AUTHOR: JAMES CHAPMAN

The Promise vs. the Reality

AI has been widely identified as the next great engine of productivity growth; often compared to the transformative impacts of electricity or the internet. Yet despite billions of dollars invested, the productivity boost so far has been modest. Real-world gains remain incremental, narrow in scope, or uneven across sectors[1]. For many organisations, expectations have outpaced actual outcomes.

Why This Shouldn’t Surprise Us

This gap between hype and reality should not surprise us. We are living through a period of structural uncertainty; caught between the established environment and an emerging one still taking shape. This uncertainty is reflected in organisational investment behaviour. In November 2024 a Detons’ survey identified 69% of business leaders were pausing capital expenditure[2]. Similarly in July, The Cube Research identified that 87% of businesses were taking a ‘cautious approach’ to tech spending[3]. In both cases, AI uncertainty was identified as a key contributor to this decision.

This makes sense when you imagine uncertainty in the context of a new project. Imagine you are responsible for:

• Launching a new public-facing ICT service – would you design your customer support entirely through a chatbot, knowing public trust in AI is still forming?
• Delivering a new case management system – do you integrate a generative AI search capability now, or wait until regulations clarify how client data can be processed?
• Leading a major workforce redesign – do you restructure roles now based on current automation capabilities, or wait, knowing AI may soon take on tasks we still consider uniquely human?

Each of these scenarios highlights the uncomfortable but inevitable reality of transition: we are building the plane while flying it.

The Role of Project Professionals

While there are significant ethical, regulatory, and technical challenges associated with AI adoption, the focus here is narrower and more practical: the role of project professionals.

We are not passive bystanders. We have a responsibility to optimise our approaches, sharpen our processes, and support our stakeholders so that projects can navigate this uncertain terrain more effectively.

If AI is to deliver on its promise, it will not be solely because of algorithms or cloud infrastructure; it will be because project professionals made it possible to align people, process, and technology during a volatile period.

Principles for Managing the Transition

I believe there are four key principles that can help project professionals manage uncertainty:

1. Clarity of strategic planning – In a volatile environment, clearly articulating project goals and objectives is essential. Defining, documenting, and securing agreement on these goals ensures your project can navigate a radically changing landscape. Equally important is documenting assumptions — they provide a vital reference point when assessing whether the project is drifting off course.
2. Flexibility in execution – Embracing agile delivery methods provides the adaptability needed in times of change. I often use a Horizon delivery approach: setting regular planning windows to reassess progress and define the next tranche of outcomes, followed by focused delivery phases. This approach provides enough certainty for teams to deliver priority work while avoiding over-planning into an uncertain future.
3. Flexibility in project governance – Rigid governance can block timely decision-making. In volatile environments, this undermines a project’s ability to deliver value. Instead, governance should empower teams with the autonomy to make tactical decisions while maintaining alignment with strategic goals. Real-time automated dashboards should replace static status reports, providing decision-makers with up-to-date visibility and reducing response lag.
4. Embrace graceful project failure – Even with the best planning and flexibility, project delivery remains risky. We need to foster an environment where failure is not stigmatised but managed. A graceful failure closes cleanly, recycles resources, and preserves trust. A catastrophic one bleeds money, morale, and credibility. Encouraging frank advice and trusting leadership to act decisively allows organisations to recover quickly and redirect investment to more viable initiatives.

AI may yet deliver a productivity revolution, but for now the returns are uneven and the environment unsettled. In this transitional era, project professionals are not just implementers — we are stewards of resilience and enablers of progress. By applying disciplined yet flexible practices, project professionals can ensure that AI’s eventual productivity revolution is realised responsibly, efficiently, and with purpose.

[1] https://opendatascience.com/most-enterprise-ai-investments-deliver-no-return-mit-report-finds/

[2] https://www.dentons.com/en/about-dentons/news-events-and-awards/news/2024/november/ai-investment-trapped-by-regulatory-uncertainty

[3] https://thecuberesearch.com/283-breaking-analysis-tech-spending-remains-persistently-uncertain

AUTHOR: SAHANA SREENATHA

Government delivery has never been more complex. Policy priorities shift throughout project or program delivery, budgets are tightened, emerging technologies cause disruption, and teams restructure at a fast pace. Uncertainty is not going away. The challenge for agencies is not how to eliminate it, but how to build resilience so that projects, programs, and people can thrive in spite of it.

For many, the Project Management Office (PMO) has been seen as an administrative layer, a compliance checkpoint, or a collector of status reports. In practice, when resourced and empowered, it becomes something much more valuable. At its best, it is the Peace of Mind Office, providing clarity, confidence, and continuity in an unpredictable environment.

