| Course | PM 583 Organizational Transformation and Governance (PM/583) |
|---|---|
| Week | 1 |
| Paper type | Graduate governance analysis |
| Length | about 1,216 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PM 583 Week 1
Who Answers for a Failed Licensing System? Governance Principles for a State Motor Vehicle Division's Modernization
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PM/583: Organizational Transformation and Governance
Week 1 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The State Motor Vehicle Division, its projects, people and figures are composites written for a model paper.
The State Motor Vehicle Division, a composite agency in a mid-sized Midwestern state, issues about 1.9 million driver licenses and 6.1 million vehicle registrations a year through 94 offices, an online portal and county treasurers. Its licensing and registration system was written in the 1990s on a mainframe. Six years ago the division started a replacement project with a large systems integrator; four years and $41 million later, after repeated delays and failed testing, the state canceled the contract. A legislative audit found that no one person had been accountable for the project, that status reports to the governor's office showed it on track until months before cancellation and that the vendor's progress had been judged largely by the vendor's own reports. The division has now received funding for a second attempt. This paper applies governance principles to that effort.
What Governance Means
Governance is the system through which an organization is directed and controlled: who holds authority, who is accountable for what and how those in charge are overseen. Ahola et al. (2014) reviewed the origins of the project governance concept and identified two streams: one treats governance as external to any single project, the organization's framework for directing many projects, and the other treats it as internal to a project, the structures governing a particular undertaking. Both apply here. The state's executive branch and legislature govern the division; the division must govern its modernization program; and the program must govern its projects and contracts.
Why the First Attempt Failed: An Agency View
Jensen and Meckling (1976) described agency relationships in which a principal delegates work to an agent whose interests may differ and who usually knows more, creating costs for monitoring and for losses when the agent acts in its own interest. In the first attempt, the public and the legislature were principals; the division's leadership and the vendor were agents. The vendor's interest lay in continued billing and favorable reports; the division's sponsors, under pressure to show progress, had reasons to accept optimistic accounts. Monitoring relied on the agent's own reports. The result was the familiar pattern of information asymmetry: bad news reached the principals too late.
Agency theory is not the whole story. Stewardship views hold that many managers act in the organization's interest when given trust and clear purpose. The audit found committed staff inside the division who raised concerns but had no channel to reach decision makers. Governance must therefore do two things: monitor where interests diverge and give committed people a path to be heard.
The vendor's reports were the only source of truth, and the vendor was the party with the most reason to shade them.
Six Principles for the Second Attempt
Klakegg et al. (2008) compared governance frameworks for major public investment projects in Norway and the United Kingdom and found that both relied on independent quality assurance at key decision points and on clear separation between the roles of owner, sponsor and delivery organization. Drawing on that research and on the audit, the division adopts six principles.
Accountability: one senior responsible owner, the deputy director for operations, is accountable for the program's outcomes and holds that role for its duration. Her performance review includes the program's results.
Transparency: a monthly status report goes to the director, the governor's technology office and the legislative oversight committee, using common measures such as earned value, defects found in testing and readiness of field offices, and the summary is posted publicly each quarter.
Independent assurance: an independent verification and validation contractor, hired separately from the systems integrator and reporting to the steering committee, reviews progress, testing and data migration quality, with its reports going unedited to the oversight committee.
Decision rights at the right level: a written decision matrix specifies what the program director, the senior responsible owner, the steering committee and the legislature each decide, including thresholds for budget and scope changes.
Benefits ownership: each benefit, such as shorter office wait times and more transactions completed online, has an owner in the operating divisions who will report on it after go-live.
Stewardship of public funds: contracts pay for accepted, working releases rather than for hours or reports, and the program is divided into releases small enough that a failure can be stopped early.
Structures That Make the Principles Real
A steering committee of the division director, the senior responsible owner, the state chief information officer, the division's chief financial officer and a county treasurer representative meets monthly. The program director manages daily delivery and reports to the senior responsible owner. The independent verification and validation contractor attends the steering committee and may request an emergency meeting. Staff at any level may raise concerns anonymously to the assurance contractor, who reports patterns to the committee. Müller et al. (2014) reviewed research on the organizational enablers of project governance and emphasized that governance depends not only on structures but on how organizations shape the behavior and mindsets of those involved; the anonymous channel and protected reporting are meant to change behavior, not just add a box to an organization chart.
How the Principles Would Have Changed the First Attempt
Applying the six principles to the first attempt shows what they are meant to prevent. A single accountable owner would have had to sign the optimistic status reports personally and answer to the legislature for them. Independent assurance would have tested the vendor's claims about completed modules against working software rather than documents. A decision matrix would have forced the two-year schedule extension, approved informally inside the division, to go to the steering committee and then to the oversight committee. Paying for accepted releases rather than for hours would have stopped payments when the first release failed testing. None of these guarantees success, but each would have surfaced the failure earlier and at lower cost.
Governance and Transformation
The modernization is not only a technology replacement. It will change how offices serve customers, how counties process registrations and how the division uses data. Governance must therefore cover change in the organization as well as delivery of software, with the senior responsible owner accountable for both. Later weeks address strategy, drivers of transformation and change management; the governance set out here provides the frame within which those decisions will be made.
