Spatial WA · IPA Use Case Assessment
Stakeholder Interview Briefs
Stage 1 consultations · May to July 2026
Period: May to July 2026
Status: 16 captured · 2 upcoming · 1 on hold
Organised against the three assessment dimensions in the engagement scope (strategic alignment, stakeholder composition & wider context, and risks & opportunities), feeding the recommendations report due 30 June, with program benefits needing capture by 2028.
Updated 12 June 2026: adds the June consultations (Interviews 11 to 15, with Damien Martin joining the DPLH session), Ashley Vincent (Interview 10, from Nicole's session notes) and Bruce Wright, Water Corporation (Interview 18). Cross-cutting themes refreshed.
Phil quantified slippage at "somewhere between nine and eleven months" against the original plan. Procurement was extended by eight to nine months beyond plan, driven by intensive T&Cs negotiations and finance / treasury complications. After RFP, vendors clarified they would not host the ICT environment as assumed in the original business case. Landgate had to provision and manage the environment, introducing new costs and obligations for support and maintenance not contemplated originally.
Phil criticised the program's reporting practice of re-baselining as obscuring true performance. Dashboards and status reports must explicitly reflect actual schedule slippage so the project board can manage effectively.
Despite execution challenges, Phil expressed unwavering conviction in long-term strategic value. He sees Spatial WA as "the right thing to do", capable of fundamentally improving whole-of-government decision-making by addressing three pervasive weaknesses: disconnectedness, slow pace, and limited accuracy. The vision extends to a spatially enabled digital twin, particularly compelling for emergency management.
Officer level engagement is producing results. Watercorp is noted as more progressive. However, a critical gap persists at executive and political levels. There is no robust evidence of effective executive-level engagement, and no visible political-level buy-in. Director Generals are incentivised by ministerial direction; sustained sponsorship from the Premier or a key Minister is essential.
DPLH and Office of DigiGov were cited as traditionally wary or "iffy" despite being among those who could benefit the most. DPLH and DigiGov are developing their own versions, which complicates centralised adoption.
Phil questioned whether the current governance framework is appropriately calibrated. The project board's composition (solely public servants) limits perspective and energy. A missing ingredient is external input from the private tech sector, particularly a visionary technologist capable of selling the program's long-term vision.
The IPA use case is poorly defined and currently framed narrowly around PTA. Phil described it as a "definition piece" no one fully understands. One participant characterised the title as a misnomer, stating it is actually "Transport Planning."
The Wellington Street example (where services were dug up, filled in, and dug up again due to coordination failures across agencies) was cited as a clear scenario Spatial WA should address. Infrastructure WA is better positioned to hold and drive a cross-sectoral use case. A DFES-led natural disaster management use case could better showcase capability.
Secure a high-level, vocal political champion (ideally the Premier, or a key Minister such as Minister Dawson) to sell the vision, create a sense of priority, and catalyse top-down buy-in. Phil emphasised this is the missing piece.
Follow-ups noted: Set up separate time with Kieron. Rob Meecham is Exec Officer of AIIAWA. Main gap: political champion.
Leo (former Chair of Infrastructure WA, led a review into Landgate ten years ago) questioned whether Spatial WA's potential is "actually landing" with stakeholders. PTA is the current use case lead for the IPA stream, centered on a precinct in Midland. Landgate's approach to defining use case focus areas "has not been clear to anyone." Jeremy and team engaged early but are not familiar in detail with the PTA-led Midland use case.
Engagement has materially dropped. "Probably in the last 12 months or so" Landgate's engagement has declined. Leo and Jeremy "haven't heard much" for the last two years. No one has approached them in the last couple of years to seek contributions.
A centralised, layered spatial platform with two-way data flow. Completed projects deposit their data into a reusable repository; future projects draw on a "single source of truth." Highly structured, reusable datasets like geotech, drainage, 3D models, and utilities.
Benefits spanning the lifecycle: planning and alignment (Westport reduced about 40 options quickly by layering environmental data), design optimisation, progressive validation, operational enrichment. The vision approximates "BIM for the state", an "operations dashboard of the state." AI should be applied only after establishing credible baselines.