Rethinking the Value of PMOs

It is easy to define a PMO by its functions such as governance, reporting, risk management, and assurance. But a more useful perspective is to consider it through a Value Proposition Lens.

When the PMO is treated as a product and the public sector as its customer, its role becomes clearer. As per the Value Proposition Canvas diagram below; the product side encompasses the benefits it delivers, the experience it creates, and the features it provides. The customer side reflects the aspirations of leaders, the needs of various departments and agencies, and the fears that influence decision-making.

This framing highlights the difference between a PMO that enables resilience and one that simply ticks compliance boxes. Leaders want impact and credibility, they need decision-ready information and trusted frameworks, and they fear failure, wasted resources, and reputational damage. A well-positioned PMO addresses these directly, while a poorly supported one risks amplifying them.

Why Experience and Capability Matter

The value of a PMO is seen not only in what it delivers, but in how it shapes the experience of delivery. Organisations that position PMOs as trusted partners create cultures of openness, where project managers feel safe to escalate risks early and leaders feel supported rather than scrutinised. This shift from defensiveness to collaboration is where resilience begins to take hold.

Capability is the defining factor. Skilled staff transform the PMO from a reporting channel into a trusted advisor. A clear mandate allows it to influence decisions rather than simply reflect them. When these conditions are in place, the PMO provides foresight when priorities change, reduces risk under scrutiny, and enables leaders to make confident and credible choices.

Adaptability also matters. Delivery approaches across government have shifted significantly, with many Information Technology based projects moving away from traditional Waterfall methods towards Agile or hybrid models. These shifts offer opportunities for greater flexibility and responsiveness, but they also create new challenges, including increased documentation, additional approvals, and the need to balance agility with assurance. PMOs play a critical role in navigating this transition. By embedding governance frameworks that are scalable, proportionate, and responsive to context, they allow agencies to capture the benefits of Agile without losing the discipline required for accountability and oversight.

Examples from recent government initiatives that have demonstrated this outcome:

• Where PMOs were empowered to align frameworks with workflow systems, administrative burden was reduced and compliance strengthened.
• Where they were deliberately staffed and resourced, they helped the department/agency adapt quickly to shifting priorities, providing both stability and foresight.

These are practical outcomes that reflect the difference a strong PMO can make.

Meeting the Needs of the Public Sector

Public sector leaders want PMOs that are enablers of outcomes, not blockers of progress. They need compliance and governance that do not drown delivery in red tape. They are concerned about reputational damage from failed projects, the strain of under-resourced PMOs, and delays when timely advice is needed.

Meeting these aspirations, needs, and concerns requires more than just focusing on the delivery processes. It requires PMOs that build strong relationships, tailor frameworks to project context, and provide reliable information at the right time. Above all, it requires capability. Without skilled staff, the PMO charter risks being watered down, reducing its ability to influence and increasing the risks it is meant to manage.

The Future of the PMO

PMOs tend to operate in a landscape defined by uncertainty, shifting priorities, and an increasing demand to do more with less. Organisations are moving away from rigid Waterfall delivery models toward Agile or hybrid approaches, requiring PMOs to evolve from traditional oversight functions to dynamic enablers of delivery. PMOs will need to provide flexible governance frameworks that support both speed and accountability, acting as a bridge between leadership and delivery teams.

Key takeaways from recent observations highlight that PMOs must:

• Focus on value over compliance: The PMO’s role will increasingly emphasise driving tangible benefits for the organisation rather than purely monitoring adherence to process.
• Enable informed decision-making: By providing timely, clear insights into risk, progress, and resource allocation, PMOs can empower leaders to make strategic decisions even in uncertain contexts.
• Support hybrid delivery models: With the shift to Agile or hybrid approaches, PMOs will need to adapt tools, reporting, and governance to suit iterative delivery while maintaining oversight.
• Champion capability and culture: Beyond process, PMOs will play a critical role in shaping organisational capability, fostering collaboration, and embedding a culture of learning and resilience.
• Operate as a hub for stakeholder engagement: Acting as a single source of truth, the PMO ensures alignment across multiple initiatives, connecting executives, delivery teams, and external partners.

Looking forward, PMOs that embrace flexibility, value creation, and adaptive governance will be best placed to support organisations in navigating complexity, uncertainty, and accelerated change. The PMO is no longer just a control function; it provides practical support to keep projects on track and the organisation responsive.

AUTHOR: BRIONI BALE

The Australian public service supports Government to develop, implement and update Australian policy which can have population-wide impacts. Project managing policy change can be a challenge due to the complexity, tight delivery timeframes, inclusion of many stakeholders and the high sensitivity to risk, uncertainty and changing political environments. Outputs stemming from policy change are often less specific and are more focused on longer-term outcomes. How policy outcomes will be achieved can be unclear and can continue to change as the policy is developed, negotiated and agreed to by Government. The implementation of policy is typically more contentious or polarising than other types of change.

