Why did the committee structure fail to fully function? What could be done to make it work?

One university had a great opportunity to establish an international healthcare campus in Asia. The host government had invited selected universities from around the world to create a global healthcare campus and would provide subsidies and loans for five years, which should be sufficient to attract an adequate number of students to become self-supporting. The satellite campus was to be both a training and a clinical site.
It was unclear who would be in charge of the satellite campus. A few years earlier, the university had established an office of global engagement to increase the school’s international presence. The vice president (VP) of global affairs was a former dean and reported directly to the university president.
At the same time, the VP of the university’s health system was technically in charge of all healthcare provision. Both executives seemed to have responsibility for establishing this venture.
It seemed that the decision to proceed with the venture was much easier than organizing it. In addition to the global VP and health system VP, the VP of student affairs and the provost for academic affairs on the main campus demanded a presence and commensurate authority. Policies and procedures on the satellite campus, including admission criteria, were to be the same as on the main campus, with little input from those working at the satellite campus. However, the individual who had been hired as satellite campus president wanted full authority to run the remote operation and wished to report directly to the main university president, because he almost immediately clashed with the global VP, to whom he was scheduled to report. As a result of the poor relationship, the satellite campus president was given responsibility for only a portion of the satellite campus functions, and a satellite campus provost for academic affairs was hired, as a peer of the satellite campus president, who was to report to the global VP. Neither the global VP nor the health system VP had a direct relationship with the university provost or the VP of student affairs. All reported directly to the president of the university, who had made the decision to establish the satellite campus but would not be involved in developing operational processes and strategies.