Broaden the IPA use case beyond the narrow Midland precinct. Ownership debate: OMTID for linear transport projects, Main Roads "better networked holistically", Westport as test case (Chris's team).
Project selection: choose a project at planning stage (e.g., a freight line). Secure a passionate, senior sponsor who understands ROI.
Core inclusion: Main Roads planning (Doug Morgan's area), PTA leader, owners of the information, Westport, local governments, utilities. Local government is "an absolute source of information." End users (engineering consultants, construction industry) should be considered. Asset ownership clarity is a functional requirement.
Data quality discipline: do not "let AI loose" until data is correct. Agencies must cleanse and verify before contributing. Start with most essential, highest-value data. Treat the platform as a massive statewide BIM with customisable sector lenses.
Opportunities Nicole flagged: end users; consulting industry confidence; construction industry confidence; asset owners single source of truth; Main Roads network operations real-time monitoring.
The program originated approximately 5.5 years ago, securing circa $155 million in funding through ODG. Key vendors appointed Q3 last year: Jacobs and Amristar (Daniel Harvey) for the Spatial Twin; Accenture for the Next Generation Spatial Cadastre. KPMG providing PMO and advisory.
Rob's engagement dates back ten years to the WALIS review for Minister Saffioti. Carried through subsequent roles including a state freight model attempt during COVID and pioneering spatial data as foundation for Westport's environmental assessments. More recently at IWA, advocated for a fifth whole-of-system infrastructure use case for Spatial WA, promoting the concept of a state "operations dashboard." Rob was engaged to help reset the program.
The core vision is a "digital twin" of Western Australia, a unified spatial representation of all state-owned data sets. Beyond a static map to a dynamic scenario-planning tool. Layering population growth, climate effects, or industrial development to model wide-ranging impacts.
Examples cited: preventing inefficient roadworks, managing statewide food supply during COVID-19. Westport served as a successful prototype. Goal: an "operations dashboard for the state." Spatial WA as a "single source of truth" to eliminate vast data and resource duplication.
The discontinuation of the comprehensive State Infrastructure Strategy creates a significant gap in long-term planning. The state has moved into an "implementation phase" focused on day-to-day project delivery. New legislative direction favours Industry Development Action Plans (IDAPs), more narrowly focused on specific industry sectors.
Spatial WA is more critical than ever in this context. As government requests IDAPs for specific sectors, Spatial WA could model the full spectrum of implications: land requirements, workforce needs, infrastructure demands. This allows Spatial WA to fill the strategic void until the turn back to a planning cycle (2030 to 2032).
The current PTA-sponsored Midland project was heavily criticised. Even other transport agencies are unaware of its existence. Strong consensus to pivot to the Western Trade Coast: defence, rare earths, major energy projects, Westport. This would serve as a powerful demonstration of system-level capability.
Infrastructure WA would be the ideal sponsor. Preferred strategy: "path of least friction" by reallocating funding from PTA to IWA. Effectively move the fourth use case rather than creating a fifth.
The primary barrier is not resistance to the tool itself, but limited capacity of government agency staff. WA government systemically under-resources change management. Key challenge: addressing capacity of intended recipients to pick up the tool, understand applications, and implement within workflows.
The program is progressing well overall, with four distinct workstreams in preparation for a planned August presentation. But significant underlying concerns: whether the program is capturing the most effective use cases, and if the platform is agile enough to remain relevant amidst rapidly shifting political priorities.
DevelopmentWA has zero lots for sale, and it takes two years to unlock a land subdivision that sells out in a single weekend. This dire need for land and housing presents a prime opportunity for Spatial WA to prove its worth.
Inherent tension with DPLH and DigiGov, which may view the program as encroaching on their mandates. DPLH was initially hesitant due to their "Plan WA" initiative. Risk of losing momentum: agencies engaged 18 to 24 months ago have not heard anything since. Need for a dedicated external stakeholder manager. The Premier suggested as more effective political champion than a single Minister.
"Key person risk" associated with Darren. Landgate's restrictive public sector salary bands and Level 3 classification make it difficult to attract high-calibre digital talent (CDO commands $400k+ in market). Technical architecture concerns: ability to scale and integrate emerging technologies like AI.
