From SME‑dependent delivery to stable, process‑led performance
Client
HousingACT (ACT Government Housing Authority)
Project
Portfolio Transformation: Vacant Properties Delivery Process
Location
Canberra, ACT
Timing
- Initial workshop & discovery: May–June 2024
- Implementation period: 12 months
- Performance review: May 2026
The Challenge
HousingACT’s vacant property program was significantly underperforming.
Despite managing a portfolio of approximately ~$30m per annum in capital works with around 100 concurrent projects, or 1200-1300 per annum, across the portfolio, the Portfolio, Program and Execution model lacked visibility, control, and consistency.
Key symptoms included:
- KPIs being missed by ~50% month on month
- 12 days consumed just to scope a vacant property
- 100% of projects experiencing variations
- Reactive “damage control” management rather than proactive program control
- Heavy reliance on a small number of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
- Limited ability to forecast, prioritise, or confidently brief the client
The risk was clear: continued KPI failure, reputational damage, and an inability to scale or sustain performance.
Strategic Objective
To stabilise and materially improve KPI performance by replacing an SME‑dependent delivery model with a repeatable, process‑driven system that:
- Improved end‑to‑end cycle times
- Reduced variations through better scoping
- Provided program‑level visibility
- Enabled junior staff to perform effectively
- Withstood the absence of key personnel
My Approach
The engagement began with a deep, evidence‑based process re‑engineering workshopto develop a change plan that:
1. Establishing Urgency
Linking performance failure to organisational mission
Urgency was deliberately framed not around internal KPIs, but around HousingACT’s core purpose—returning safe, compliant homes to service as quickly as possible.
By grounding discussions in:
- vacancy duration,
- avoidable delays,
- and the social impact of under‑utilised housing stock,
the need for change became self‑evident and shared, rather than imposed.
2. Forming a Guiding Coalition
Operationally credible, cross‑functional leadership
A coalition was formed that cut across:
- operational leadership,
- site‑based practitioners,
- schedulers,
- contractor‑facing roles,
- and client stakeholders.
Importantly, this group included informal leaders and influencers, not just those with titles. This ensured decisions translated into real behaviour change on the ground.
3. Creating the Vision for Change
Designed with the end in mind, not imposed from above
Rather than presenting a pre‑built solution, a full‑day process re‑engineering workshop was conducted to:
- map the true current state,
- surface constraints and failure modes,
- and reverse‑engineer the desired future state.
The result was a shared vision of a delivery model that was:
- faster,
- clearer,
- more predictable,
- and easier to operate.
Because the vision was co‑created, it was owned.
4. Communicating the Vision
Through action, not slogans
The vision for change was reinforced continuously through:
- workshops,
- operational meetings,
- one‑on‑one engagement,
- and, critically, through the tools and processes themselves.
People did not just hear about the change—they experienced it in how work was now done.
5. Empowering Action
Removing the barriers that made success impossible
Change stalled previously because teams were constrained by:
- poor scoping methods,
- late contractor engagement,
- unclear decision rights,
- and inadequate data capture.
These barriers were deliberately removed through:
- a redesigned Scoping Tool
- clear classification of properties into Routine, Single‑Trade, and Multi‑Trade pathways
- earlier contractor involvement
- structured site capture and fixed‑scope agreement upfront
Teams were empowered not through encouragement, but through better system design.
6. Generating Short‑Term Wins
Visible, measurable, and deliberate
Quick wins were engineered early, including:
- immediate reductions in scoping time
- improved cycle times in Routine and Single‑Trade pathways
- early KPI recovery
These results were shared transparently, building confidence and momentum while converting scepticism into advocacy.
7. Consolidating Gains
Using momentum to drive further improvement
Rather than declaring success, each improvement became the foundation for the next:
- process refinements were layered incrementally
- data was increasingly used to manage proactively
- contractor performance could now be compared and managed objectively
This avoided regression and ensured gains compounded over time.
8. Making the Change Stick
Embedding performance into process, not people
The ultimate validation came when the Service Delivery Manager was on three months’ leave, with junior staff acting in the role—without any degradation in performance.
This demonstrated that:
- decision‑making had been embedded,
- knowledge had been institutionalised,
- and the system no longer relied on individual heroics.
The change had become “how we work”.
Step 1 – Discovery & Alignment
- Executive and Operational stakeholder interviews
- End‑to‑end mapping of the current state process
- Identification of failure modes, friction points, and data gaps
- Establishment of a shared, organisation‑wide understanding of the real issues (not assumptions)
Step 2 – Reverse‑Engineered Future State
Rather than incremental tweaks, the team designed the process from the end in mind, agreeing on:
- What “good” looked like
- How exceptions would be handled
- What data must exist to manage at portfolio level
Step 3 – Controlled, Staged Change
A change implementation plan was developed that:
- Introduced changes incrementally
- Measured the impact of each change
- Required validation before proceeding to the next stage
This removed risk while building confidence and ownership across the team.
The Solution
1. A New Scoping Model (Foundation of Performance)
The single greatest root cause of underperformance—poor scoping—was addressed through the design and rollout of a standardised Scoping Tool and process, including:
- Early contractor involvement in scoping
- Clear categorisation of properties into:
- Routine (15 days)
- Single Trade (30 days)
- Multi‑Trade (42 days)
- Structured site capture using mobile tools
- Fixed, firm quotations at the point of scope
- Removal of ambiguity before works commenced
This alone eliminated the systemic cause of variations.
2. Process‑Led Contractor Engagement
Contractors were engaged earlier and deliberately, not electronically and passively.
Key changes included:
- Confirmed capacity before award
- Territory‑based allocation
- Scheduled pre‑starts with supervisors
- Clear start and finish commitments owned by contractors
3. Data, Visibility & Program Control
The redesigned process deliberately captured intelligent data to support:
- Portfolio‑level visibility for leadership
- Contractor performance management
- Forward workload planning
- Early identification of risk and escalation
The work moved from “What’s going on?” to “Here’s what’s coming and what we’re doing about it.”
The Results
After 18 months of implementation, the improvements were both material and sustained, as evidenced by client‑supplied data.
Cycle Time Reduction – Average Days to Complete Works
| Path | Starting Point | Stabilised Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Routine (Target 15 days) | 32.36 days | ~7–9 days |
| Single Trade (Target 30 days) | 57.68 days | ~17–22 days |
| Multi‑Trade (Target 42 days) | 107+ days | ~31–38 days |
KPI Achievement Rates
By late 2024, KPI performance had stabilised at or near 100% across all streams.
- Routine: Sustained ~100%
- Single Trade: 100%
- Multi‑Trade: 100% (where applicable)
Most Telling Outcome
During January–March, the Service Delivery Manager was on three months’ leave, with junior staff acting in the role—and performance did not regress.
This validated that success was process‑based, not personality‑based
Why This Worked (Value‑Added Differentiator)
- Focus on root cause, not symptoms
- Designed for real‑world operations, not theory
- Incremental change with measurable proof points
- Built resilience into the system, not reliance on individuals
- Converted tacit SME knowledge into explicit, repeatable process
As the client stated:
“Our uplift in performance, all stemmed from your workshop and your development/implementation of the change plan.”
Key Takeaway
This engagement demonstrates how disciplined process design, when combined with pragmatic change management, can transform performance in complex, high‑volume operational environments—and make results stick.
