Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol.

14(2):189-200
Copyright © Faculty of Engineering, University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri, Nigeria.
Print ISSN: 1596-2490, Electronic ISSN: 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

APPRAISAL OF GOVERNANCE OF MULTIFARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE


PROJECTS (MIPs) DELIVERY IN NIGERIA

G. A. Zarewa
(Department of Quantity Surveying, Bayero University Kano, Kano, Nigeria)
E-mail address: galzarewa.qs@buk.edu.ng

Abstract
Ineffective governance has been identified as one of the major challenges confronting successful delivery
of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects’ (MIPs) and other projects. This study appraised current
approaches to governance of MIPs’ delivery in Nigeria with the aim of identifying and proffering
solutions to governance challenges the projects encounter. The study was conducted through literature
review and semi-structured interviews with key role players who participated in the governance of eight
out of thirty - five MIPs at different locations in the country followed by thematic data analysis. The study
discovered that governance of MIPs’ delivery in Nigeria was done haphazardly.Two of the studied MIPs
failed due to their intuitive initiation on the basis of political exigencies,tying theirfunding to erratic
sources of funds andunwarranted scope changeswhile another MIP failed due change of
government.Protests by some stakeholders; delayed decisions; political considerations and alleged
corruptionin the award of contracts; bankruptcy of a contractor;refusal of members of a host community
of an MIP to allow the MIP to take off unless they were settled; conflict between some role players and so
forthaffected the delivery of other five MIPs.The study concluded that MIPs’ governance as practiced in
Nigeria today does not support effective delivery of the projects and recommends the development and
effective implementation of a uniformly accepted governance framework to guide MIP’s governance.

Keywords: Governance, Multifarious Infrastructure Projects, Project Governance, Procuring Authorities.

1. Introduction
Governance is a term used to define the processes implemented to provide management
oversight, guidance and compliance to policy and procedures. Winch (2001) said that the term is
often used to describe the processes and systems by which an organisation or society operates. It
refers to the way in which an entity is managed at the highest level which involves allocation of
authority, responsibility and accountability. There are essentially two types of governance.
Corporate Governance (CG) which focuses on exercise of power in corporate entities (Clarke,
2004), provides structure for setting a company’s objectives, means of attaining those objectives
as well as monitoring the company’s performance, and Project Governance (PG) which provides
a framework within which decisions for project development and implementation are made
(Bekker and Steyn, 2009). Project Governance (PG) is, thus, primarily concerned with ensuring
that projects are initiated, planned, executed and managed effectively and efficiently to achieve
their intended objectives. Bourda (2011) was of the views that effective PG ensures that a
project’s objectives are aligned with those of its Procuring Authority (PA), the project is
delivered efficiently, and supports means of exchanging timely, relevant and reliable
information.
Cravel Group (2013) was of the views that the approach to be adapted in governing a project
should be determined on the basis of the project’s complexity and risk and thenby value. This
means that governance approach for MIPs should take cognisance of their complexity, inherent
risks and value.Large Project Governance Research Project Report (2013),hereafter referred to as
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):189-200.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

LPG (2013), describedMIPs as significant undertakings characterised by involvement of multiple


organisations seeking success with differing objectives. MIP for the purpose of this study refers
to one large infrastructure project consisting of at least three sub-projects. MIPs are considered
complex due to their size, nature and involvement of several organisations in their delivery. LPG
(2013) observed that MIPs are important to society and its welfare but their track record was
often poor as they have failed partially or completely due to lack of appropriate governance.
Findings of a study conducted by Cravel (2013) argued that 100% of root cause of project failure
could be traced to inadequate project governance. Identification of lack of governance
mechanisms as one of the major causes of projects failure in Nigeria by Zoufa and Ochieng
(2014)implies that projects failure in the country can also be attributed to ineffective governance
since there cannot be effective governance without appropriate governance mechanisms.
Ineffective governance has, form the foregoing discourse, been identified as one of the major
challenges confronting successful delivery of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects’ (MIPs) and
other projects particularly in developing countries like Nigeria. It has therefore become
imperative for appropriate stakeholders to understand causes of ineffective governance with a
view to avoiding projects’ failures due to the malaise.
It has however been observed that though ineffective PG and issues associated with it (such as
selection of incompetent contractors, inadequate planning, ineffective decision making, lack of
transparency and accountability, corruption)have been identified as causes of MIPs’ and other
projects’ failure in Nigeria by Olusegun and Michael (2011) and Olalusi and Otunola (2012), not
much efforts have been made to identify governance challenges MIPs encounter in their delivery
with a view to proffering possible solutions. This study therefore appraised governance of MIPs
in Nigeria with a view to identifying governance challenges the projects encounter in their
delivery and suggesting possible solutions to the challenges. Effective implementation of
findings from this study will reduce the colossal waste of resources and employment
opportunities resulting from failure and/or abandonment of MIPs due to ineffective governance
in the country.
The study however recognises that fact since anecdotal evidence will not be enough to provide
conclusive solutions to the research questions, empirical data is required to show, to a large
extent, what stakeholders can do to ensure that LIPs are delivered. The paper is, after the
introduction, structured as follows: Section 2 presents literature review after which the
methodology adapted in conducting the study is outlined. Data/results from interviews are then
presented followed by analysis and discussion of the results and finally conclusions were drawn.

