Sub-questions

Does the programme leadership have the appropriate knowledge, personal attitudes and skills required to deliver the programme?

Is the leadership suitable for the role?

Are the leadership's decisions accepted by stakeholders?

Can the programme leaders give their roles the personal time and priority needed to fulfil their duties and responsibilities?

Does the programme leadership exhibit personal ownership of the programme and provide clarity of direction?

Is there an identified programme sponsor ensuring executive commitment and oversight at the organisation's highest level? (This may be the Senior Responsible Owner if they are part of the senior management team.)

Essential evidence

SRO appointment letter (Osmotherly Rules).

Leadership and culture - examples from our studies

Air Quality (2017) highlighted the importance of strong leadership and coordination if substantial and sustained improvements are to be achieved in an issue as over-arching as air quality. The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport established a joint air quality unit in 2016 to oversee delivery of the government's plan for tackling NO2 compliance. This included an oversight board with representation from across central government and provided a valuable forum to improve collaboration and coordination. However, the board was not fully representative as it did not include local authorities or the Local Government Association, despite local government's key role in improving air quality. We also found that the unit did not systematically oversee spend and progress on schemes run by other parts of government that included intended air quality benefits, which meant there was no clear single responsibility within government for knowing whether the initiatives formed a coherent portfolio that delivered good value for money.

Our 2017 report on Cross-government funding of research and development highlighted the importance of a strategic vision and clear information about how funding is used when the investment comes from across government. In more mature areas of research, effective leadership and well-established arrangements to support coordination and collaboration between public sector funders has resulted in funders working together to prioritise research investment. However, we found that where such leadership was less well developed there was a risk that funders lacked the coherent data on capability, funding gaps and/or outcomes to inform decisions on national priorities and strategic direction. Collective action was needed in the areas we examined to prioritise investment to focus efforts on addressing the principal challenges.

Other relevant reports

Sustainability and transformation in the NHS (paragraph 16)

Improving government's planning and spending framework (paragraph 18)