Good project management is essential to ensure successful delivery of policy outcomes, which can be significant, challenging to deliver and may require a different project management approach, when compared to other types of large-scale projects. This article explores how policy project management differs and provides techniques that can be used to improve successful delivery of policy in Australia.

Why is policy project management different?

• When compared to other types of projects, policy projects typically attract broader stakeholder interest (Ministers, their staff, government agencies, industry, industry bodies, consumers and, the public more generally) due to their potential for broad population impact. Other project types have more limited and specific stakeholder interest. There may be a large number of stakeholders, but the variety is generally less.
• Communication is important on all types of projects, but effective communication is essential in policy projects to gain support from stakeholders, influence public opinion, and ensure successful implementation. Communication in other types of projects tends to be more focused on internal updates, user engagement and marketing type activities.
• Developing policy involves extensive research and analysis (data collection, impact assessments and evaluation of pre-existing policies). Evidence-based decision-making is crucial to show the need for the policy, as well as supporting the development of sound policy. Research and analysis may also be important in other types of projects but it’s generally market research, technical feasibility, or user experience.
• Policy projects must consider legal and regulatory frameworks, compliance issues, and the potential for legislative changes. Public consultations are often necessary and there is generally always a need for some sort of legal advice. Where legislation is part of the policy, Parliamentary processes must be followed, which can take considerable time. Non-policy projects may need to consider regulations and compliance but typically not to the same extent.
• Implementation often involves multiple phases and can include pilot programs to better understand impacts. Specific evaluation points can be established to measure the effectiveness of the policy to allow for adjustments if needed. Other project types focus more on project roll-out, user adoption and iterative improvements over time based on feedback.
• Policy projects are generally funded by public money or grants, which comes with an increased need for transparent reporting and accountability to ensure value for money. Formal policy authority from Government is required. Other project types are funded by private investments, internal budgets, or revenue, with different accountability mechanisms.

Understanding the differences between policy and other types of large-scale projects is crucial to establish fit for purpose project management, to ensure policy-specific challenges and requirements are addressed throughout the project delivery.

The challenges and complexities of policy projects

There are many challenges and complexities associated with the development and implementation of policy.

• Policy projects often have interdisciplinary needs, requiring expertise from multiple disciplines i.e. economics, legal, clinical, sociological, technology. Different disciplines and the greater numbers of stakeholders involved in policy development create different project outcome expectations.
• It can be difficult to define the scope of a policy project due to ongoing changes as the policy intent is established and the realities of implementation are realised. A further contributor to scoping difficulties is the funding process, which can contribute to outcome expectation inconsistencies when requested and allocated funding are not the same, limiting or changing achievable outcomes.
• Uncertainty i.e. economic fluctuations, changes in political environment, natural disasters can impact policy outcomes and effectiveness. It can also complicate the translation of policy into action. Implementation complications could include logistical planning, management, monitoring, resistance, lack of capacity, or unforeseen changes.
• Gathering, analysing, and interpreting large volumes of data, is often necessary to inform policy decisions, which can be resource-intensive, time consuming and technically challenging. Privacy requirements always must be taken into consideration. Balancing competing ethical considerations, such as equity, fairness, and the public good, can add another layer of complexity to policy design and implementation issues.
• Policy benefits are often intangible and can be hard to identify and baseline in a manner that can be effectively measured. Often, benefit realisation cannot occur for considerable time after the completion of the project making evaluation difficult.
• Project management in policy environments is often undertaken by teams with limited dedicated project management capability and capacity which can impact project delivery and implementation success.

How to improve policy project delivery efficiency and effectiveness

With an understanding of how a policy project differs to other project types, and recognition of the complexities and challenges associated with policy project management, there are steps that can be taken to increase policy delivery success.

• There is a need for a deep understanding of the policy intent and any changes made to the policy through its development and implementation. Establishing artefacts and processes to underpin the project is important, but understanding the policy itself will improve delivery and outcomes.
• Taking a flexible project management approach, with consideration of the public sector team’s capability, maturity, capacity, risk appetite and leadership expectations can increase buy-in and improve internal capability.
• Building trusting relationships with public sector team members and leadership. Policy-specific subject matter expertise is generally found in operational team members. It is just as important to have good relationships with project team members as it is with leadership. Being in the trenches with the team is one of the best ways to build trust.
• Make exceptions when they are needed. Hard and fast rules sometimes do not work, and they do not win you friends or influence people. Sometimes, it is appropriate to make an exception where it supports the team.
• There is a need for fluid contingency planning, done in a flexible way, which considers the complexities of the project. There are often too many moving parts to set up one or two contingency plans and stick with them.