2. Literature Review
The role of governance in a project environment was highlighted by Nistor and Beleiu (2014)
who opined that while choosing the right projects to implement corporate strategies is placed at
the level of corporate governance (CG), the framework created by Project Governance (PG)
supports effective implementation of the project. Impacts of governance on project delivery are
usually the outcome of implementation of these roles in the project’s delivery. Robinson et al.
(2010) identified six components of governance which include a simple organisational
(governance) structure with clearly defined responsibilities and clarity between a person’s role
and their associated responsibilities in decision-making structure; strong leadership; good project
management skills; good communication strategy and effective project controls and tools such as
risks management systems as Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for delivering complex projects
such as MIPs. This implies that the way these components are handled in the governance of a

190
Zarewa: Appraisal of Governance of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects (MIPS) Delivery in Nigeria
AZOJETE, 14(2):189-200 ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

project, will also to a large extent, contribute in determining the impact governance will have on
the project’s delivery.

2.1 Impact of Governance on Project Delivery


The role of choosing the right projects to implement corporate strategies usually undertaken at
the level of corporate governance (CG) which can be expatiated to include ensuring proper
initiation processes, appointment of competent consultants and contractors, setting up an
effective Governance Structure (GS), ensuring adequate and continuous funding, etc. can without
doubt make or mar successful projects delivery. Previous studies have discovered many
instances where projects succeeded or failed due to the ways these roles were undertaken. Brady
and Davies (2013) linked the success of Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 and the London 2012
Olympic Park to, among other factors, the ways the two MIPs were governed. University Office
Project Toolkit (2012) opined that it is important to get project initiation (which establishes the
foundation of a project) right as it can make the difference between a successful and
unsuccessful project. Poor decisions at early stages of a project were identified as governance
challenge that may hamper the project’s effective governance and successful delivery by
Robinson et al.(2010). Appointment of consultants and contractors could make or mar successful
project delivery because non-utilisation of competent consultants and contractors were identified
among the factors that accounted for thousands of abandoned projects in Nigeria by Olalusi and
Otunola (2012). Other factors associated with governance that impact projects delivery include
political support, political pressure, political interference, lack of continuity and inconsistency in
policies and change in government. Many MIPs and other projects were known to be initiated,
located or suspended due to political exigencies. Identification of political support as a critical
success factor for implementing Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) projects by Almarri and Abu-
Hijleh (2017) showed that political influence can impact project delivery. The same authors were
of the views that politics might reduce the chances for success of a project by mobilising public
against the project or by creating legislation capping service charges, adding more taxes,
removing any tax relief, or stopping any subsidy support. A study by Damoahet al.(2015) ranked
political interference third out of ten biggest causes of failure of government projects in Ghana.
Zoufa and Ochieng (2014) discovered that when a new political party or government takes over,
they end up discontinuing existing projects or just suffocating anyone they don’t like’. The new
governments in most scenarios abandon pervious government policies or programs with the
hidden intention of embarking on self-conceptualised projects.
The foregoing discourse showed that the success or otherwise of a project depends, to a large
extent, on how it is governed. The conclusion has,in turn, made it necessary for appropriate
stakeholders to appraise how projects are governed with a view to identifying thegovernance
challenges they encounter in their delivery and proffering solutions on how to address the
challenges.This study accordingly addressed the following research questions.
1. How is MIPs’ delivery governed in Nigeria? and
2. Which governance challenges do MIPs’ encounter in their delivery in Nigeria?
3. Methodology
The study was conducted through literature review and semi-structured interviews with key
stakeholders/role players who participated in the governance of eight MIPsat various locations in
Nigeria. The eight sample MIPs (listed in Table 3.1) were purposively selected from 35
MIPsexecuted by State and federal Government agencies and private sector, who are the major
executors of such projects,on the basis of their complexities, types, Procuring Authorities (PAs),