Should Landgate fundamentally transform into a central digital and data agency, or should Spatial WA function be spun off (2050 Commission, DPC)? Current perception as agency for "mortgages and titles" is a significant limitation. Becoming a Government Trading Enterprise (GTE) floated.
Pivot the IPA use case from PTA and Midland to the Western Trade Coast. Major political "burning platform" with intense interest from Chris Clark, Linda Dawson, Sanderson, Rita Saffioti. "Trojan horse" to demonstrate tangible value quickly. Worth delaying the August showcase by six months to get this right. Private-sector data inputs ready from related projects (Sentient Hubs, Supercharged WA).
Kieron has not had direct exposure to other use cases but sees the program needing to evolve to match the pace of change in the market.
The single biggest reframing he surfaced: the analytical value of the platform is becoming commoditised due to the advent of AI. What remains valuable (and where Spatial WA's sovereign worth sits) is the dataset itself and the model that allows it to be applied.
Implication for the use cases: their value is not in the specific analytical problem they solve, but in establishing the model that can be applied across many problems. With the rapidly changing environment, the use cases should evolve in the same way.
Kieron is comfortable with the pivot.
The value of the use case being focused on Western Trade Coast is immense.
Recruitment for the IWA Level 8 digital role is still underway and remains relevant. The role will carry:
Kieron flagged a possible additional use case: economic, productivity and wellbeing data, to meet the needs of the 2050 Commission as its remit expands.
Engaged on the concept since September 2020. There was a utilities kickoff in July 2021 that built early momentum, but according to Gair's notes "it didn't seem to go anywhere" until February 2023, when workshops with Western Power picked up again and ran through 2023-24.
Western Power reiterated its position as a data provider rather than an early Spatial WA user. Gair was candid: "I have not tested whether that's a good decision or not. I was definitely relying on the team to escalate to me if there was something to consider. And that didn't happen. I have to admit it wasn't high on my radar during 23 and 24."
Earlier in 2026, Western Power exposed a number of datasets to support digital approval workflows, exposure modelling for emergency management, and infrastructure project use cases. Data shared via SLIP includes:
Data quality is "pretty good 2D" with assumed cable depths to standard. Very little 3D, though Spatial WA has asked for 3D datasets. Some LiDAR exists for line corridors. 3D modelling of substations exists.
Western Power has not been directly given anything by Spatial WA, only access via SLIP and possibly Dial Before You Dig.
Gair endorsed the pivot clearly:
Aligned with Nicole's view that activity in Midland is currently limited and that the Western Trade Coast offers more political runway and more material for benefits realisation. Specifically saw real, near-term Western Power use cases there:
Floated Collie transition (Cooling Catter Trade Hub) as a potential narrower secondary use case given its political priority, but acknowledged it's "probably too simple an industrial area" compared to the Western Trade Coast.
Gair was supportive of Peter Woronzow taking sponsorship of the use case. Key data point from this conversation: Woronzow just secured another five-year contract as DG / Head of Transport, meaning he is politically anchored and well positioned to carry this through.
His breadth across OMID, OMTID, Westport oversight and the car-free location makes him "the main person" from an infrastructure delivery perspective outside the utilities. Sponsorship at this level would also pull Rita Saffioti in, which in turn brings Ashley Reid and Patrick Sears closer to the use case.
The most important technical question Gair raised, and one not yet resolved by the program:
Western Power's teams will need to either:
"Otherwise you're just looking at it, it's not overly helpful."
The ultimate vision Gair articulated:
Gair brought several connections worth following up:
Doug's view reveals a significant gap between the pilot's strategic goals and the engineering team's day-to-day requirements. The pilot aims to create a unified geospatial platform for infrastructure and asset planning, managing asset lifecycles, and improving project delivery information. The initial focus was Midland, with a proposed pivot to the Western Trade Coast.
But the engineering team's primary challenge is not a lack of data. It is the poor quality and reliability of field-captured data, especially for underground services. Subcontractors often provide inaccurate location data for assets like reticulation services and comms cables, making any centralised BIM model instantly obsolete upon completion.
This renders the core value proposition of a unified digital twin moot from Main Roads' operational viewpoint.
Main Roads has a mature and sufficient technology stack for its needs:
Landgate's offering is viewed as redundant or misaligned. The team sees no benefit in a new platform when their internal processes, while imperfect, are tailored to their specific operational context.
