In 2004, a report was given to the Real Property Branch of Public Works and Government Services Canada. At the time, this report was handed to Mr. Tim McGrath. The report said that PWGSC was having a lot of trouble managing its projects well. The study had been requested by the Real Property Branch, and its purpose was to compare the level of professional and technical resources, as well as the cost of service delivery involving major architecture and engineering projects, with the best practices of similar organizations.
The report mentioned that in almost every case, service providers indicated that when a project manager was assigned to a project in the private sector, this person remained in place until the project was completed. However, this is in stark contrast with the turnover within PWGSC. The report therefore corroborated something a long-term employee of Parliament had said: he followed the renovations closely, and said that there was far too much turnover within the ranks of management within the department. Managers continually came and went, and as a result, there was no organizational memory as far as the overview of a project was concerned. This created a dysfunctional system which made it harder to quickly create a project management structure. Further, project knowledge was lost, and it slowed down the projects themselves.
You also say that there was no consensus with regard to priorities. Can you tell us what you mean by this?