Capital Project Governance and Assurance Training Course

Participants can create a governance operating model with clear delegated authorities.

• Governance operating model components: forums, roles, delegations, information and escalation
• RACI matrix developed for investment, delivery, assurance and change decisions
• Delegated authority limits linked to cost, risk and contractual exposure
• Terms of reference drafted for boards, committees and working groups
• Decision rights separated between asset owner, sponsor and project director
• Escalation paths defined for threshold breaches and unresolved project issues

Participants can assess whether proposed capital projects remain aligned with strategic priorities.

• Strategic outcomes translated into measurable capital investment selection criteria
• Portfolio prioritisation using weighted scoring, constraints and dependency mapping
• Theory of change connects project outputs to intended organisational benefits
• Demand assumptions tested against service needs, capacity and utilisation forecasts
• Interdependencies mapped between enabling works, approvals, systems and operations
• Portfolio balancing considers affordability, risk concentration and delivery capacity

Participants can review a business case for decision readiness and evidential quality.

• Five-case business case structure: strategic, economic, commercial, financial, management
• Problem statements distinguish symptoms, root causes and investment opportunities
• Options appraisal compares do-nothing, do-minimum and intervention alternatives
• Discounted cash flow, NPV and IRR interpreted for capital decisions
• Sensitivity analysis tests demand, inflation, delay and operating cost assumptions
• Assumptions registers assign owners, validation methods and review dates

Participants can judge project maturity before committing significant capital funds.

• Front-end loading assesses definition before detailed design and execution approval
• Scope definition measures identify unresolved requirements, interfaces and exclusions
• Value improving practices challenge design choices before cost commitments
• Readiness criteria cover land, permits, utilities, procurement and stakeholder agreements
• Maturity assessments expose gaps in engineering, estimates, schedules and risks
• Approval recommendations distinguish proceed, proceed with conditions, defer and stop

Participants can build stage gates that control commitments and support timely decisions.

• Stage-gate architecture aligns decision points with investment and delivery lifecycle
• Gate criteria specify mandatory evidence, tolerances and approval conditions
• Entry and exit criteria prevent premature progression between project phases
• Gatekeepers review evidence independently from project delivery accountabilities
• Conditional approvals record actions, owners, dates and residual decision risks
• Gate calendars integrate board schedules, funding cycles and procurement milestones

Participants can govern scope definition and design decisions to limit uncontrolled change.

• Requirements traceability links strategic needs, technical specifications and acceptance criteria
• Scope baseline documents inclusions, exclusions, assumptions and interface responsibilities
• Design authority arrangements establish technical approval and deviation controls
• Value engineering evaluates function, cost, constructability and whole-life performance
• Configuration management controls approved drawings, specifications and design changes
• Change control thresholds trigger sponsor review, reapproval or independent assurance

Participants can assess estimate maturity, contingency adequacy and funding exposure.

• AACE estimate classification links estimate range to project definition maturity
• Basis of estimate records quantities, rates, exclusions, assumptions and allowances
• Benchmarking tests unit rates, productivity assumptions and comparable project outcomes
• Contingency analysis separates identifiable risk allowance from management reserve
• Probabilistic cost analysis uses three-point estimates and Monte Carlo outputs
• Funding profiles reconcile forecast expenditure, cash availability and approval limits

Participants can challenge delivery schedules and set governance controls for critical milestones.

• Integrated master schedules connect design, procurement, construction, commissioning and handover
• Critical path method identifies activities driving contractual completion dates
• Schedule quality checks test logic, constraints, calendars, durations and float
• Milestone governance links payment, approvals, risk reviews and executive reporting
• Time-risk analysis quantifies uncertainty around completion and key interfaces
• Recovery schedules distinguish credible corrective actions from unsupported acceleration claims

Participants can establish risk governance that supports escalation and executive oversight.

• Risk appetite statements define acceptable exposure for capital investment decisions
• Risk registers connect causes, events, consequences, owners and response actions
• Bow-tie analysis identifies preventive controls, recovery controls and assurance evidence
• Quantitative risk analysis prioritises exposure using probability and impact distributions
• Issue escalation differentiates current failures from uncertain future events
• Risk committees review top exposures, treatment progress and residual risk acceptance

Participants can apply governance controls to procurement choices, contracts and supplier performance.