191
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):189-200.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

size, sector and location. Choice of the samples on the basis of their characteristics was
madewith a view to understandinggovernance challenges posed by these characteristicsand
proffering solutions that could, as much as possible, address governance challenges MIPs
encounter in Nigeria irrespective of their PAs, complexities, types, sector, size and location.
Semi structured interview option was used due the political, restricted and sensitive nature of the
information required to address the study’s research questions.Goodman (2008) argued that this
type of interview assists in overcoming the problems of incomplete, restricted or often
unavailability of data whileRobert Wood Johnson Foundation (2008) opined that the method
allows for specific issues to be addressed and encourages discussion of sensitive issues with
interviewees.The interviews centered on appraising some important aspects of the MIPs’
governance,governance challenges the MIPs encountered in their delivery and how to address
the challenges with a view to improving their success rate.
The interviews were held on one-on-one basis at locations that discouraged unnecessary
interruptions. The interviews always started with introductory sessions followed by full
explanation of purpose and relevance of the study to the respondents because Kumar (2011)
discovered that respondents’ understanding of purpose and relevance of a study enhances quality
of data. The interviewees were, thereafter, assured of protection of anonymity and confidentiality
as well as stoppage of the interviews at their instances. Questions asked were, as much as
possible, kept to minimum, simple, direct, clear, broad and open- ended while ambiguous,
emotional, double-barreled, leading, loaded, and presuming ones were avoided in line with views
of Harrell and Bradly (2009).
Data from the interviews were, as suggested by Rubin and Rubin (2012), manually transcribed,
interpreted; sorted; grouped; coded; categorised into themes and further analysed using thematic
analysis method after which conclusions were drawn. The method minimally organises and
describes data in rich detail in addition to interpreting various aspects of a research topic (Braun
and Clarke, 2006).

Table 3.1: List of Studied MIPs and Interviewees


S/N MIP Title Value in Billion Role Players Interviewed
Construction of 5KM Asphaltic Dual Managing Consultant and three
A Carriage Way with Street Lights, Side Over N75.00 Contractors
Drainages, etc. at the Headquarters of all
the Local Government Areas of a State in
North Western Region of Nigeria

B Redevelopment of a Game Reserve for a N5.60 Project Manager


State Government in North Eastern
Region of Nigeria

C Construction of a new Government House N8.00 Project Manager


complete with Infrastructure for a State
Government in North Western Region of
Nigeria

D Establishment of 2 new Schools for a N1.80 Secretary, Procurement Planning


Federal College of Education in North Committee
Western Region of Nigeria
E Establishment of a National Skill Over N18.00 Project Manager
Acquisition Centre in the South – South

192
Zarewa: Appraisal of Governance of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects (MIPS) Delivery in Nigeria
AZOJETE, 14(2):189-200 ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

S/N MIP Title Value in Billion Role Players Interviewed


Region of Nigeria

F Construction of Head Office Complex for N1.234 Project Manager


a Media in one of the State Capitals in
North Western Region of Nigeria

G Establishment of 3 new Housing Estates Over N27.00 Managing Consultant, a Major


for a State Government in North Western Contactor and PA’s
Region of Nigeria Representative on the MIP

H Establishment of a new University for a Over N8 Project Manager


State Government in North Western
Region of Nigeria
Source: Interview Findings (2014/2015)