The engineering team's involvement has been "very minimal" because the program, as conceived, fails to address their primary pain points. The fact that key stakeholders like the PTA, Western Power, and the engineering team itself were not meaningfully engaged in scoping the use case highlights a critical process failure.
Pivoting the geographic focus from Midland to the Western Trade Coast is unlikely to increase Main Roads' engagement, as it does not change the fundamental disconnect between the pilot's premise (centralise data) and the team's operational reality (data is plentiful, but field-level accuracy and maintenance are the chronic constraints).
Doug is named repeatedly in other interviews (Leo, Rob, Brett & Ryan) as the right senior sponsor for the use case. The fact that he, as the proposed sponsor, sees the underlying premise as flawed is the single most consequential input received so far. It does not mean the program is wrong, but it means:
Spatial WA has moved into delivery. External partners (Accenture, Jacobson, KPMG) mobilised August last year, onboarded from February. Near-term strategy: a "focus area" showcase being brought forward from November to September. Spatial Twin Release One scheduled for February next year, making the next nine to ten months pivotal.
Parallel tracks must run concurrently: building the platform and cultivating understanding and usage. Sentiment across government is positive or neutral; awareness exists but is not broad.
Agency heads and tier-two leaders must understand what Spatial WA is and how it will materially help them. ERC touchpoints occur every few months. Invite senior agency leaders (DG of DPLH) into program board discussions to surface adoption realities. Frame ERC updates around applied demonstrations.
Shift from abstract "use cases" to concrete "how we are using it" narratives. IPA use case framed around three outcome areas: asset life cycle, geospatial BIM, improving information control in project delivery. Select a few high-probability pain points. Under-promise and over-deliver.
Adoption is the single biggest risk. Operational readiness framework with dedicated team of seven to eight people formed to work hands-on with agencies (DPLH, DFES, Transport). Focus: governance, data sharing, tech policy changes, people capability.
Further central funding will be difficult absent "political juice." Constructive approach: work with agencies to measure current-state processes, apply the platform, quantify realised efficiencies (5 to 10% planning savings), and temporarily share gains to embed capability. Benefits realisation should be a standing board agenda item.
The Project Board functions primarily as a steering committee. Recent ODG review (Nick and Tim) poised to strengthen governance. Trust in the team is strong. Governance forums should invite senior agency leaders to discuss adoption realities directly.
PTA attendees note minimal historical involvement. Midland was selected because active alliance works were underway there. Despite intentions, practical issues persist. Two to three weeks prior, Western Power attempted to underbore a cable across the railway at Midland and encountered deficient information.
PTA hopes for agreed standards and software choices that would enable a statewide 3D rail model over time. Mike Parker's team has mapped major developments against rail lines for planning.
Three core IPA objectives identified: asset lifecycle management, geospatial BIM, improved project delivery. The IPA use case is deemed most valuable for government due to potential cost savings. However, agency engagement is nearly zero; many are unaware. Profit-sharing models with Treasury suggested to reinvest realised savings.
Shifting the use case footprint to the Western Trade Coast for cross-agency relevance. PTA indicates the shift would have little negative impact and could even help planning. Transfer the use case lead to Peter Ronzo (covering Omid, Omtid, Westport) or Chris Clark (Coordinator General). Funding remains with Landgate.
Mixed data quality. Culture leans toward re-surveying for projects ("phenomenal" volume, three to four surveys per project). The Network Infrastructure Division maintains much of the data, previously supported by an Infrastructure Diagnostic Vehicle (burned down a few years ago, still being repaired). Siemens currently provides condition monitoring. Aspiration: integrate Metronet BIM with legacy network models for 3D Rail Access Manual.
A 30-minute session between the Maritime and Westport conversations on 2 June. The capability-investment point lands squarely with the embedded-resourcing theme across the June round, and the CUF relocation suggestion connects directly to Maritime's operational footprint (Interview 11): worth carrying both into the use case co-design.
Despite being major contributors to and users of SLIP data, the team has minimal sight of Spatial WA. Jenny was involved in initial meetings years ago, then the project "went quiet": two team members were nominated to a board, and no clear information has come back since. The opacity extends across all four use cases.
