• Next page

    Executive Summary


  • While all governance boards have important roles and responsibilities, the design, composition and operation should be fit-for-purpose – customised to the organisation’s context, strategy and risk profile. Good governance is both an art and a science—and cannot be prescriptive or one-size-fits-all solutions. For this reason, we explain the purpose and design principles that are important when designing digital project boards, and how these boards are necessarily different from other governance forums. 

  • Positioning  

    To better understand the reasoning behind digital project boards, it is helpful to consider differences to other governance forums.  

    Digital project boards operate in unique environments and face distinct challenges compared to other governance structures. This section outlines how their attributes differ from corporate governance boards, non-digital project boards, and boards in non-government entities.

    Comparison to Corporate Governance Boards

    Project boards have similarities to corporate governance boards but have several material differences. In contrast to corporate governance boards, project governance boards are:

    • Bounded by time: a project board is part of the temporary organisational structure established to deliver a project and is dissolved on project closure. The board will need to reflect on its structure and capability as a project moves through different aspects of its lifecycle.
    • Bounded by scope: a project has a remit to deliver a particular outcome or result. The
      actions of the board are limited by reference to the scope approved in the project business case and change procedures.
    • Bespoke: the board composition needs to be designed for the purpose of the project. The board capabilities will need to reflect applied technologies and stakeholder groups. There can be challenges when the organisational capability and structure the project needs are not yet in place, for example in cross-agency management forums.
    • Dual accountability: board members will often have both organisational accountability and project accountability. Their organisational role may be accountable for mitigating risks, resolving tensions and removing roadblocks that impact project delivery. This can also lead to “conflicts of duty” which need to be recognised and managed, where an individual can be both the supplier and recipient for a project.

  • “The effectiveness of State Penalties Enforcement Registry's (SPER) oversight of the SPER Reform Program’s procurement process was adversely impacted by weaknesses in the design of the steering committee. The chair of the steering committee also chaired the tender evaluation panel, which had the potential to compromise the independence and objectivity of the steering committee to challenge the process”(3) 

    Finding from Audit Office Inquiry

  • Comparison to non-digital projects

    Digital project boards need to cater for the ways that digital projects are different to non-digital projects. In contrast to non-digital projects, digital project governance boards typically feature:

    • High connectivity – Many digital projects involve rich interdependencies, including from people to systems, system to system, data to system, development to operations, vendors to the organisation. Project governance needs to consider how interdependencies affect the
      critical path. There needs to be a high emphasis on stakeholder engagement and the importance of relationship with vendors.
    • Intangible outputs and outcomes – The intangibility of many digital deliverables and outcomes can make it harder for non-specialist board members or stakeholders to understand and articulate the underlying business logic, the intended benefits or the implications of change, and the required outputs resulting in increasing chance of goal ambiguity and misunderstanding.

    Comparison to non-government entities

    Government digital project governance boards have different considerations to non-government boards. These include the:

    • Authorising environment – There is a high level of obligation to administrative law, including decision-making accountability, with implications for attention to delegations of decision-making authority and the need for transparency in record keeping.
    • Relationship between the government and public sector – Policy directives, policy changes, the machinery of government changes, political risk need to be considered in decision-making.
    • Public value and impact – Government boards need to consider the implications for public value, acting as stewards of public funding, instead of an exclusive focus on revenue and costs.

  • Principles

    Principles to guide effective digital project boards

    While all governance boards have important roles and  responsibilities, their design and operation should fit the organisation’s unique context and strategy(16). Good governance is both an art and a science—combining evidence with practical judgement(17). Because every situation is different, this guidance focuses on key principles rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

    Project governance principles
    1. Active decision-making: Boards are active decision-making bodies optimising value of the investment for the public and agencies involved. 
      Implications:
      • use of the term Project Board rather than Steering Committee.
      • active verbs in Board Terms of Reference (ToR), for example, decide, sanction, own.
    2. Integrates with corporate governance: Project governance should be integrated with the agency's authorising environment, as well as its corporate governance and enterprise risk systems, and its policies, standards and architecture. 
      Implications:
      • The ToR should articulate this positioning, and how reporting between governance structures will be conducted and discuss relevant delegations.
    3. Can vary over lifecycle: SROs and boards need to regularly reflect on whether board composition is still relevant and effective, and adapt if necessary.
    4. Distinct from stakeholder management: Separate committees or groups may need to be established to communicate and engage with stakeholders, for example, reference groups, working groups.
    5. Commensurate with risk and delegations: Project boards need to be at a level sufficient for making decisions and spanning the functional boundaries impacted by the change. Board composition and assurance activity needs to be commensurate with the project's risk profile and enterprise risk appetite.
    6. Optimise value, minimise negative impact: Emphasis is placed on achieving optimal value of the investment through effective project outcomes. Approval decisions are driven by alignment with project and strategic objectives. Quick wins and early value delivery is encouraged (e.g. not waiting until the end of the project to realise benefits) (25).

