In May 2020, Rio Tinto - the mining giant - blasted the Juukan Gorge 1 and 2 - Aboriginal rock shelters dating back 46,000 years; only to access $135 million worth of iron ore. It is believed that these shelters were the only sites in Australia preserving the signs of human occupation continuing through the last ice age. More importantly, these sites had historical and cultural significance for the land's traditional owners - the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people. Note that Aboriginal cultural heritage is a fundamental part of Aboriginal community life and cultural identity. It has global significance and forms an important component of the heritage of all Australians. While the mining blast caused significant distress among the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, it also received significant condemnation nationwide. Watch the below video to find out how Aboriginal people feel about the incident:

However, the destruction of these rock shelters was not unlawful. In 2013, Rio Tinto was given ministerial consent to proceed with the expansion of its iron ore mine in the area. Therefore, Rio Tinto was abiding by Western Australia's law ofAboriginal Heritage Act 1972 - which is now nearly 50 years old. While Section 17 of the act makes it an offence to excavate, destroy, damage, conceal or in any way alter any Aboriginal site without ministerial consent, its next consecutive section (Section 18), allows an owner of the land - and this includes the holder of a mining license - to apply to the Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee for consent to proceed with a development action. Therefore, Section 18 fundamentally breaches Section 17 indicating serious loopholes in relevant legislative acts. The Committee then evaluates the importance and significance of the site and makes a recommendation to the minister. In this case, the minister allowed Rio Tinto to proceed with the destruction of the site. The concern here is that there is no legislative requirement to ensure traditional owners are consulted. This means traditional owners are left out of vital decisions regarding the management and protection of their cultural heritage.

It is also believed that the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people were provided with incomplete/misleading information by Rio Tinto about the development options in the area, leading to the destruction of the rock shelters. Following the after-destruction incidents, the mining giant admitted that a better communication with the traditional owners of the land could have paused the destruction plan. The blast crisis has caused serious damage to Rio Tinto's reputation leading to the removal of the mining giant CEO from office, serious calls for more accountability by mining companies and changes to relevant Aboriginal legislative acts.

Please carefully explore the following material before attempting to answer the questions:

• The story timeline
• Rio Tinto just blasted away an ancient Aboriginal site. Here is why that was allowed
• Rio Tinto blasted ancient Aboriginal caves for $135m of iron ore
• Rio Tinto continued to lay explosives at Juukan Gorge after concerns raised - by 7.30
• Rio Tinto needs truth and accountability for ancient cave destruction: Noel Pearson - by ABC News

.

Questions

1. How effective was Rio Tinto's stakeholder engagement during the initiation and planning stages of the project? Make an argument based on stakeholder management theory and provide examples from the case to justify your points.
2. Identify stakeholders and draw stakeholder maps for:
   1. the time of the blast (28 May 2020)
   2. around two years after that (20 May 2022).

Discuss your rationale for stakeholder mapping; then compare and discuss the two stakeholder maps (what has changed after the blast?).

1. Based on your findings in Q1 and Q2, develop a stakeholder engagement assessment matrix for the end of May 2020 (just after the blast). Discuss your choices of current and desired engagement levels.

Case 2 - Fiona Stanley's IAM project has failed.

In 2014, an identity access management (IAM) project for the Fiona Stanley Hospital (FSH) in Western Australia was scrapped before it was accomplished. The IAM project was one of the concurrent and interrelated projects that were planned to deliver a near-paperless environment at the Fiona Stanley Hospital.The project was considered as a key FSH element allowing instant access to the hospital and its computer systems.

In late 2013, the Department of Health (DOH-WA) was informed about difficulties in project execution and requested an audit. WA Office of the Auditor General audited the project and releases anInformation Systems Audit Report in mid-2014, revealing the project's significant budget overrun and delay.

The auditor blamed poor management of the project and in their report stated that "The IAM project will not be complete when Fiona Stanley Hospital opens later this year [2014] ... Granting of access to the key IT applications and physical access to the hospital buildings will not be automated." Also, the auditor outlined a range of problems that contributed to the IAM project failure, including a missing business case, a protracted tendering process, no proof of concept to demonstrate viability and a lack of suitable project governance.

Please carefully explore the following material before attempting to answer the questions:

• Fiona Stanley IAM project has failed: WA audit
• WA Auditor General finds Fiona Stanley Hospital over IT budget by AU$7m
• Information Systems Audit Report by Office of the Auditor General

Questions

1. How did the AIM project authority handle project's risks? What was the appropriate approach to handling risks?
2. Identify at least five major risk events (that already happened in the project) and develop the appropriate risk response strategies for each that could have sufficiently addressed the identified risk. Discuss each risk and selected strategy.
3. What are the early warning signs of project failure that you can relate to the AIM project? Make your argument based on risk management theory and provide examples from the case (at least 3 signs should be identified).