4. Results and Discussions


4.1 Results
The interviews revealed that MIPs A and Gwere initiated and embarked upon without proper
need assessment and/or business cases. Some respondents argued that these projects were
intuitively initiated more on the basis of political exigencies rather than economic and other
realities on the ground. A respondent specifically decried the initiation and subsequent
commencement of MIP G, which was a commercial project, without any form of feasibility
study while another one was quoted saying that “I believed the MIPs were intuitively initiated to
score political points”.Data from the interviews indicated that contracts for some of these
projects were awarded to incompetent contractors. It was also learnt from the interviewees that
there were protests by some beneficiaries of MIP A against the way the project was being
executed and by landowners who protested for nonpayment of compensation for the land
acquired for MIP G. Failure to realise sufficient deposit to fund MIP A by deposits from
prospective buyers of the project’s products once it reached 25% completion, which was blamed
on inadequate initiation processes by respondents from the project, was another data obtained
from the interviews. They argued that a feasibility study could have assisted in guiding the
successful procurement of MIP G. Respondents from the two MIPs were of the strong opinion
that proper initiation process which includes comprehensive business cases and proper need
assessment are necessary for successful project delivery.
Data from the interviews also showed that funding of these two MIPs was tied to erratic sources
without any contingency arrangements. Funding of MIP A was discoveredto be solely tied to
funds from Federation Account while the funding of MIP G was tied to deposits from
prospective buyers of the project’s products once it reached 25% completion. The interviews
further revealed that reduction in expected funds the Federation Account due to fall in oil price
and failure to realise expected deposits from prospective buyers made honouring of contractors’
interim payments as at when due difficult for the PAs of the two MIPs. Intermittent suspension
of works and subsequent abandonment of these MIPs was attributed to this factor by the
respondents.
Data from the interviews further highlighted that governance of the initiation phases of MIPs B,
C, and H included setting up of committees to ensure the successful take off of the projects. The
committees developed comprehensive project briefs (in consultation with the PAs and
Consultants), which identified the physical, human, financial and other requirements for

193
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):189-200.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

successful delivery of the MIPs, and ensured that compensation was paid for the land acquired
for the projects before their take off. Phasing the execution of MIP H on the basis of available
resources before its take-off was discovered to have assisted in the successful completion of the
project. The interview data further showed that funds required to execute MIPs C and H were set
aside from the onset by their respective PAs. The PMs of the MIPs, who were part of the
interviewees commended the PAs of the projects for setting aside the funds at the onset because
the measure, according to them, prevented the MIPs from encountering funding and payment
challenges. A two way funding arrangement was on the other hand discovered to have been
made for MIP B by its PA as part of the governance activities of its initiation phase with a view
to ensuring adequate and continuous funding of the project. The PM of the project (MIP B)
however identified change of government as the major governance challenge the project
encountered in its delivery and attributed the MIP’s failure to this factor."Change of government
was the worst thing that happened to this project and up to today the project was yet to be
completed based on its objectives due to funding problem.He added that"If only it can be
possible, complete funding for a project that will cross two different administrations should be
set aside so that continuous funding will be insured irrespective of whether there was a change
of government or not otherwise the project was likely to fail.He further suggested some form of
legislation that will prevent governments from commencing on new projects at the tail end of
their tenures unless they can make legal arrangements that will ensure continuous funding of the
project irrespective of the government in power.
It was also discovered in the course of the interviews that project brief for MIP D was prepared
in consultation with all appropriate stakeholders while consultation was limited to only a section
of its stakeholders in the preparation of brief for E. Result of the interviews also showed that
consultation with all appropriate stakeholders in MIP D helped in minimising changes while
limited consultation in E resulted in some challenges. The PM of MIP E believed that "refusal of
members of the MIP’s host community to allow work to commence until they were settled arose
due to limited selective stakeholder consultation." Outcome of the interviews also revealed that
the two MIPs (D & E) encountered delay in processes leading to award of contracts and award of
contract for one of the projects to an incompetent contractor due to his lowest tender figure
which resulted from compliance with provisions of Financial Regulations and Public
Procurement Act, 2007 as a result of which respondents from the MIPs recommended review of
some sections of the two documents.
It was also discovered in the course of the interviewees that MIPs A and G encountered projects
design and management challenges due to failure of in – house staff to correctly design and
effectively manage the projects as a result of which Management Consultants (MCs) were
appointed to take over the two responsibilities. Respondents from the MIPs revealed that the
MCs’ appointmentangered the in-house staff, resulted in total review of the designs/estimates,
delay in the execution of the projects and conflict between the MCs and the in-house staff.The
respondents further advised PAs to always ensure that only competent personnel are assigned the
responsibility of designing and managing MIPs and other projects.
It was also discovered from the interviewees that contractors for all the MIPs except D, E and F
were selected through nominations without involving consultants. Some respondents alleged that
"political considerations and corruption played some roles in the exercise".These respondents
blamed failure of some contractors to perform even after receiving advance payments and refusal
of some contractors for MIP C to adhere to consultants’ instructions until the Chief Executive

