined Roles To ensure no conflict in determining roles and responsibilities, the following recommendations should be made to the Tobin Tax. The Governance Charter should primarily provide anexplicit account of all stakeholders' duties and formal decision rights. This would go a long way in avoiding cases where one person or department is doing the work another should be doing in terms of clarity on who should do what and when.

1.6 Improved Risk Management Framework It is essential that risk management is enhanced by having an overall framework for identifying risks and having explicit matrices to assign risk ownership to the party best suited to manage such a risk. For example, the private sector should be the ones to take the risks, such as construction risks, and on the other hand, we have the public sectorembrace moreeducation risks. It is recommended that risk assessments for risks across the project be performed systematically, starting from initiationto the point where it gets completed, if not before then or after; all the risk management solutions should be followed immediately (Nicholas and Steyn, 2020).

1.7 Establishment of a Communication Protocol A communication plan needs to be set up, which will define how and in what manner and through which media communication between the stakeholders will be regular. This would reduce cases of wrong or delayed information being passed where there is adire need for it.

1.8 Increased Accountability and Transparency Creating a monitoring and project auditing agency would improve accountability. Each project should be required to provide regular and comprehensive disclosure of the key activities, financial results, and assessments of risks to open up public and private entities to public scrutiny.

2. Stakeholder Circle

A Stakeholder Circle is a matrix from which one can derive how much power a stakeholder has over a project. It reflects the stakeholder map by distance, power/ interest and concern level where the project is being implemented (Knight et al. 2020).

Figure 1: Stakeholder Circle (Bourne et al. 2005).

Legend

• High Influence, High Interest (Central Circle): These stakeholders directly control the projects outcomes.

• High Influence, Low Interest (Second Circle): These stakeholders can affect the project but are not actively involved.

• Low Influence, High Interest (Third Circle): These stakeholders are affected by the project but have limited power.

• Low Influence, Low Interest (Outer Circle): These stakeholders are not directly involved but may have some interest.

Stakeholders in the WA Schools PPP Project:

1. Government of Western Australia (Department of Education): High influence, high interest

2. Private Consortium (Building Contractors and Facilities Managers): High influence, high interest

3. WA Auditor Generals Office: High influence, low interest

4. Parents and Students of WA Schools: Low influence, high interest

5. Teachers and School Staff: Low influence, high interest

6. Local Communities: Low influence, low interest

7. PPP Investors/Financial Institutions: High influence, low interest

3. Analysis of Two Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder 1: Government of Western Australia (Department of Education)

Interest:

The Department of Educations foremost concern is ensuring that school facility construction and installation are achieved quickly and efficiently within agiven budget. Among their duties is performing the role to ensure that the schools are running andoffering public services.

Influence:

A great deal of authority belongs to the Department of Education because these people dictate educational standards and ensure that the project complies with public policy and legal provisions. They also control the public sector spending on the project (Harold, 2021).

Distance from the Project:

This is because the Department of Education is directly associated with the project, communicating with the private consortium and is responsible to the public and government for the result.

Management Approach:

In order to address this stakeholder adequately, there should be frequent and open reporting on project activities. The department should clarify its decision-making responsibilities, especially in matters regarding education results and accountability. The collaborative governance frameworks would require the engagement of both the public and private sectors in decision-making about the department, and this would safeguard the department's interests.

Stakeholder 2: Private Consortium (Building Contractors and Facilities Managers)

Interest:

The private consortiums motivations are mainly rational and business-like: they want to build the schools within the planned financial and time frame and make a profit. They are also expected to manage the school facilities for the period covered by the contract; hence, the long-term functionality of the assets is essential to them.

Influence:

The private consortium has the construction and operational management responsibilities of the project, and they significantly control its success. Failure or slowness on their part can greatly affect project performance outcomes (Fuertes et al., 2020).

Distance from the Project:

The private consortium is actively involved in the project, acting as an Implementing Entity that performs the most crucial operationsconstruction and repairs.

Management Approach:

To address this stakeholder, it is recommended that performance-based contracts be incorporated into the project governance structure. These contracts will call for monetary rewards upon successful completion of the project and fines in the event of failure or slow progress. Performance evaluations should be conducted periodically to ensure that the consortium performs well regardingproject schedule and quality. Another critical element is regular contact between the consortium and the Department of Education to avoid situations connected with the misalignment of objectives.

Conclusion

The WA Schools PPP project demonstrates that suitable governance structures/arrangements are crucial in delivering large-scale public infrastructure. Mitigating the governance issues related to project uncertainties regarding stakeholders roles and duties, lack of risk mitigation measures, and weak communication will significantly enhance the project results. For this reason, having the chance to refine the governance process will guarantee accountability, risk management, and mutual objectives for the project and the stakeholders involved. Besides, the mechanism of project governance should meet thefollowing conditions: the ability to apply changes as needed due to transformations in the needs of schools and the community.
The power-interest politics depicted in the Stakeholder Circle analysis show that stakeholders differ in power and interest, making it easy to know how much attention they should receive. There is a need to understand and manage critical outgoing stakeholders such as the Department of Education and the private consortiums communication and cooperation through responsibility, transparency and negotiating decision-making. It is possible that such strategies can effectively manage conflict of interest as well as create harmony with the process of the overall goals and objectives. In conclusion, when a set PPP project is well governed, this will be in the best interest of all stakeholders, who will receive value for their money in terms of timely delivery of quality schools and worth the price state and citizenship worth.

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank