Download FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS

Appendix 2c
DIRECTORATE OF AUDIT, RISK AND
ASSURANCE
Internal Audit Service to the GLA
Review of Programme and Project Management
Framework- Strategic Land and Property
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Audit Team
David Esling, Head of Audit and Assurance
Phil Drysdale, Audit Manager
Report Distribution List
David Lunts, Executive Director - Housing and Land
Simon Powell, Assistant Director - Strategic Projects and Property
Tajmina Jetha, Senior Manager Programme Management
Martin Clarke, Executive Director - Resources
Doug Wilson, Head of Financial Services
Tom Middleton, Head of Governance and Performance
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
1
Audit Assurance
2
Areas of Effective Control
2
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS
Review Objectives
4
Scope
4
Guidance, Policy and Procedures
4
Scrutiny of Business Cases
6
Risk Management
8
Financial Monitoring of Programme and Projects
8
Record Management
9
Scrutiny and Review of Outputs and Lessons Learned
11
ACTION PLAN
Assurance and Risk Rating Definitions
October 2015
13
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
Background
1.1 This review has been carried out as part of the Greater London Authority (GLA)
2015/16 audit plan. The GLA objective is to ensure that an effective
programme/project management framework is in place to support successful
delivery of Strategic Land and Property projects to meet agreed Mayoral
priorities and objectives per the London Housing Strategy and Property Asset
Strategy
1.2 The Property Asset Strategy sets out five objectives for the Strategic Land and
Property Programme:





Support the construction of new homes of all tenures to help meet London’s
pressing housing needs;
Support economic development activities that can help create new
employment and regeneration opportunities;
Deliver developments of the highest quality which, wherever possible, are of
mixed use and demonstrate long term viability and local benefits;
Encourage and support creative approaches to development that can help
stimulate new opportunities for investment; and
Deliver income from rents, leases and receipts which will help meet the
GLA’s short and longer term financial requirements.
1.3 At the outset of the review, the potential risks identified to achieving these
objectives were:
 Unclear project/programme management guidance, policy and procedure,
lack of clear objectives, ill-defined roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities;
 Ineffective scrutiny and evaluation of business cases leading to investment
decisions that are not aligned with Mayoral objectives;
 Ineffective identification, reporting, escalation and treatment of
project/programme risks;
 Inadequate monitoring and accounting for funds against contractual
requirements (project level) and budget management at a programme level;
 Ineffective
scrutiny,
review
and
reporting
against
project
objectives/deliverables;
 Incomplete and inaccurate record keeping at the project level and impact on
the programme level;
 Failure to capture and act upon lessons learned.
1.4 Failure to manage these risks could result in the Mayor’s objectives per the
Property Asset Strategy not being achieved, value for money not being
achieved and adverse publicity leading to reputational damage. The
management of these risks requires an effective programme and project
management framework to be in place and our review provides an assessment
of the extent to which this is the case.
1.5 In April 2012, under the Localism Act, the Mayor inherited 670 hectares of land
and property together with a number of regeneration projects and land from the
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Homes and Communities Agency (HCA), London Development Agency (LDA)
and London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC). These
projects are managed as one programme called the Land and Property
Programme. The programme is made up of six large strategic projects,
including Silvertown Quays and the London Sustainable Industries Park, and a
number of smaller projects, such as Beam Park and Gallions Quarter. Together
they have an estimated gross development value of £5.5 billion.
2.
Audit Assurance
Substantial
There is a sound framework of control operating effectively to mitigate key
risks, which is contributing to the achievement of business objectives.
3.
Areas of Effective Control
3.1 There is clearly defined, up to date and approved guidance, policy and
procedures in place for all stages of the programme and project life cycle,
including; Programme and Project Governance framework, Director and
Mayoral approvals and decision making processes and the Project Control
System (PCS). The project approval and review process is broadly consistent
with best practice provided by the Major Projects Authority, part of the Cabinet
Office’s Efficiency and Reform Group.
3.2 There is an effective framework in place for the scrutiny, challenge and review
of investment proposals at the initial strategic case stage, the detailed
investment recommendation stage and Director and Mayoral decision stage.
Business cases are reviewed internally by the Housing and Land Assistant
Director- Strategic Projects and Property and Senior Management Team, GLA
Finance, TfL Legal and GLA Governance and Performance teams.
3.3 Risks are identified, recorded and reported promptly, accurately and effectively
at Project, Programme and Directorate level. Risks are escalated where
appropriate from the Directorate Risk Register to the Corporate Risk Register
via Dashboard reports in accordance with GLA Risk Management Framework.
There is regular reporting of significant risks to the Housing and Land Senior
Management Team and Housing Investment Group via updates to the Housing
and Lands Operational Plan.
3.4 Expenditure for both the Land and Property Programme and its constituent
projects is effectively monitored against budgets and accurately accounted for.
Forecast overspends are identified promptly and budget virements reviewed
and approved by senior management.
3.5 Project Control System records are effectively maintained to ensure they are
complete and accurate and that management information is reported and
scrutinised on a regular and timely basis. There is regular reporting by project
managers to senior management and regular directorate reporting to the
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Housing Investment Group and the London Assembly. Directorate and
Programme performance is reported to the Housing Investment Group, the
Investment and Performance Board, where required, and the Budget Sub
Committee.
3.6 There is an effective framework in place at both the Directorate and Corporate
level to ensure that the delivery of agreed outputs at programme and individual
project level are scrutinised and reviewed. The Peer Review process ensures
that lessons learned are identified and acted on.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.
Review Objectives
4.1
Our overall objective was to review the effectiveness of the control framework in
place for Strategic Land and Property Project and Programme Management to
support Mayoral objectives. In particular, we sought to give an assurance that:






There is clearly defined and approved guidance, policy and procedures in
place for managing project/programmes and roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities have been allocated;
Business cases leading to investment decisions are effectively scrutinised,
evaluated, are consistent with Mayoral objectives and formally approved;
Risks are identified, promptly reported and escalated and effectively treated;
Programme and project expenditure is monitored against budgets and
accurately accounted for;
Complete and accurate project/programme records are maintained and timely
management information is produced and regularly reviewed, monitored and
reported;
Effective scrutiny, review and reporting take place against programme
objectives/deliverables and lessons learned are captured and acted upon.
5.
Scope
5.1
This review focussed on the control environment supporting the management of
projects and programmes in the Strategic Projects and Property Unit within the
Housing and Land Directorate. We reviewed the control environment for the
management of key risks across the whole of the project life cycle, from initiation,
appraisal and approval to delivery, monitoring, closure and lessons learned. We
tested the operation of key controls applied to a number of projects, however, this
is a review of the framework supporting programme management in Housing and
Land and individual programmes are subject to separate audit reviews.
6.
Guidance, Policy and Procedures
6.1
There are clearly defined, up to date and approved guidance, policy and
procedures in place for all stages of the programme and project life cycle at the
Corporate and Directorate level. Guidance follows the best practice set out by the
Cabinet Office’s Major Development Authority and includes:
 Programme and Project Governance framework,
 Director and Mayoral approvals and decision making processes,
 Project Control System (PCS)
6.2
In addition to guidance specific to Programme and Projects, guidance is in place
for the Corporate Risk Management Framework, and the Corporate Financial
Regulations and Contracts and Funding Code also support the programme
management process.
6.3
Project Managers in H&L follow the programme and project management
governance model set out by the GLA Governance and Performance Team.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
4
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Guidance is available to H&L officers via the GLA intranet. The GLA's approval
process has three stages; Strategic Case (Stage 1), Investment Recommendation
(Stage 2) and Formal Decision (Mayoral or Director Decision). Within H&L there
is guidance in place specifying the process of challenge, review and approval for
each of the stage of the approval process. The H&L process is summarised
below:
PM prepares project proposals, including
feedback from GLA Finance/TfL Legal and
Governance as required.
AD(SPP)/ Head or Area review
SMT review
HIG (and potentially IPB) review
HIG /IPB recommendations
MD/DD
6.4
The GLA approval and review process reflects best practise for the management
of public sector projects as specified by the Cabinet Office’s Major Projects
Authority (MPA). The MPA specifies a three stage approval and review process
comprising Strategic Outline Business Case, Outline Business Case and Full
Business Case, which is broadly analogous to the GLA process.
