Skip to content

ACCA Strategic Professional · Strategic Business Leader · Leading and managing projects

Teskon Energy abandoned a major smart-metering project after the sponsor left, when it emerged that no one had been accountable for the business case. Requirements had grown steadily, the steering group met rarely, and project reports to it showed only progress against schedule. Which analysis best explains the failure in terms of project governance?

The failure is best explained by weak project governance. There was no sponsor owning the business case, scope grew without control, the steering group rarely met, and reports covered schedule only rather than benefits. These gaps let the project drift without anyone challenging whether it remained worthwhile.

  1. AWeak governance: absent sponsor ownership, no scope control and reporting that ignored benefits and the continuing business caseCorrect
  2. BPoor risk appetite: the board accepted too much risk by choosing an innovative technology
  3. CInadequate technical quality assurance, since the failure came from software defects
  4. DExcessive formal control, which stifled the team's flexibility and creativity

Explanation

The facts show no accountable sponsor, uncontrolled scope growth, an inactive steering group and reporting limited to schedule, all of which are governance weaknesses that allowed the project to drift without testing the business case. Nothing mentions technical defects or risk appetite. The facts also describe too little control, not too much.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Leading and managing projects shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Leading and managing projectsFree diagnostic mock

More Leading and managing projects questions