The original Midland focus was chosen simply for proximity to Landgate's office, and the use case has since been hampered by the 9-to-11-month vendor delay and leadership turnover. Jenny's sharper point: "I don't think the people who can really drive it understand fully what its intent is." The team's history with Landgate runs deep: the routable road centreline was a first project in the early 2000s, and the room knew the program's original intent well.
The team has matured whole-of-lifecycle asset management without waiting for Spatial WA. Using Maximo with maintenance contractor Ventia, they analysed their $1.5 billion asset base, proved a major funding shortfall, and secured a doubling of maintenance and asset-replacement funding from Treasury, while absorbing inherited assets like Two Rocks without additional FTEs.
A digital twin proof of concept for Jurien Bay is underway to gain visibility of embedded utility networks. A $12 million federal grant funds a three-year coastal LiDAR capture program, with outputs shared free to government through the WA Basemetry portal, done independently of Landgate's own capture program due to concerns over data access and surcharges.
Favourably. Maritime's operational involvement in the WTC is significant: one of WA's busiest boat ramps, advice on the Common User Facility relocation, and extensive GIS support to Westport. The pivot aligns with their strategic goals of streamlining planning-to-asset-management processes and moving beyond static maps to intelligent, data-driven systems. PTA, the current sponsor, is described as "totally relaxed" about relinquishing the role.
The caution: a pivot places real workload on an under-resourced team. The opportunity is relevant; the capacity to engage with it is not a given.
Drawing on past experience, the team was specific about what makes initiatives like this work. Dedicated, government-funded FTEs embedded in agencies to do the implementation work: the coastal vulnerability project succeeded because it provided a dedicated project manager and embedded team. Clear governance and strong leadership, with real concern about who coordinates a WTC-scale initiative and the risk of "another waste of time" if not driven properly. And interoperability with existing agency tools: data must flow into the systems agencies already use.
On the long-term question: Landgate has the technical capability and earned respect for SLIP, but needs to build credibility as a cross-government collaborator. Spinning the program out to a central agency such as DPC or a future 2050 Commission was floated.
The session closed on the scale of the prize: a passionate DG-level champion is essential to drive the cultural shift to data-driven decision-making, a shared single source of truth is non-negotiable for managing WTC complexity, and Microsoft's interest in using the project as a global use case underscores the potential, provided execution avoids becoming another resource-draining initiative that fails to deliver.
Westport has begun building a "digital asset network" starting with geotech and bathymetry data, but lacks a platform to host it beyond a basic geospatial registry. The full digital twin isn't needed until construction begins in 2028. The nearer requirement is a digital representation of the construction approach, not just the final asset.
Funding is the constraint: the budget request for digital systems was deferred, with funding now anticipated 2028-29. In the interim it gets carved from the multi-billion-dollar capital budget of components like the Kwinana Bulk Terminal, whose market EOIs are expected within three to four months.
The team was skeptical of value-by-assertion, and clear about where the platform genuinely helps: setting universal technical standards for contractors and consultants so project data integrates later; mapping shared infrastructure between major projects to "fill the gaps"; and being the connection piece that gives agencies visibility of how external factors affect their work: Westport, Water Corp and Western Power projects visible to each other, with the overlaps and opportunities called out by the platform rather than by one well-networked project lead.
There's a corporate-knowledge dividend too: every project is BIM now, but the models sit unused: "they've got it all digital... it just sits there." A common home makes those assets reusable. The ultimate goal: prove a model that secures Treasury support for broader capability-building across government.
The central proposal: Westport becomes a live demonstration inside the broader infrastructure use case, rebuilt through a co-design session with outcomes in mind. The "Kwinana triangle" (the rail/port back-end precinct) is the prime candidate: immense complexity, at least five agencies (PTA, Main Roads, Water Corp, Western Power and others), multiple overlapping projects, and high-risk assets of state interest. The same utility-coordination principle that originally motivated Midland, scaled up.
The discipline that matters: define the specific decision the twin supports, so the effort isn't a map for its own sake. Benefits tracked from the start; gateway checks to build confidence; Westport-led with Spatial WA supporting, potentially transitioning to Spatial WA-led once the model is proven. Success here is also the route to ministerial championship: demonstrating value and cost-benefit clearly enough to sell.
