Governance Assurance & Capital Stewardship
Where accountability can’t be delegated, decisions must be assured.
Governance must operate where consequence is created - not where it is reported.
Across global infrastructure, mining and industrial capital programs, independent research continues to show recurring cost escalation, schedule pressure and forecast optimism in complex projects. Despite significant advances in modelling, reporting and controls, these patterns remain present across markets. The drivers are rarely technical capability alone. They arise from structural conditions - fragmented authority, evolving incentives, incremental risk acceptance and escalation occurring later than intended. Exposure rarely emerges as a single event. It accumulates through decisions taken over time without independent challenge at the point where authority resides.
Execution across modern assets is performed through multiple delivery partners, advisory structures and operating models across long time horizons and complex interfaces. Control is exercised indirectly through contracts, reporting frameworks and performance mechanisms.
Accountability, however, remains concentrated. Owners, boards and executives retain responsibility for decisions and outcomes regardless of how execution is structured. As delivery fragments, visibility narrows. Risk is accepted incrementally.
Escalation frequently occurs late. What appears managed within delivery often sits outside the authority of those accountable for consequence. This is the governance gap: accountability retained, effective control dispersed.
Organisations rely on established disciplines - technical assurance, commercial and legal review, ESG oversight, project controls and audit.
Each performs a defined and necessary function.
Yet these mechanisms operate within delivery, compliance or defence contexts. They are scoped, episodic and often retrospective. They confirm conformance and performance against defined parameters.
They are not mandated to persist at the level of owner decision authority as exposure evolves across years, interfaces and transitions. None govern decisions on behalf of those who retain accountability.
Governance assurance exists to close that structural gap.
Governance assurance is applied where owner exposure is greatest - across decision thresholds, structural transitions and commercial interfaces not designed to self-govern authority.
|
| Governance assurance focuses where accountability outlasts execution structures. |
|
These are the points where decision integrity matters most. |
|
| Governance assurance strengthens decisions without assuming delivery responsibility. |
|
| It complements existing disciplines by addressing what they are not mandated to govern. |
Effective governance assurance requires structural independence from execution, continuity across the asset lifecycle, and mandate-level authority at defined points of exposure. TacminMadini is structured specifically to operate in that space. Our mandates are applied under defined owner authority. They persist across commitment, delivery, operations and closure. They operate above execution - reinforcing decision integrity without assuming operational control.
"We do not manage projects or replace operators."
"We strengthen authority where accountability cannot be delegated."
See how governance assurance supports confident decisions and defensible outcomes.
Sarel Blaauw
senior partner
+61 498 785 165