194
Zarewa: Appraisal of Governance of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects (MIPS) Delivery in Nigeria
AZOJETE, 14(2):189-200 ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

Officer of its PA threatened to revoke the contract of any contractor that failed to comply with
the consultants’ instructions on the way the contractors were selected.
Results of the interviews also established that the use of a combination of PAs’ in-house staff,
some statutory agencies and Consultants to manage MIPs A, G and H caused conflicts,
duplication of efforts and delay. Lack of clear demarcation of responsibilities between a
consultant architect who started managing MIP G and MCs brought in to join the architect after
the project has taken off was discovered to cause conflict of authority between the two which
hindered effective management of the project. It was also discovered from the interviews that it
wasmandatory for all correspondences and information from the PAs ofMIPs E and F to any of
the projects’ participants and vice versa to be channeled through the PMs. Respondents from
these MIPs were of the opinion that this policy and the one that barred all role players (including
PAs and/or their representatives) except the PMs of the two projects from issuing direct
instructions to either consultants or contractors also improved the effectiveness of the MIPs’
governance. Interference in the management of A, B, C and G, and disregard for due processes,
established procedures and Consultants’ advice in MIPs A, B, C F, G, and H by their respective
PAs were said to make governance of the projects difficult and uninteresting.Respondents from
these MIPs stated that CEOs of these MIPs' PAs on many occasions issued direct instructions to
contractors which resulted in serious cost and time overruns.Some of such instructions were said
to have resulted in a cost overrun of over N4billion(Four Billion Naira) and time overrun of over
eighteen months in MIP G. Rejection of consultants’ advice and ordering demolishing of works
already accepted by consultants by chief executive of the PAs of MIPs A, B and F, which
resulted in double payment for some works, were also identified by many respondents as issues
that made governance of the affected projects very difficult. Rejection of PM’s advice not award
contract for MIP F to the contractor that tendered the lowest figure was reported to have resulted
in a serious governance challenge for the project’s PA. The contractor, according to the PM,
became bankrupt and failed to honour contractual obligations tosub contractors and pay his staff
as a result of which the PA had to take over these responsibilities under a tripartite agreement
between the PA, contractor and sub contractors
The communication systems ofMIPs A, G and H described as cumbersome by respondents from
the projects were discovered to lack clearly defined communication channels due to their
complex GSs and madeinformation to at times take considerable time before it reached its
targeted recipient.Respondents from MIPs B, C, D, E and F,said their projects had simple GSs, a
coordinated approach in relaying information and clearly defined lines of communication. They
asserted that their communication systems impacted positively on the projects’ governance by
enabling timely decisions and implementation of required actions, keeping relevant stakeholders
informed on project issues and giving PMs some level of control. The interviews further revealed
that stakeholder identification and engagement in most of the MIPs was limited to only
stakeholders directly involved in the delivery of the projects even though problem with any
stakeholder can derail a project. Data from the interviews showed that this development affected
the delivery of MIPs A, E and G.
Data gathered from the interviews also included suggestions by the respondents on how to avoid
or minimise MIPs failure due to ineffective governance. The salient ones are summarised below.

195
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):189-200.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