Midland's original logic was confessed: a smaller, contained test of the complex-utilities problem that drives "hundreds of millions" in project cost blowouts. Its value has since decayed: many of its problems have been solved by other means in the absence of a Spatial WA solution. The WTC is the same challenge at greater scale and reward, with higher complexity and risk: defence asset relocation at Henderson, evolving timelines, and the danger of the use case getting lost "in noise" if not kept crisp.
Direct, active engagement from Spatial WA: the Midland approach was described flatly as "very much stand back." A dedicated use case lead comes with the collaboration (PTA's lead position is currently vacant), potentially embedded in the Westport team. Data provision must be embedded in project contracts and workflows like schedule and cost reporting, so it's never ambiguous whether failure sits with the platform or with the projects feeding it.
The program is taking a "fresh look" after the slip and vendor onboarding. The current sponsorship (PTA, perceived as neutral on the effort) and footprint (Midland) are deemed insufficient for political traction. The proposal: pivot to the Western Trade Coast, anchored in high-activity nodes (initially Westport) plus a small number of focus areas, with sponsorship shifting to Peter Woronzow, whose cross-cutting role across WTC activities better aligns with utilisation and advocacy. The write-up goes to the project board on 25 June.
The WTC is the ideal proving ground because of the intensity of overlapping activity: Westport, Defence initiatives, and State Development Areas under the Coordinator General. Concrete infrastructure needs are already visible: the port requires Anketell Road in a different configuration, a flyover is required on Rockingham Road to support the AMC, and a 250-hectare strategic industry zone assembled through compulsory acquisitions now demands integrated road, power and water planning.
Governance was flagged: the Coordinator General holds the helicopter view but breadth of responsibilities may limit sustained oversight. A dedicated delivery authority for the WTC was argued for (managing approvals, interdependencies and market capacity constraints, especially given Defence complexities), with the Premier's strong interest in WTC outcomes raising the stakes for demonstrable progress.
Hope Valley Wattleup and DA3 are currently the only contiguous pieces; to the north, ownership is fragmented among private owners. Funding to purchase exists, but the team cannot find owners willing to sell: most prefer to lease and hold, influenced by the heating market and capital gains considerations.
That is the use case in one paragraph: scenario planning across cadastre and title data to identify acquirable parcels for the next General Industrial Area, hard no-go parcels guiding road reroutes and capacity recalibration, and corridor overlays that keep planning adaptive as strategic decisions (like Westport) shift. Title data from Landgate, services from the utilities, strategy applied on top.
Pending board approval on 25 June: re-engage stakeholders, designate the new sponsor, establish cross-agency working groups, then deepen into selected topics and precise geographies. Where needs exceed the use case scope, Landgate services and cost-sharing mechanisms would be explored, advanced scenario planning for land assembly being the obvious candidate.
On sustainability: the ~$150 million funds the build, not the upkeep. Without ongoing investment in data currency and user capability, trust erodes and adoption follows it down.
The structural critique: the program's delivery architecture still assumes a model that no longer exists. Vendors clarified post-RFP they would not host the ICT environment, so Landgate now provisions and manages it in-house, but delivery structures haven't been re-tuned to match. The SI's underperformance leaves a critical capability gap between senior leadership and vendor execution: decision-making authority is unclear, individuals aren't empowered, and momentum suffers. The fix is a "tune-up" of the delivery structure, clear lines of accountability, and a focused search for the right delivery-management resource, alongside active management of the Kinetic and Macodes dependencies on the AWS/Azure environments, and working "a level below" to get the project team humming given a significant workload.
Success depends on agencies integrating their use cases, and participation is not guaranteed, given capability gaps, competing priorities and technical debt. The prescription: make progress, dependencies and challenges far more transparent to senior government bodies (ERC), leverage the Digital Capability Fund assurance committee to resolve roadblocks, validate agency readiness (including legacy-system prerequisites), and recognise that partner agencies may need additional funding to integrate, with Treasury engagement to match.
On data sharing: historical inter-agency barriers meet new statutory machinery on 1 July 2026: the Privacy and Responsible Information Sharing Act, with formal frameworks and a statutory Chief Data Officer who can intervene where data is unreasonably withheld, with ministerial direction as backstop.
