a Inconsistencies in how organisations comply with the assurance system limit its effectiveness.
The new assurance system was established by a prime ministerial mandate, and the Authority, departments and HM Treasury are responsible for making it work effectively. However, there is no method to monitor compliance with the system. The Authority should collect data on how well departments meet requirements to: provide government major project portfolio data; complete integrated assurance and approvals plans; provide accredited reviewers for high-risk projects; and on whether they are implementing the Authority's recommendations. This information should be used to highlight weaknesses in the system and help the Authority target its resources where they will have most benefit. HM Treasury should use this information, alongside assurance reports, to decide whether it should approve project funding. The Authority should also collect information on whether assurance recommendations inform HM Treasury approval decisions.
b HM Treasury is not taking a holistic view of the information generated by the Government Major Project Portfolio.
Our work, and that of the Committee of Public Accounts, on the Whole of Government Accounts has shown the value of considering how resources are allocated across organisations. This approach enables potential problems to be spotted and resources reallocated to meet priorities. HM Treasury should regularly use the government major project portfolio information to help it manage the government's balance sheet and prioritise resources between projects in the portfolio. HM Treasury should invite the Authority to help with formal investment appraisals at the time of spending reviews.
C The benefit from government's investment in the assurance system is not being measured.
The Authority cannot make optimal use of its scarce resources if it does not know the impact of its assurance. The Authority, departments and HM Treasury need to work together to understand the current impact of assurance activity on project outcomes. They should then use that knowledge to apply the system's resources in the most effective ways, on the highest priority projects.
d Large parts of the assurance system are informal and undocumented, depending heavily on individuals.
A standard way of working, understood by all staff, allows organisations to plan controlled process changes and redistribute workload without impact on time, cost and quality. The Authority needs to establish formal ways of working. In particular, it should formalise how it plans, prioritises and undertakes assurance activity for departments, how it learns and disseminates lessons from projects and reviews, and how it will continuously improve the system.
e The ambition to publish project information, as part of the government's transparency agenda, has not been met.
Our 2010 report recommended that the government should publicly report project status. We consider that public reporting of project information is key to providing greater accountability for projects and improving project outcomes. Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and departments should agree a format and a date for public reporting.