4.2 Suggestions by Interviewees on how to Avoid or Minimise MIPs’ Failures due to


Ineffective Governance in Nigeria
i. Proper initiation process which includes comprehensive business cases, proper need
assessment and feasibility studies, where necessary should be undertaken before
commencement of any project;
ii. PAs should tie funding of their MIPs to credible sources of funds that will ensure adequate
and continuous funding of their projects and where possible set aside funds for the
projects before their commencement;
iii. Complete funding for a project that will cross two different administrations should be set
aside so that continuous funding will be insured irrespective of whether there was a
change of government or not;
iv. PAs of MIPs should formulate simple and clear governance policy and establish effective
governance structures for their projects;
v. PAs of MIPs should be enlightened on the implications of disregarding due process and
Consultants advice while mangers of MIP should as much as possible ensure that they do
not provide any opportunity for PAs to interfere in the management of the MIPs;
vi. Existing rules, regulations and statutory documents hindering smooth and timely delivery
of MIPs in Nigeria such as Financial Regulations 2004 and Public Procurement Act 2007
should be reviewed by government;
vii. A legislation that will compel an incoming government to complete all MIPs it inherited
from its predecessor should be enacted by the National and State Houses of Assembly;
viii. Public officers, who deliberately start MIP without adequate resources and time to
complete, should be barred from contesting for or holding any public office.
ix. Decisions on engagement of consultants and contractors should be based on competence
and established processes/procedures; and
x. Appropriate sanction/punishment should be meted to any role player found to be involved
in corruption, negligence of duty, ethical misconduct in MIPs’ delivery in Nigeria.

4.3 Discussions
Results of the interviews which identified intuitive initiation of two of the MIPs on the basis of
political exigencies without proper needs assessment and business cases as factors that led to the
failure of the affected MIPs clearly highlighted the importance of proper initiation, need
assessment and business case to successful delivery of MIPs. This development agreed with the
findings of University Office Project Toolkit (2012) which stated that it is important to get
project initiation, which establishes the foundation of a project, right as it can make the
difference between a successful and unsuccessful project.
Results of the interviews which reported protests by some direct beneficiaries who preferred
other projects instead of the MIP being procured for them at the time and those who protested
against the way one MIP was being executedindicated that proper needs assessments were not
conducted before embarking on the MIPs.Swanepoel and de Beer (2006) posited that
participatory needs identification should be the first undertaking before a project
commencesbecause it is the beneficiaries who must identify their needs before they organise
themselves to do something about their situation.This study is of the views that failure of
communities to take ownership of and protect projects in their midst may be traced to non
consideration of their needs when initiating the projects.

196
Zarewa: Appraisal of Governance of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects (MIPS) Delivery in Nigeria
AZOJETE, 14(2):189-200 ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

Intermittent suspension of works and subsequent abandonment of two MIPs due to failure of
their PAs to honour contractors’ interim payments as at when due discovered from the interviews
are no longer news as many previous studies had identified these factors as causes of project
failures not only in Nigeria but also in other African countries.Damoahet al., (2015) observed
that many projects have been abandoned in developing countries due to lack of adequate funding
and cited the example of the World Bank $4.2 billion dollarsChad-Cameroon pipe-line project
which failed due to funding problem whileOlusegun and Michael (2011) identified inadequate
funding and delayed payments among the major causes of projects failure in Nigeria. The
reported failure of one of the studied MIPs due to change of government was not a new
discovery. Extent literature on the subject of project failures due to change of government
suggested that the issue was widespread in Africa. A survey conducted by Damoahet al., (2015)
ranked change of government as the fourth major cause of project failures in Ghana while a
Focus Group study by Zoufa and Ochieng (2014) blamed project failures in Nigeria on change of
government.
Failure to realise expected sales rate of the product of an MIP;refusal of members of a host
community of an MIP to allow the MIP to take off unless they were settled; and protests by land
owners for compensation discovered from the interviews,which hindered smooth delivery of the
affected MIPs, underscored the importance of an all-inclusive stakeholder identification
consultation.Previous studies by Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (2012) and
Ibrahim et al(2006) have identified refusal of some motorists to pay road tolls due to lack of
stakeholder consultation at the early phases of Lekki Toll Road Concession Project and non
involvement of host communities as risk associated with successful PPP projects in Nigeria
respectively.
Findings from the interviews which linked inadequate and complex governance structures, use of
one GS to govern MIP and its PA’s other activities, ineffective communication systems and lack
of authority for role players other than CEOs to take decisions in some MIPs,to delayed
decisions with their attendant consequences corroborated findings of previous studies on causes
of delays in PG and project delivery. Project Management Institute (2009) identified poor GS as
a cause of ineffective PG while Garland (2009) discovered that using separate GSs to govern a
project and other activities of the organisation procuring the project facilitates faster and more
qualitative decisions. Garland (2009) also identifiedeffective communicationbetween project
teams, top management and stakeholders as critical requirements for effective PG whileHer
Majesty’s Treasury (2007) argued that it is unlikely to achieve effective PG without formal
delegation of clear responsibilities, authority and accountability to role players. Discovery of
conflict of authority between some role players due to lack of clear demarcation of
responsibilities, authority and responsibility, which contributed to the failure of one of the MIPs
highlighted the need for PAs to always ensure that all role players in PG were assigned distinct
roles that are clearly understood by each of them.
The reported failure of in - house staff (to design and mange some MIPs) and contractors
awarded contracts on the basis of political considerations, alleged corruption, and lowest tender
figure was not a new development. Olalusi and Otunola (2012) had identified non-utilisation of
competent consultants and contractors among the factors that accounted for thousands of
abandoned projects in Nigeria.Unwarranted scope change, cost/time overruns and award of
contract to contractor who later became bankrupt linked to some Procuring Authorities’ (PAs)
disregard for due process and Consultants’ adviceby data from the interviews were clear
manifestations of impact of lack of top management support towards effective governance and