Limits and Risks
More governance is not automatically better. Too many reviews can slow decisions and push teams to manage reports rather than work. The division will review its governance after the first release to remove steps that add little and strengthen those that proved useful. There is also a risk that independent assurance becomes adversarial; its contract requires constructive recommendations as well as findings.
Conclusion
The State Motor Vehicle Division's first modernization attempt failed partly because of governance: no single accountable owner, opaque reporting, monitoring that depended on the vendor and no path for concerned staff. Agency theory explains the incentives, and research on public project governance points to remedies. Six principles, translated into a single accountable owner, transparent and public reporting, independent assurance, a decision matrix, benefit owners and payment for working releases, give the second attempt a governance foundation designed to surface bad news early and keep the public's interest at the center.
References
Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2014). What is project governance and what are its origins? International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1321-1332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.005
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Klakegg, O. J., Williams, T., Magnussen, O. M., & Glasspool, H. (2008). Governance frameworks for public project development and estimation. Project Management Journal, 39(1_suppl), S27-S42. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20058
Müller, R., Pemsel, S., & Shao, J. (2014). Organizational enablers for governance and governmentality of projects: A literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1309-1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.007
What the PM 583 Week 1 instructions ask
The opening PM 583 assignment typically asks graduate students to explain principles of organizational governance and how governance applies to projects and transformation. Prompts may ask students to define governance, distinguish organizational, portfolio and project governance, discuss principles such as accountability, transparency, fairness and responsibility, explain theories that underpin governance, such as agency and stewardship theory, and evaluate or design governance for an organization. Use an organization with real governance challenges, apply the principles to its structures and decisions and ground the argument in journal studies of governance, cited in APA at a graduate level, with at least one source that questions the usual prescriptions.
How this PM 583 Week 1 example is built
The sample paper begins with an agency that has already learned the cost of weak governance: its first replacement attempt ran six years, exceeded its budget and was canceled with little to show. It defines governance as the system of authority, accountability and oversight that directs an organization and its projects, and explains how project governance sits inside organizational governance. Agency theory frames the earlier failure: a vendor and internal sponsors whose interests differed from the public's, with weak monitoring and unclear accountability. Six principles follow, accountability, transparency, independent assurance, decision rights at the right level, benefits ownership and stewardship of public money, each turned into a concrete structure or rule for the new program.
PM 583 Week 1 grading rubric: where the points go
For graduate credit, the paper must connect theory, principles and practice. Excellent submissions define governance precisely, distinguish its organizational and project levels and use theory such as agency or stewardship theory to explain behavior rather than as decoration. Principles should be translated into specific structures, roles and rules, and the paper should explain why each fits the organization's history and context. Critical engagement with governance research, including its limits, earns credit. Papers that explain why the same principles might fail in a different setting, such as a small agency with no capacity for independent assurance, show the kind of judgment the course is building. Clear structure, precise terminology and accurate APA citations throughout complete the strongest submissions.
PM 583 Week 1 help: mistakes to avoid
Governance papers frequently list principles such as transparency and accountability without saying what they look like in practice. For each principle, describe a structure, report or decision rule. Another common confusion is between governance and management; governance sets direction, authority and oversight, while management runs the work. Keep them separate. Students also cite agency theory without applying it; identify the principal, the agent and where their interests diverge. Some papers design governance without reference to the organization's history; past failures are the best evidence of what needs to change. Finally, use peer-reviewed sources rather than consulting blogs. A tutor can help you map principles to structures if you are stuck.
Related PM 583 sample papers
Other PM 583 week samples
- PM 583 Week 2: Developing Strategy
- PM 583 Week 3: Drivers of Transformation
- PM 583 Week 4: Change Management Models
- PM 583 Week 5: Aligning Projects and Teams
- PM 583 Week 6: Governance and Change Plan
More MBA sample papers
- MGT 576 Week 1: Opportunity Identification
- MKT 554 Week 1: Buyer Behavior and Preference
- MKT 574 Week 1: Marketing Strategy and Customer Value
- PM 570 Week 1: Leading the Project Team
PM 583 Week 1 questions, answered
What does PM 583 Week 1 usually cover?
It usually covers principles of organizational and project governance, such as accountability, transparency and decision rights, the theories behind them and how governance supports organizational transformation.
Where can I find a free PM 583 Week 1 sample paper?
The Week 1 paper above applies governance principles to a state motor vehicle division's licensing system modernization after a failed attempt, and it is free.
What is the difference between governance and management?
Governance sets direction, authority, accountability and oversight; management plans and directs the work within the limits governance sets.
What is agency theory in project governance?
A theory that sees governance as aligning the interests of principals, such as owners or the public, with agents, such as managers or contractors, who may have different goals and more information.
What is independent assurance in project governance?
Reviews by people outside the project team, such as an independent verification and validation contractor or internal audit, who report to governance bodies on the project's true status and risks.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All PM 583 week samples · All courses