The Midland use case lacks the power to demonstrate platform value: weakly defined, indifferently sponsored, and largely unknown after engagement went quiet during procurement. The recommended pivot mirrors the consensus elsewhere: Westport and the Western Trade Coast, with Latitude 32 land release as a showcase for scenario planning under constraint. Find a sponsor hungry for the capability, emphasise tangible problems solved rather than technology, and pair the long-term vision with pragmatic first steps that build momentum.
The current funding model is unsustainable: agency budgets were reduced after efficiencies without reinvestment in the central program, Treasury is skeptical of non-cash benefits, and the benefits realisation plan is weak: poor baselining of current and future states. Recommendations: rebuild the business case with proper baselining and the "cost of doing nothing"; propose the reinvestment model (a small percentage of agency savings returned to the centre for several years to build system-wide capacity); and press the point that the state has already bought a state digital asset: adoption is how the ROI gets realised.
Agencies operate in silos, duplicating effort and data even within portfolios (Main Roads vs PTA), and are routinely sent to do difficult things with poor tools. Multi-agency opportunities lack ownership. The bigger play: mandate use of state digital assets where they provide the capability (ERC exemptions only), build a unified "single government" presentation layer like Service WA. And close the glaring gap of a "Service WA for business," a single business-friendly portal for licensing and approvals. Engage the private sector to amplify platform value.
Nicole framed the conversation directly: Darren and Trish asked her to take a fresh look at where things are at, with the program settled post-slip and vendors on board. The infrastructure use case needs its rethink, and DPLH (flagged in multiple earlier interviews as a potential blocker via "Plan WA") proved a notably constructive room.
The digital twin's virtues are understood philosophically. What's missing is implementation detail: partner agencies cannot commit resources without understanding tangible impacts on their business processes, technology choices and integration requirements. Until the program shows concrete examples and out-of-the-box capability, it stays abstract, and that opacity reaches the program board and the responsible Minister, whose priorities are dominated by housing. The question posed inside DPLH: "what does success look like?", only answerable once the use case makes it real.
Program-level governance and budget control are considered adequate. The strain sits with the use case leads.
Technical teams in partner agencies are often engaging while their senior leadership is unaware of the initiative: "they're giving it as a favour at the moment." The proposed fix: a formal internal governance process, potentially piggybacking on an existing large control group, ensuring the right people at the right levels are aligned.
The core requirement is seamlessness: agencies must be able to drag Spatial WA data and analytics into their own tools rather than working inside a separate portal. Otherwise it becomes a painful double step and adoption dies. The vendors' next real challenge is streamlining that integration.
On money: current funding covers the build, not the capability uplift or data maintenance that make it durable. The reinvestment model (a small percentage of measured project savings returned to a central fund) was discussed as the mechanism, embedded in benefits realisation from the start rather than arriving later as a new ask. Treasury's current posture ("there will be no more money") makes this the realistic path.
The session confirmed the board paper lands 25 June, with the Westport co-design workshop in the first week of July. Because the use case is being rebuilt, agencies can shape it: DPLH will consolidate requirements internally and feed them in, with specific asks captured as requirements in the pilot case study.
Previously on hold (no reply after two follow-ups). Now confirmed for Mon 16 June.
Transport portfolio context: Peter's view will complement Chris Mather (Maritime) and Patrick Seares (Westport) for a fuller picture of where the use case should sit within DTMI. Worth surfacing the PTA-to-Western-Trade-Coast pivot discussion to test how it lands at the broader transport level.
Previously on hold. Now confirmed for Tue 21 July.
Water Corporation has been called out as one of the more progressive technical engagers (Phil's brief noted Watercorp as "leading adoption"). Worth probing how Water Corp sees the platform extending into underground services coordination, given the Western Power underbore issue surfaced in the PTA interview.
A 30-minute session. Pat Donovan (Interview 17, 21 July) remains the fuller Water Corporation conversation to come. Bruce's complexity question is worth taking into that session, alongside the underground-services angle flagged from the PTA interview.
Monish emailed Russell on 15 May. Awaiting times back.
Ask Monish on the next coordination call when he expects Russell's times back.