197
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):189-200.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

delivery of the affected MIPs. Lack of top management support had earlier been identified as one
of the causes of project failures in Nigeria by Akinyokun et al. (2009).
A careful look at how the studied MIPs were governed and suggestions on how to avoid
orminimize MIPs failures due to ineffective governance clearly indicated the need for the
development and implementation of a Project Governance Framework (PGF) with a view to
ensuring their successful delivery as Project Governance (PG) had been recognized as a critical
factor for successful project delivery by Garland (2009).The scholar also reported that a PGF
defines who steers a project; the decision making authorities at different levels; people
accountable for the success or failure of a project; stakeholders of a project and how they are to
communicate; and how a project should be controlled, monitored and steered to achieve intended
outcomes

5. Conclusions
This study appraised current approaches to governance of some MIPs’ delivery in Nigeria,
identified the governance challenges the projects encountered and proffered some possible
suggestions on how to address the challenges. The numerous reported cases of MIPs and other
projects’ failures in the country due to ineffective governance made the topic apt for study. The
study identified inadequate initiation processes; tying funding of MIPs to erratic sources of
funds; PA’s disregard for due process and Consultants’ advice; and change of government as
major governance challenges MIPs encounter in their delivery in the country. The study
concluded that MIPs’ governance as practiced in Nigeria today does not support effective
delivery of the projects and recommends the development and effective implementation of a
uniformly accepted governance framework to guide MIP’s governance in the country.
It should however be noted that the study has some limitations which included the problem of
generalization due to small sample size (eight MIPs) and limited number of interviews
conducted. The use of only semi-structured interview which is a qualitative method to conduct
the study was another limitation that may be addressed by the use of quantitative or a
combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to conduct future studies on the subject.
While this study may not have offered conclusive answer to the question of MIPs’ failure due to
ineffective governance, its findings could, in spite of the limitations, serve as subjects for future
studies.

References
Akinyokun, OC., Angaye CO. and Ubaru, MO. 2009. Factor Analysis of the Performance
Indices of ICT projects in the Public Sector of Nigerian Economy. Journal of Technology
Research, 1, 1–15.

Bekker, MC., and Steyn, H. 2009. Project Governance: Definition and Framework. Journal of
Contemporary Management, 6,214 – 228.

Bourda, FH. 2011. Project Governance for Successful Projects.


http://jindal.utdallas.edu/files/11/Bourda-paper.pdf of 1st June, 2013.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77-101.

198
Zarewa: Appraisal of Governance of Multifarious Infrastructure Projects (MIPS) Delivery in Nigeria
AZOJETE, 14(2):189-200 ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818, www.azojete.com.ng

Clarke, T. 2004. Theories of Corporate Governance: The Philosophical Foundation of Corporate


Governance, Pp 1 - 30.London UK: Routledge, Oxford.
Cravel Group. 2013. A Review of Project Governance Effectiveness in Australia, 1 - 31.
Infrastructure Australia, Australian Government. Retrieved October 25, 2016 from
infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/.../Project-Governance- Effectiveness-report by Caraval.

