3.1 We asked the 11 projects which have been through a value testing process to identify the lessons they had learned (Figure 18). The two most consistently mentioned lessons learnt by the projects were:
■ identifying early on in the process whether good comparable benchmarking information exists, which can assist the authority in making an early decision on whether to benchmark (if there is good information) or to move quickly to a market test (assuming the option is given in the contract); and
■ the need for authorities to realistically resource the value testing process both in terms of staff and staff hours.
It was also important that they act in the capacity of an intelligent client, that is, knowledgeable on the process being undertaken and with the negotiation skills to seek a value for money outcome, while being able to challenge their private sector partners where necessary. Furthermore, some projects promoted the appropriate use of external resources in the form of advisers in order to help the authority to better manage the process.
3.2 Projects considered it beneficial to agree to the scope and terms of reference of the benchmarking early on in the process. The Authority at the University Hospital of North Durham suggested having a benchmarking service statement, agreed to by all parties, which detailed the services currently being delivered and those which were to be included in the benchmarking process. Other projects had a similar service statement but also included a list of extra services that were costed separately and could be included in the final contract if the Authority considered them affordable.
18 | The most frequently occurring responses when projects were asked to identify the lessons they had learnt that would enable them to improve the value testing process in the future | |
| Lesson learnt | Number of projects |
| Availability of good comparable benchmarking information | 7 |
| A need for the Authority to realistically resource the value testing process | 7 |
| Early agreement of the scope and terms of reference of the process | 6 |
| Authority to act as an intelligent client | 6 |
| Agreement by all parties to a realistic timeframe | 5 |
| Appropriate use of external resources such as advisers | 4 |
| Source: National Audit Office interviews of Project Teams |
|
3.3 Projects said that it was important to agree a realistic timeframe for the process. For example, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital told us that the contract suggested the process begin no later than six months before the planned completion date. However, the Trust and project company agreed that this was unrealistic and so both parties agreed to allow 14 months for the process. Treasury guidance (October 2006) suggests a framework of 12 to 24 months8, but there may be the potential to reduce this by projects adopting a disciplined project management approach to value testing, with all parties adhering to their agreed responsibilities.
3.4 There was a genuine attempt by projects to learn from their experiences and to plan changes in the way they would undertake future benchmarking/market tests. For example, the University Hospital of North Durham has already begun its second value testing exercise and has incorporated lessons learnt into the new process, such as: having a larger Trust team committed to the process, agreeing a benchmarking service statement, and, extending to two months the time they have to consider their response to the benchmark report provided by the project company.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
8 The National Audit Office data in Figure 13 showed timescales for completed projects ranged from nine to 25 months, although this excluded one project that had not completed the process. As noted in paragraph 2.14 some projects hold informal meetings up to two years before the completion of benchmarking/ market testing.