Programme management provided by Partnerships for Schools
Benefits of PfS as the Programme Manager | ||
| Example | National Audit Office comment |
PfS provides national leadership for the programme | ■ Accountability for the delivery of the programme lies with PfS' chief Executive ■ Single gateway for the national programme ■ Clear regional and thematic responsibilities within Senior management Team ■ Champions programme in the media and with other stakeholders | PfS is clearly identified by all stakeholders as the driving force behind delivery of the programme. By providing a single point responsible and accountable for delivery of the programme it improves leadership, transparency and accountability and increases the long-term chances of the programme's success. |
Skilled professional people | ■ Specialist staff on PFI, programme management, design, education, IcT, contracts and procurement ■ Non-Executive Board members with relevant experience ■ Incentive schemes tied to programme delivery | PfS provides a vehicle for attracting specialist staff, who would be difficult to fit into the general civil service structure. |
PfS provides support for Local Authorities | ■ Standardised documents ■ Strategy and procurement guidance ■ Technical guidance ■ Mediation and problem solving | PfS provides good overall support to Local Authorities planning or procuring their projects, but is not yet providing enough support for operational projects. PfS has to balance the role of funding gatekeeper and supporting Local Authorities, sometimes causing tension in the relationship with local projects. |
Managing the portfolio of projects | ■ Determines flow of projects ■ Risk and opportunity management ■ Finance management of the programme | PfS manages the timing, flow and overall scope of the programme, with direction from the Department. It delivers the Department's requirements for more structured programme management and greater control of the overall progress of the programme compared to the Department's other strategic capital programmes. It also provides detailed and up to date real time monitoring of progress on each project, collected through its face to face contact with each project. But it has tended to be over optimistic in its expectations and some projects continue to slip against PfS's timetable. |
Management of private sector capacity | ■ Reviews bidder interest in current and upcoming projects ■ Educates bidders on upcoming projects ■ consults sector on procurement process ■ Keeps sector informed through bulletins of proposed OJEU dates, indicative funding and PFI content | PfS has built up a network of companies involved in the programme. The scale of the BSF programme requires an expansion of the market focused on the building and refurbishment of schools and the provision of education ICT. PfS provides a central focus to promote the programme with the private sector in a way that could not be done by individual Local Authorities, and provides expertise on the private market not present within the Department. |
Effective cost control | ■ Funding allocation model with associated guidance to LAs ■ Procurement review | PfS has helped keep the capital costs of individual projects under control and the overall cost of the programme to the Department down. |
Quality control | ■ Business cases scrutinised by PfS Education and Design teams ■ Checks changes to standard procurement terms and conditions ■ Uniformity creates economies of scale ■ Benchmarking capital costs for all Schools and Facilities management for PFI Schools | PfS monitors progress of each project, reviews each business case and encourages Local Authorities and schools to consider what they need to progress their project. PfS also promotes standardisation of documentation and terms and conditions, with the aim of achieving procurement efficiencies over the whole programme. Occasionally these are worse than Local Authorities believe they could get on an individual deal. |
Learning and knowledge management | ■ Lessons learnt database (PfS website) ■ Facilitation and Networking | PfS has been effective at learning lessons from the early projects and changing the processes for later projects. It also facilitates networking between Local Authorities. But to date, most attention has been on facilitating learning on the planning and procurement stage, and not enough on the operational stage. |
Cost of PfS as the Programme Manager | ||
| Example | National Audit Office comment |
Overhead administration costs | See paragraph 4.5 | Central programme management inevitably brings greater central administration costs over devolved funding streams, but, at one per cent of programme costs, they are broadly comparable to similar programmes. |
Advisory and set-up costs | See paragraph 4.7 | Advisory and set up costs have been increased by the complicated structure of PfS and the need for a lot of additional technical, legal and financial advice on the LEP model. |
Reduced local flexibility | PfS provides rigorous challenge to Local Authorities considering: ■ non standard delivery models ■ different funding routes (PFI or conventional) | Central programme management creates tension with local autonomy. PfS encourages Local Authorities to conform to its approach to achieve economies of scale and benefits over the whole programme, but this reduces the opportunities of each Local Authority to tailor its own approach to local circumstance. Where Local Authorities have pursued their own approach, PfS has not always been able to provide them with as much support. |
Increased local administrative burden | ■ Central review of outline business cases ■ Provision of benchmarking information | Local Authorities need to undertake additional exercises to help PfS monitor progress and costs, causing some increased administrative burden. However, some of these exercises, such as the provision of benchmarking information, will benefit the Local Authorities. |
Delay caused by increased set-up time of the programme | ■ Getting PfS fully operational caused a year's delay | Pathfinders and early waves could not start procurement until PfS was formally launched, delaying the programme by around a year (see part 2). Early projects also encountered problems as PfS settled down. For instance, many complained about a high churn rate amongst their contacts with PfS, because as PfS expanded its number of staff it moved people around from project to project to decrease its staff to project ratios. |