Damoah, SK., Akwei, C. and Mouzughi, Y. 2015. Causes of government project failure in
developing countries – Focus on Ghana.Proceedingsofthe 29th Conference of British Academy
of Management, 2015, pp1-29.Accessed June, 20th2017from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299537426_Causes_of_government_project_failure_in
_developing_countries_-_Focus_on_Ghana

Garland, R. 2009. Project Governance: A Practical Guide to Effective Project Decision Making,
Pp 7 - 199.Kopan Page Publishers, London NI 9JN, United Kingdom.

Goodman, JL. 2008. Best Practices for Researching and Documenting Lessons Learned.United
Space Alliance Houston, Texas.Retrieved December 6th 2011 from
klab.or/DE/lessonslearned/reports/cr-2008-214777.pdf.

Harrell, MC. and Bradley, MA. 2009. Data Collection Method: Semi-Structured Interviews and
Focus Groups. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-
2138, U. S. A.

Her Majesty‘s Treasury 2007. Project Governance: A Guidance Note for Public Sector Projects,
Pp 3-91. HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road. London SW1A 2HQ.

Ibrahim, AD., Price ADF. and Dainty, A.R.J. (2006). An Analysis of Success Factors for PPP in
Infrastructure Projects in Nigeria. Journal of Construction Management 12(1) 2006.

Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission of Nigeria ICRC, 2012. Nigeria Public


Private Partnership Manual. United Kindom Aid (UKAid) through Nigeria Infrastructure
Advisory Facility (NIAF) Programme. Retrieved January 4th 2013
from:http://ppptoolkit.icrc.gov.ng

Khalid A. and Bassam AH. 2017. Critical Success Factors for Public Private Partnerships in the
UAE Construction Industry A Comparative Analysis between the UAE and the UK. Journal of
Engineering, Project, and Production Management 2017, 7(1), 21-32.

Kumar, R. 2011. Research Methodology: A Step – by – Step – Guide for Beginners (Third
Edition). SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP

Large Projects Governance Research Project Report 2013. Designing Effective Governance
Structure for Large Projects. Aalto University, 2013, Helsinki, Finland.

199
Arid Zone Journal of Engineering, Technology and Environment, June, 2018; Vol. 14(2):189-200.
ISSN 1596-2490; e-ISSN 2545-5818; www.azojete.com.ng

Nistor, R. and Beleiu, I. 2014. Approaches Regarding the Dimensions of Project Governance.
Proceedings of the 8th International Management Conference, (pp 1024 -1031): “Management
Challenges for Sustainable Development, November 6th 7th 2014. Bucharest, Romania.
Office of Government Commerce OGC, 2008. Governance. Retrieved November, 18, 2014,
from http://www.ogc.gov.uk/delivery_lifecycle_governance.asp.

Olalusi, O. and Otunola, A. 2012. Abandonment of Building Projects in Nigeria- A Review of


Causes and Solutions.Proceedings of 2012 International Conference on Chemical, Civil and
Environmental Engineering (ICCEE 2012) March 24-25 Dubai.

Olusegun, AE. and Michael, AO. 2011. Abandonment of Construction Projects in Nigeria:
Causes and Effects. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences
(JETEMS) 2:142-145. Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2011 (ISSN: 2141-7024).

Project Management Institute 2009. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (4th
Edition) (PMBOK® Guide). Project Management Institute, PA.

Robinson, H, Carrillo, P., Anumba, CJ. and Patel, M. 2010. Governance and Knowledge
Management for Public Private Partnerships.Wiley – Blackwell.West Sussex, PO1985Q, United
Kingdom.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 2008. Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Princeton, NJ
08543.

Rubin, HJ. and Rubin, IS. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (Third
Edition). Sage Publications Inc, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, California 91320. E-mail:
order@sagepub.com.

Swanepoel, H. and De Beer, F. 2006. Community development. Breaking the Cycle of Poverty
4thEdition.Formeset Printers Cape. South Africa.

University Office Project Toolkit 2012. Project Initiation. University of Birmingham Intranet.
Accessed 22nd February 2016 from http//:intranet.birmingham.ac.uk/it/toolkit-project initiation-
vi-August 2012.

Winch, GM., 2001. Governing the Project Process: A Conceptual Framework. Construction
Management and Economics, 19:799-808.

Zuofa, T. and Ochieng, EG. 2014. Project Failure: The Way Forward and Panacea for
Development. International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9, No. 11; 2014, 59-71.
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education.

200