Tana Urban Mobility Authority (TUMA) is a public-sector agency established to coordinate integrated transport services in a fast-growing metropolitan region. Its mandate covers bus rapid transit, digital fare collection, traffic information systems, private operator licensing and partnerships with county governments. For several years, TUMA operated through a conventional functional structure in which planning, finance, operations, information technology, procurement and public communication units worked separately. The arrangement was adequate when the agency managed small infrastructure projects, but it became increasingly unsuitable as the transport network expanded and public expectations increased.
In 2025, the board approved the Integrated Mobility Platform, a strategic programme intended to connect route planning,commuter payments, operator monitoring, service complaints and real-time passenger information. The programme was expected to improve service reliability, reduce revenue leakage and provide data for long-term investment decisions. The Chief Executive Officer presented the programme as a flagship reform and directed departments to implement it within twelve months. However, the initial environmental analysis was limited. The planning team gave little attention to commuter behaviour, political interests of transport operators, data privacy risks, cybersecurity threats, union concerns and possible resistance from informal service providers.
Leadership and governance weaknesses emerged during implementation. Strategic direction was communicated mainly through circulars and progress dashboards, while managers at corridor offices had limited opportunity to influence priorities. The Chief Executive Officer relied on a small executive committee and discouraged critical comments in review meetings. Middle-level managers were responsible for implementation outcomes but lacked authority over budgets, vendor decisions and staff deployment. This weakened accountability and slowed problem solving when commuter complaints, equipment failures and operator disputes increased.
The functional structure also created coordination problems. The information technology team prioritised system installation, the finance department focused on revenue controls, the operations unit concentrated on route schedules while the public communication office worked separately on awareness campaigns. As a result, many drivers were not adequately trained, commuters received inconsistent information and the contact centre could not resolve complaints quickly. Procurement records later showed that some technical specifications had been approved before sufficient user testing and stakeholder consultation had been undertaken.
By mid-2026, only 45% of the planned routes had been integrated into the platform. Project costs had exceeded the approved budget, fare validation devices failed frequently and commuter confidence declined. Trade unions complained about possible job losses, private operators resisted stricter monitoring and county officials questioned whether the programme aligned with local transport priorities. The board received reports on expenditure and installation percentages but limited information on strategic risks, service quality, stakeholder satisfaction or benefits realisation.
Following public criticism, the board appointed an independent transformation panel to review the programme. The panel concluded that significant changes were required in the leadership, governance and implementation of the programme. The board expects management to stabilise the Integrated Mobility Platform while preserving public trust, improving accountability and ensuring that the reform supports TUMA’s long-term strategic direction.
Required:
(a) (i) Identify THREE areas in which middle-level managers at TUMA were assigned responsibility without corresponding authority.
(ii) Discuss THREE consequences of the authority gaps identified in (i) on accountability and service delivery at TUMA.
(b) Explain FIVE project management weaknesses that TUMA should address in future transport technology programmes.
(c) Assess THREE situational leadership approaches that TUMA could adopt to manage stakeholder resistance to the Integrated Mobility Platform.
(d) Analyse FOUR ethical concerns arising from the approval of technical specifications before adequate consultation and user testing.
(e) Citing evidence from the case study, examine THREE ways in which cross-functional teams could address TUMA’s coordination failures.
(f) Evaluate THREE board-level control mechanisms that could strengthen oversight of the Integrated Mobility Platform at TUMA.
Sign in with Google
Want to join the discussion?
Log in to post comments and interact with tutors.
Login to Comment