Who owns the work package? A three-party infrastructure upgrade

The project manager should frame the problem as an organization principle issue, not a personality dispute. PRINCE2 requires the three primary interests to be represented and accountable, and roles to be defined with clear responsibilities.

The weaknesses are:

• The senior supplier represents only the prime contractor, but two subcontractors do delivery work. The senior supplier needs authority over all supplier resources, or the supplier-side structure must make that authority explicit.
• Accountability for firewall design and approval is ambiguous. The work package descriptions and product descriptions should state who produces, reviews and approves each product.
• The project manager line-manages the agency team manager who signs off site readiness. That creates a conflict between delivery pressure and independent acceptance, and it blurs the team manager role.
• A verbal work package is not an authorised work package. It leaves scope, tolerances and acceptance criteria undefined.

Recommended changes include revising the organization section of the PID, defining supplier-side team manager arrangements, issuing written work packages with tolerances, and separating assurance or acceptance from delivery where possible. The executive's wish to avoid another governance layer can be met by clarifying existing accountabilities rather than adding a committee.

The first step is to stop informal instruction. A work package must be authorised in writing and must contain the product description, tolerances, reporting requirements and acceptance criteria. The project manager should confirm what was actually agreed with the subcontractor's supervisor and record it in the issue register.

Next, establish whether the dispute is about scope or about who has authority. If the subcontractor has done work that was not in the authorised work package, the project manager should assess the change through change control, including cost, time, quality and risk impact. If the work is within the agreed product description, the project manager should identify the correct approver from the organization structure and product descriptions, and ask the prime contractor's team manager to resolve it at team level.

If the dispute cannot be resolved within the work package tolerances, it should be escalated to the project board with options. The project manager should not simply instruct the subcontractor directly, because that undermines the prime contractor's accountability and the senior supplier role. The outcome should be recorded, the work package reissued if necessary, and the organization and communication approaches updated so the same ambiguity does not recur.

Accountability does not require a new committee. It requires clarity about who decides, who delivers and who accepts. The project manager can propose changes within the existing organization:

• Define each role in the PID using PRINCE2 role descriptions, including the senior supplier's authority over subcontractors and the team managers' responsibilities for work packages.
• Use written work packages with explicit tolerances so team managers can act without constant escalation.
• Separate the project manager's line-management of the agency team manager from acceptance decisions, or document and manage the conflict if separation is impossible.
• Agree an escalation route and timescales in the communication management approach, so disputes reach the board only when tolerances are threatened.
• Ask the board to appoint an interim supplier-side coordination point for the subcontractors rather than creating a new governance body.

Adding a layer without clarifying existing roles would simply add cost and delay. The test is whether each disputed decision has one accountable owner and a defined escalation path.