Governance of change
Embrace changes, assess them against the project outcomes, document them and govern them appropriately.
How to document the governance of changes
This page proposes some content for a buying strategy to document how the project will approach changes resulting from new information. It helps explain to decision-makers why change is expected and provides confidence that it will be well managed.
The content should be tailored to a buying project’s expected changes and preferred management approach.
Buying teams can adapt the following content for their buying strategy.
This procurement strategy has been prepared for an innovation procurement pathway using the best information available at the time. Since innovation procurement involves uncertainty about the end solution, the procurement is expected to uncover information that may drive changes in the procurement strategy.
Avoiding changes can lock out innovation, so this procurement strategy aims to embrace changes, assess them against the project outcomes and govern them appropriately.
Table 1 below lists a range of anticipated and hypothetical changes and the level of engagement or approval that will be sought if they occur.
| Type of change | Likely timing of change | Stakeholder | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope change | After Proof of Concept, before starting Scale stage | Steerco | Approve |
| Evaluation criteria to proceed to next stage | Before moving to a defined stage of the procurement | Tender evaluation | Endorse |
| Evaluation criteria to proceed to next stage | Before moving to a defined stage of the procurement | Procurement delegate | Approve |
Worked examples and scenarios
Expand the drop-down boxes to read example scenarios and how to approach changes for each.
Information from proposals and insights from pitches could indicate that the evaluation criteria originally identified for the next stage, a Proof of Concept (PoC), might not be fit for purpose. The buying team wants to adjust the evaluation criteria to ensure they're assessing all relevant aspects of solutions. They work through all the relevant governance and probity considerations.
- The buying team is comfortable applying existing criteria to evaluate pitches, so there is no risk of perception that they're changing criteria in the middle of a stage. They proceed to evaluate pitches and shortlist suppliers for the PoC stage based on already approved criteria.
- The iteration plan has set up a decision gate after pitches (end of 'show us' stage) and before the PoC (start of 'prove it works' stage). This supports the team to consider new insights, make well-governed decisions to adapt and communicate any changes.
- The buying team runs an iteration session to work through insights from pitches and any adaptations that might be needed. They agree that the scope of the PoC need to include additional technical requirements, and that these will need to be reflected in the evaluation criteria.
- The changes they are proposing don't affect the objectives of the PoC stage, and therefore aren't a change to the original buying strategy.
- The change governance table in their iteration plan identifies the approvers for any changes to expected requirements or evaluation criteria - in this case the evaluation committee.
- Since evaluators need confidence in what they will be assessing against, they are all included in the iteration discussions so they can understand and approve the changes.
- The buying team and sponsor are notified for transparency.
- Suppliers that are not shortlisted for the PoC stage are not affected and do not need to be notified.
- Suppliers invited to participate in the PoC stage are notified of any changes in PoC requirements or evaluation criteria (i.e. departures from what has been provided at earlier stages). It is possible they are already expecting to have requirements and criteria confirmed as part of the invitation, and that it may not be perceived as a change.
After completing a Proof of Concept (PoC), the buying team may not feel is has enough confidence to progress directly to a single contract for implementation at scale as had been planned. They prefer to run a limited implementation with two suppliers which would constitute and additional, unplanned stage. They work through the following considerations to manage this change.
- Firstly, the buying team must assess the impact on the procurement as a whole by weighing up whether the additional stage could be perceived as a change in the scope used in the original market approach. They determine that the problem they are trying to solve, and the outcomes they want to achieve, have not changed.
- The the introduction of an extra testing stage would not have changed whether a supplier chose to participate, so the original market approach is still considered valid.
- Adding a stage does change the planned procurement approach. The change governance section of the approved buying strategy identifies the project sponsor as the approver for additional testing stages, since this mainly affects timelines and budget, so there is no need to seek re-approval to the buying strategy.
- The project manager determines whether the additional timelines and budget are feasible, and the sponsor endorses the additional testing stage.
- The team consults with the procurement advisor and probity advisor to ensure the shortlisting process is defensible, just as they would have consulted with these experts when designing the already approved stages.
- The team then focuses on the design of the limited implementation by collaborating with relevant technical experts and stakeholders, to arrive at a clear scope and objective.
- Based on this, the team documents requirements and evaluation criteria, which are discussed with the evaluation committee to ensure they understand and agree.
- Suppliers not invited to the limited implementation stage would not be affected and only need to be notified about the outcome of the previous stage.
- Suppliers invited to participate in the next stage should be informed of the change in process, the reasons for it, and be given the opportunity to provide feedback to ensure transparency and fairness.