• Procurement strategy aligns packaging, market capacity, risk allocation and delivery objectives
• Contract selection compares lump sum, target cost and reimbursable mechanisms
• Bid evaluation governance protects probity, consistency, confidentiality and value assessment
• Commercial approval thresholds govern tender awards, variations and settlement decisions
• Supplier performance reviews examine deliverables, claims, notices and corrective actions
• Contract change logs connect scope changes to cost, schedule and risk impacts

Participants can specify performance information needed for informed governance decisions.

• Project controls framework integrates scope, cost, schedule, risk and change data
• Earned value management calculates CPI, SPI, EAC and variance trends
• Forecast at completion reconciles approved budget, commitments and remaining work
• Management dashboards distinguish leading indicators from lagging performance measures
• Data quality checks test completeness, timeliness, traceability and version control
• Exception reports focus decision-makers on thresholds, causes, impacts and actions

Participants can plan proportionate assurance reviews based on project risk and maturity.

• Assurance strategy sets objectives, independence requirements, timing and review coverage
• Three lines model clarifies management controls, oversight and independent assurance
• Risk-based assurance plans target high-consequence decisions and delivery uncertainties
• Review scopes test governance, business case, controls, delivery capability and readiness
• Evidence protocols define document sampling, interviews, site observations and validation
• Assurance calendars align reviews with gates, commitments and material decisions

Participants can conduct structured assurance reviews and communicate actionable findings.

• Review planning converts assurance objectives into criteria, evidence and interview questions
• Maturity assessments rate governance practices using defined capability descriptors
• Triangulation compares reported status with records, observations and stakeholder evidence
• Findings distinguish root causes, symptoms, impacts and control weaknesses
• Recommendations specify actions, accountable owners, completion dates and verification methods
• Assurance reports communicate ratings, confidence levels, priorities and decision implications

Participants can prepare decision papers that enable efficient and defensible executive decisions.

• Decision paper structure states purpose, recommendation, options, evidence and required authority
• Options analysis compares cost, schedule, benefits, risk and strategic fit
• Uncertainty disclosures explain confidence ranges, assumptions and unresolved dependencies
• Decision logs record approvals, conditions, dissenting views and follow-up actions
• Meeting agendas prioritise decisions, escalations, exceptions and assurance findings
• Briefing techniques answer challenge questions without obscuring material project risks

Participants can recommend proportionate interventions for projects showing material distress.

• Early warning indicators identify deteriorating cost, schedule, safety and stakeholder conditions
• Diagnostic reviews separate execution failure from flawed investment premise
• Project reset plans rebaseline scope, budget, schedule, governance and delivery strategy
• Independent recovery assurance tests feasibility, capability, funding and stakeholder commitment
• Pause, terminate and continue decisions compare sunk costs with future value
• Lessons learned capture governance causes before teams disperse and records close

Participants can govern the transition from project delivery to realised operational benefits.

• Benefits maps link deliverables, operational changes, outcomes and strategic objectives
• Benefits owners accept accountability beyond project completion and asset handover
• Operational readiness reviews test people, processes, systems, maintenance and safety
• Handover criteria confirm asset records, training, warranties and acceptance evidence
• Post-investment reviews compare realised outcomes against approved business case assumptions
• Benefits tracking triggers corrective action when expected value fails to materialise

Participants can assess governance maturity and plan practical improvements for their organisation.

• P3M3 assessment dimensions identify governance capability strengths and priority gaps
• Target operating model defines future forums, processes, roles and information flows
• Implementation roadmaps sequence quick wins, policy changes and capability investments
• Governance metrics monitor gate quality, assurance closure and decision timeliness
• Change management identifies adoption barriers among sponsors, teams and assurance providers
• Policy architecture connects project standards, delegations, procedures and templates

Participants can build, review and present a complete governance and assurance pack for a capital project.

• Capital investment case selected with defined strategic need and delivery context
• Governance model assigns decision rights, forums, delegations and escalation routes
• Stage-gate plan specifies evidence, approvers, conditions and decision thresholds
• Assurance strategy targets maturity gaps, critical risks and irreversible commitments
• Executive decision paper presents options, recommendation, uncertainties and required approvals
• Peer review challenges evidence quality, control design and assurance conclusions
• Final presentation defends governance recommendations before a simulated investment committee