Building true partnerships with policy delivery teams leads to more successful delivery outcomes. The use of our project management capability alongside the policy subject matter expertise in the public sector leads to improved policy delivery and outcomes.

AUTHOR: JO CARROLL & NATHAN EDDY

Implementing wholesale process redesign in a compressed timeframe is a daunting task. Add political interest and an Auditor-General’s report to respond to and the pressure is really on. This is what we faced when presented with the redesign significant business process for a NSW Government Agency.

Context

The NSW Auditor-General handed down a report in May that identified significant deficiencies in the management of a process that required remediation and made a number of recommendations to address the process deficiencies, address identified risk and provide greater control of the agency’s powers. The Secretary of the Agency committed to implement a new, organisation-wide, process by December – less than eight months from the release of the report.

We commenced this project on 1 July, giving us and our client only six months to deliver a wholesale redesign of a complex and critical business process.  We were engaged to work side by side with the department to implement this significant project, working closely with teams across NSW.

We faced resistance and challenges to implementing such a complex program of work from the start. Some key challenges included:

• Wide and varied stakeholders, often with differing views, experience, and level of buy-in.
• Considerable change fatigue from 18 months of machinery of government (MOG) changes that implemented new ways of working and amalgamated legacy departments.
• Business as usual did not stop or slow while this project was being completed.

Our strategic approach was successful and ultimately allowed us to turn around a program of work that would normally take more than 12 months in a 6-month timeframe.

Facilitative Approach

Our facilitative approach worked well to engage large groups of stakeholders through workshops to understand their current processes and challenges, map and step through critical process steps, and identify opportunities to improve and better practices within the agency.  It allowed us to leverage their experience and expertise to design a future process that met their needs, supporting compliance with the legislated requirements and addressing the required outcomes for the project. This approach was used throughout the project starting with defining the high-level process design, down to developing individual operational steps within the process to ensure that those impacted by the change could be informed and contribute to the project, improving project outcomes and stakeholder buy-in.

Defining the End-State Early

There were many documents to be produced as part of the project and it was not feasible for Senior Management to be across them all in detail. To address this, workshops were held with Senior Management to establish design principles and articulate the desired future state before starting to redesign the process. Twenty design principles and 14 future-state statements were endorsed by Senior Management and the Steering Committee and communicated widely to stakeholders. They were used to frame discussions and were introduced at the start of each design workshop to guide the participants towards the desired end state endorsed by Senior Management. These statements were also used at the end of the project to measure success of the program of work.

Leveraging Project Governance to Maintain Momentum

As the pace of delivery of key documents picked up, we increased the frequency of working group meetings to engage directly with the management team, resolve issues efficiently, and make time critical decisions. We also utilised these meetings as needed for workshops or detailed walk throughs of the process documentation. For example, we used one meeting to step through in detail two different proposed process flows to resolve conflicting views between stakeholder groups and come to a resolution.

Lessons Learnt

Like all high intensity and complex projects, the lessons learned provide valuable insights to inform our future strategies and planning. We paused at critical milestones throughout the project to reflect on what has worked well to date and what could be improved or done differently moving forward. Below we share some of our key lessons from this project.

Dividing the Workload Doesn’t Always Produce Efficiencies

In an effort to reduce the workload on individual stakeholders, we divided up the documents for review. In hindsight, a lot of time was spent providing context and explaining concepts contained in other documents. Making the draft documents centrally accessible to all stakeholders providing input to the project would have allowed them to delve deeper into the subject areas they were interested in and reduce the amount of time required during briefing sessions at the end of the project conducted as part of the change program.

Engaging stakeholders directly also resulted in siloed discussions and conflicting points of view that required further work to resolve.  While it may be challenging to schedule discussions across stakeholder groups, the benefits are worth the effort. Having all stakeholders present for the same discussions leads to shared understanding and the ability to discuss differing points of view to resolution, rather than when consultation occurs in insolation.

Integration of Project and Change Management to Embed Change

Change Management is critical to the success of projects of this nature, particularly when redesigning complex processes with considerable history within experienced teams. Due to resource availability, the client’s Change Management resources were not brought into the project until we were well into development of the new process. Embedding a Change Management team from the commencement of the project and engaging them throughout the re-engineering process would have given them greater visibility of the technical and solution requirements and provided firsthand understanding of the impact of the change and the level of acceptance (and resistance) of the new process.  It would have also greatly assisted in the development of key change artefacts and reduced the need to spend time with already stretched stakeholders at the pointy end of delivery to develop and deliver the Change Management program.

Wholesale process redesign will always be complex and challenging, with each project needing a tailored response to ensure success.  However, with these lessons in mind, you may be able to quickly deliver your priorities and successfully embed lasting change.