The introduction of Gateway reviews in 2001, and more latterly MPRG, Assurance of Action Plans and Starting Gate, has been a significant improvement to assurance for high risk projects. The individual mechanisms, particularly MPRG and Gateway, are valued by stakeholders for the benefits that result from preparing for a review as well as the impact of their findings on reducing project risks and avoiding costs. There are early indications that the Assurance of Action Plans process is also valued by stakeholders and that Starting Gate has the potential to make a significant contribution to turning uncertainty within the policy stage into well understood delivery risks.
MPRG is effective at testing and addressing the critical elements for project success. It takes place early in the project lifecycle and is effective at informing investment decisions. Gateway compares well with private sector and international comparator point in time assurance processes but can be strengthened by more routinely basing recommendations on a higher and more exacting base as well as informed opinion.
Assurance mechanisms can be effective in isolation, but are more effective when designed and operated as an integrated system. An integrated assurance system should have clear objectives, a robust design, the necessary resources and the ability to improve the delivery of projects while minimizing the burden placed on projects. We compared the current system of central assurance for high risk projects against a range of best practice criteria to assess its effectiveness. Our key findings are11:
● There is a lack of coordinated system design for central assurance. The central assurance system has evolved over time, with individual mechanisms being designed in isolation to fill perceived gaps. OGC's objectives for assurance are too focussed on individual mechanisms and projects rather than delivering benefits across government through an integrated system of assurance.
● OGC has a mandate to provide assurance to high risk projects but there is variability in how departments engage. OGC's mandate relies on departments' or SROs' willingness to comply. Although Gateway reviews are mandatory, there are examples where projects have not been reviewed at all gates. Projects do not routinely plan and budget for assurance activity at the start of a project, making it difficult for OGC to plan assurance interventions across the portfolio of projects. The system also relies on civil servants volunteering for review teams but it can be difficult to resource reviews without turning to consultants.
● Information and learning from assurance is not systematically captured or used to improve project performance. There is no single source of knowledge for projects to easily access the lessons produced by assurance. OGC relies on informal contact between its staff, plus discussions with individual departments, to transfer lessons across projects and organisations. The transparency of assurance reports within organisations and across government varies.
Overall, despite positive steps, there is potential to further improve the effectiveness of the assurance system for high risk projects. Part 2 presents the NAO's view on the principles for an improved assurance system.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
11 Our findings are based on a analysis of a sample of the 42 projects which make up the MPP. There is no indication that our findings are not equally applicable to all high risk projects.