    Board members need to "Ask the hard questions and make the hard decisions"

    Interviewed Assurance Provider

    1. Members suspend self-interest: Board members may be chosen for their experience in a particular area of the business, but should suspend self-interest for the project to achieve its outcomes.
    2. Navigate tensions: Digital projects are rife with tensions and project boards are the interface between the permanent organisation and temporary project. As such, the board needs to align diverse stakeholders and navigate opposing forces and tensions (20).
    3. Constructive culture: Digital project boards need to set a culture of transparency, humility and courage so that risks and issues can be effectively mitigated, value optimised and impact minimised (20).

  • Governance tips from an experienced SRO

  • Lifecycle considerations:

    There are several considerations in running an effective project board throughout a project’s lifecycle. This section provides guidance on the project board duration, inducting board members, review processes and dissolution

    Project Lifecycle and Duration

    Project boards should commence at a project’s inception. Different skills, capabilities and focus may be required at different stages of a project, and consequently the board composition may need to change. For example, architectural expertise may be more necessary in the design phase, procurement in the planning phase.

    In addition, certain events can trigger changes to the project and/or Board. This can include a change in government, turnover of the SRO, handover of project between phases (e.g. after business case approval). These events should also trigger a review of the business case, board charter and composition.

    Induction and On-Boarding

    The following activities are recommended when standing up a project board, or after significant change [14-SRO, 1-SRO].

    • Explain why the project is needed, the outputs and outcomes it is intended to deliver, and high- level project plan
    • Provide clarity on roles, positioning of this board with other governance mechanisms and expectations on behaviour
    • Understanding of baseline plan so the board know what they are measuring against
    • Build capability in the core literacy areas. For example, an agency providing a Managing Successful Projects (45) course so that board members would have common understanding of project principles.

    Reflection and Review

    There should be a regular reflection and review on the effectiveness of a digital project governance board, as:

    • Organisational needs can vary over the project lifecycle
    • The external context might have changed, impacting the project’s feasibility
    • Practices and processes can develop over time, and the board may need to manage reporting impost and regularly ‘de-clutter’
    • The bespoke nature of digital project governance boards means it may need adjustment to be effective.

    Participants for this research recommended having an item on the agenda (quarterly) to review the agenda and papers and remove lower value items. It might also be necessary to change the board composition, meeting cadence or address any cultural issues. The Self-Assessment provided in this document can also be helpful for providing a snapshot of board effectiveness.

    Dissolution

    Closing down the project board should be aligned with the project benefits being realised or accountability transferred to an operational role, rather than the technical output delivery. It should
    also align with DTA’s Closure reporting standard for  digital and ICT-enabled projects.

    Any lessons learned, for example from post- implementation reviews, should be integrated into project management disciplines in the agency.

    There should be a formal handover of any remaining risks and benefits to be realised.
     

  • Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) to deliver for Australians

  • Adopting AI to deliver for Australians

    The APS AI Plan sets out how the Australian Public Service will harness artificial intelligence to deliver better services faster, for all Australians.

    The plan provides the platform for every public servant to have the foundational training and capability support, access and the guidance needed to use AI tools safely and responsibly, supported by leadership from Chief AI Officers working to promote adoption.

    The plan is built on three pillars:

    • Trust: transparency, ethics and governance
    • People: capability building and engagement
    • Tools: access, infrastructure and support

    By uplifting AI maturity across government, the APS will improve service delivery, policy outcomes, and productivity, while ensuring public trust is maintained.

  • Introduction

  • What we plan to achieve

    Objectives, Scope and deliverables, Actions to drive adoption, Context and background, Responsibility for the plan
  • When and how to apply

     

    When to apply

    Apply Criterion 10 during Beta and Live phases to test the effectiveness of your improvements with users. 

    Consider this criterion across the Service Design and Delivery Process to ensure your service remains fit for purpose.

    How to apply

    Questions for consideration: 

    • what is outdated or needs improving?
    • what is and isn’t working?  
    • what feedback has been received? 
    • how will changes be communicated? 
    • how do improvements align with the performance indicators set?  
    Off
  • Dark blue icon with an AI chip

    Trust: Transparency, ethics and governance

    AI adoption in the APS requires a strong authorising environment and the maintenance of public trust.
  • Dark blue icon with a group of people

    People: Capability building and engagement

    Public servants must be equipped with the right skills to use AI responsibly and effectively.
  • Dark blue icon with a check box

    Tools: Access, infrastructure and support

    APS officials need to be empowered with the right AI tools to do their jobs safely and effectively.

  • Appendix A: Plan deliverables

  • Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) to deliver for Australians

  • Introduction

    The challenge

    Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, is revolutionising the way we do business and has the potential to transform the way governments deliver for the communities they serve. Yet, as with any transformation, there are barriers to adoption relating to culture, trust, and resourcing. Our challenge is to overcome these hurdles and facilitate timely adoption to deliver better outcomes for the Australian people.

  • The vision

    The AI Plan for the Australian Public Service (APS) will improve government service delivery, policy outcomes, efficiency, and productivity through substantially increasing the use of AI in government.

    Every public servant will have the training and guidance required to use generative AI safely and responsibly, alongside secure access to generative AI tools, and every agency will have a Chief AI Officer to drive adoption, with AI use tracked and reported on.

Connect with the digital community

Share, build or learn digital experience and skills with training and events, and collaborate with peers across government.

Join the Digital Profession