Efficiency, Governance Effort & Potential eSavings
(Illustrative Examples Only — Not Advice)

Publicly available information shows that defence and advanced manufacturing sectors manage large, multi-year programs, complex supply chains and significant public investment. Annual reports, government budget papers and industry surveys indicate recurring needs to demonstrate:

• Sovereign capability and local industry participation
• Workforce, skills and community benefits
• ESG, sustainability and environmental impacts
• Risk, governance and oversight arrangements

These areas often require non-clinical governance documentation separate from engineering, safety, quality or production systems — for example:

• Stakeholder and community engagement summaries
• Program-level governance frameworks and decision flows
• Public-value or community-benefit narratives
• Alignment explanations for policy or capability objectives

Example 1 — Workforce & skills program (illustrative only)

A defence manufacturer may publicly describe a workforce and skills program that aims to uplift local capability. Non-clinical governance and reporting can include documenting how staff, unions, training providers and communities were engaged, what principles guided decisions, and how outcomes are reported to boards or government stakeholders. Different teams may produce separate diagrams for similar engagement flows, adding to consolidation work later.

Example 2 — Local industry participation (illustrative only)

Public contracts and policy frameworks may require evidence of local industry participation. Non-clinical governance work often includes stakeholder mapping, supplier engagement logs, assessment criteria and public-value narratives. If separate programs use different frameworks to show how suppliers are engaged and selected, reporting teams may need to reconcile those differences for ESG, sovereign capability or annual reports.

Example 3 — Community impact & ESG narrative (illustrative only)

A public report might present a staged “journey” of community impact across apprenticeship programs, sponsorships and local partnerships. If these narratives are built independently by different departments without a shared method-origin, internal assurance and audit teams may spend extra time testing consistency and traceability.

Each defence or manufacturing organisation must independently assess: (a) its own governance frameworks, (b) whether they are original or derivative of existing method-origins, and (c) whether any efficiencies are possible in non-clinical documentation and reporting. No conclusions should be drawn about any specific company or program from this general description.

Public data indicates that energy, utilities and infrastructure providers publish extensive information on:

• Pricing structures and consumer protections
• Reliability, resilience and outage management
• Environmental and climate-related impacts
• Community engagement and benefit-sharing

These obligations often create a non-clinical governance workload around:

• Consultation and stakeholder participation records
• Equity and access reasoning for different customer groups
• Program governance for major infrastructure projects
• Assurance and audit responses on public commitments

Example 1 — Tariff reform and hardship program (illustrative only)

An energy provider may publish a staged explanation of how it consulted vulnerable customers and advocates when introducing new tariffs or hardship support. Governance documentation can include engagement flows, decision criteria and reporting to regulators. If different programs design their own frameworks, internal governance teams may need extra effort to align narratives across documents and channels.

Example 2 — Major infrastructure project (illustrative only)

A transmission or generation project may involve community consultation, environmental approvals and multiple government stakeholders. Non-clinical governance work may include documenting participation, risk trade-offs and public-value reasoning. When each project uses a different governance diagram, it can make comparison and consolidation harder for boards, regulators and assurance teams.

Example 3 — ESG and climate disclosures (illustrative only)

Energy providers often publish ESG or climate reports with diagrams of “how decisions are made” or “how stakeholders are engaged”. Without a clear method-origin, similar flows may be redrawn multiple times across reports, increasing documentation and review time.

Each energy or infrastructure provider must form its own view, with independent advice, on whether its frameworks are original, derivative, or potentially simplifiable. This example is not a statement about any particular organisation or regulatory requirement.

Publicly available information shows that hospitals, health services and aged care providers operate under comprehensive clinical and safety frameworks. Separate to those clinical obligations, many providers also produce:

• Community benefit and access reports
• Governance and oversight statements
• Engagement with families, carers and community groups
• Public-value or quality improvement narratives

These non-clinical areas can involve significant documentation and reporting workloads, including:

• Board and committee governance diagrams
• Stakeholder engagement flows
• Program-governance summaries for specific initiatives
• Evidence of learning from incidents and complaints

Example 1 — Community access initiative (illustrative only)

A health service might publish a staged process for improving access to care for rural or vulnerable communities. Non-clinical governance documentation can include which groups were consulted, what principles were applied and how decisions were communicated. If similar initiatives each design their own governance diagrams, internal consolidation for board reporting may require additional work.

Example 2 — Aged care quality improvement program (illustrative only)

An aged care provider may describe how feedback from residents and families informs governance decisions about services and amenities. Non-clinical governance efforts may involve structuring participation, documenting change decisions and reporting improvements. Different teams might use different models to describe these loops, increasing the complexity of quality and compliance reporting.

Example 3 — Public-value reporting (illustrative only)

A hospital network may use diagrams to show how funding, partnerships and community programs translate into public value. If there is no shared method-origin, these diagrams may vary widely between reports, increasing the time needed for internal review, assurance and alignment.

Each health or aged care provider must independently consider, with appropriate advisers, how its non-clinical governance documentation is structured, whether it is original, and whether consolidation or clarification would reduce duplication or improve traceability. This description does not refer to, or assess, any specific provider or regulator.

Public sources show that universities and research institutions publish extensive material on:

• Research impact and knowledge translation
• Community and industry partnerships
• Governance and academic quality structures
• Equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives

These areas often require non-clinical governance and documentation, such as:

• Impact pathways and logic models
• Stakeholder and partner engagement flows
• Program governance and decision pathways
• Evidence of consultation in strategy development

Example 1 — Research impact pathway (illustrative only)

A faculty may draw an “impact pathway” from research to community or industry outcomes. Another faculty may design a similar pathway in a different style. Over time, universities can accumulate many frameworks that resemble staged decision-to-impact flows, requiring additional effort to align for institution-wide reporting.

Example 2 — Partnership governance (illustrative only)

A research centre may describe how it engages partners, co-designs projects and governs joint committees. If each centre publishes its own engagement model without a shared method-origin, governance and risk teams may face more complex documentation and assurance requirements.

Example 3 — Equity & inclusion program (illustrative only)

Universities frequently report on equity and inclusion initiatives, sometimes using cycles of “plan → engage → implement → review”. Variations in how these cycles are drawn across schools and programs can increase review and consolidation effort when preparing whole-of-institution reports.

Each university or research institution must independently review its governance frameworks, method-origin, and any potential overlap or duplication, using its own governance, academic and legal advisors. This example does not evaluate or comment on any particular institution.

Public information on local government, agencies and public authorities shows recurring needs to:

• Consult communities on plans and projects
• Demonstrate transparent decision-making
• Report on service delivery and public value
• Respond to audit, integrity and performance reviews

Non-clinical governance workloads may include:

• Consultation frameworks and participation diagrams
• Program and project governance flows
• Public-value or community-benefit models
• Documentation of how feedback informs changes

Example 1 — Community plan consultation cycle (illustrative only)

A council may show a recurring cycle of “engage → draft → consult → adopt → review” for its community plan. Another directorate may draw a similar cycle for a separate service review. Over time, multiple variations can exist, each requiring interpretation during audits or performance reviews.

Example 2 — Capital works program governance (illustrative only)

Capital programs often require documentation of how options were assessed, stakeholders were engaged and decisions were approved. When each project uses different governance diagrams, it can increase the time auditors and integrity bodies spend tracing how decisions were made and documented.

Example 3 — Community advisory committees (illustrative only)

Councils may establish multiple advisory groups with slightly different terms of reference and reporting diagrams. Without a shared structure, preparing consolidated public-value and governance statements can become more resource-intensive.

Each council or public authority must independently consider originality, method-origin and the potential benefits or risks of multiple internal frameworks, with support from its own governance, legal and risk advisors. This illustration is not directed at any specific jurisdiction or entity.

Public reports from financial institutions, insurers and superannuation funds often include:

• Risk and governance statements
• Customer outcome and fairness narratives
• ESG and sustainability reports
• Community, resilience and public-value programs

These areas typically require non-clinical governance documentation such as:

• Frameworks for customer and stakeholder engagement
• Decision-making flows for new products or programs
• Evidence supporting impact and outcome claims
• Internal documentation for audit and regulatory reviews

Example 1 — Product governance & customer outcomes (illustrative only)

An institution may publish a model showing how customer needs, risk assessments and oversight committees interact in product design. Different divisions may draw similar flows differently, increasing the time needed for assurance and regulatory review.

Example 2 — ESG and community investment (illustrative only)

ESG and community investment reports may show staged “theory of change”-style diagrams. If each business unit constructs its own model, enterprise-level reporting teams may need additional effort to reconcile narratives and ensure consistency.

Example 3 — Complaints, remediation & learning loops (illustrative only)

Financial services entities frequently describe feedback, complaints and remediation pathways. Variations in how these loops are depicted across documents can contribute to extra audit and assurance work when testing whether lessons learned are actually embedded in governance.

Each financial institution must independently determine, with its own professional advisors, whether its frameworks are original, derivative, or consolidatable, and whether any efficiencies in governance documentation are available. This example is general in nature and not directed at any particular organisation.

The following examples use generic public information on governance and reporting workloads to illustrate how duplication or multiple frameworks might contribute to additional administrative effort. They are hypothetical only, do not reference any specific organisation or sector, and must not be treated as forecasts, promises, expected savings or financial advice.

Project A — Hypothetical public-value initiative (generic example)

Public studies on governance and ESG reporting suggest that a proportion of a project’s administrative budget is often allocated to documentation, stakeholder evidence and reporting. For illustration only:

• Example administrative budget: $5,000,000
• Illustrative governance/reporting overhead at 3%: $150,000
• If 25% of that effort is attributable to duplicated frameworks and rework: $37,500

This example shows how multiple internal models or diagrams may contribute to additional documentation effort. It is not a benchmark or recommendation, and each organisation must independently determine its own figures.

Project B — Hypothetical governance documentation workload (generic example)

Publicly available salary and productivity data suggest that professional governance or reporting work can represent hundreds of hours per project. For illustration only:

• Example internal governance/reporting effort: 400 hours
• Illustrative average internal labour cost: $60/hour
• Total governance documentation cost: $24,000
• If 30% of that effort (120 hours) relates to reconciling multiple frameworks: illustrative rework value: $7,200

This purely hypothetical example shows that inconsistency in governance models can add to documentation workload. Actual figures will vary widely and must be determined by each organisation.

Project C — Hypothetical audit/assurance clarification effort (generic example)

Public audit and assurance commentary suggests that additional effort may be required when governance frameworks are unclear or inconsistent. For illustration only:

• Example audit/assurance review effort: 120 hours
• Illustrative average assurance labour cost: $75/hour
• Total review cost: $9,000
• If 20% (24 hours) relates to clarifying framework origin or reconciling multiple diagrams: illustrative additional cost: $1,800

If clearer method-origin or more consistent governance structures were in place, some of this clarification effort might be reduced. Any such effect is highly context-specific and must be assessed independently.

Important disclaimer: These examples are not forecasts, promises, expected outcomes or savings estimates. They are generic illustrations using simple assumptions for governance and reporting workloads based on publicly observable patterns. Every organisation must conduct its own independent analysis, with its own advisors, to understand governance costs, potential efficiencies and any relationship with framework choices.