6.5
The MPA specifies Gateway Reviews take place at five key decision points in the
projects life cycle to provide assurance that projects can progress successfully to
the next stage. The MPA Gateway Review stages are Business Justification,
Delivery Strategy, Investment Decision, Readiness for Service and Operational
Review/Benefits Realisation. We compared the H&L review and approval
process with the best practice represented by the MPA Gateway Review process
and found that the GLA process is broadly similar to the Gateway Review
process, with equivalent or combined reviews taking place at each stage.
Additional scrutiny of the continued viability of projects, over and above that
envisaged by MPA guidance, is provided via monthly and quarterly project Peer
Reviews led by the AD-SPP and quarterly updates to the HIG and IPB.
6.6
Programme and Project Management Governance guidance specifies what
supporting reports and monitoring information is required at each stage of the
project lifecycles, from initiation at strategic case through to investment decision
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
5
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
and approval, and project delivery. It also clearly allocates responsibilities and
accountabilities, with the Governance and Performance Teams being responsible
for setting the Corporate Governance Framework that includes taking the lead
on project monitoring arrangements, facilitating support for the Investment
Performance Board (IPB) and the Housing Investment Group (HIG), coordinating
project approval processes and supporting the decision making process. Within
H&L responsibilities and accountabilities are clearly defined, with the Programme
Team being responsible for the overall L&P Programme and project managers
being responsible for the day to day running of their projects.
6.7
L&P projects are managed and monitored through the Project Control System
(PCS) project database which is used under licence from the Homes and
Communities Agency. PCS performs the following key functions:






Ensures projects pass through the mandatory approval points through their
lifecycle
Interfaces with the GLA’s finance system (SAP) to record details of purchase
orders, actual expenditure and receipts
Provides expenditure forecast and financial headroom checking facilities
Provides the facility to track and record project level milestones and risks
Provides the facility to record project outputs
Enables comprehensive programme level reporting
6.8
PCS is hosted by the HCA and accessed from the GLA via a secure Citrix link.
Access is restricted to registered users who must receive line- manager approval
and an HCA account before gaining access to PCS.
6.9
There is up to date and comprehensive guidance for PCS available to PMs on the
H&L shared drive. Guidance comprises a General User Guide, which covers
project phases, expenditure, outputs, receipts, milestones and risks, Income
Receipt Guide, which sets out how to record different types of income, such as
income form disposals and Output Monitoring Guide, which details the core
outputs for reporting against GLA and Mayoral priorities, such as gross
development value, jobs created, land brought into beneficial use.
7.
Scrutiny of Business Cases
7.1
Proposals to develop a new project or programme go through a rigorous multi
stage process of scrutiny, review, feedback and approval both within H&L, where
they are reviewed by the Assistant Director- Strategic Projects and Property, (ADSPP) and Senior Management Team (SMT), and by the Housing Investment
Group (HIG) and, where deemed novel or contentious, by the Investment and
Performance Board (IPB). Having passed successfully through these stages a
proposal may be recommended for acceptance to the Mayor, or the Executive
Director – Housing and Land, for proposals valued at less than £150k, and the
proposal will be approved.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
6
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.2
Business cases for all stages, Strategic Case, Investment Decision and
Mayoral/Directorate Decision, must use the proforma specified and provided by
the Governance and Performance team, which are available to staff on the
intranet. The Stage 1 - Strategic Case requires an assessment of the strategic
aims of the project and how it supports the delivery of Mayoral objectives, and
must include details of how the project will be resourced in term of funding and
management capacity to deliver. Project risks, assumptions made and an
assessment of the projects value for money must also be included.
7.3
The Stage 2 - Investment Decision proforma focusses on the specifics of delivery
and requires a proposed delivery timetable, project milestones, key financial facts
and issues; including sources of funding and costs, delivery structure,
procurement route and timing, appraisal of the top three project risks, explanation
of how the project will be evaluated and reported, and an exit strategy.
7.4
HM Treasury’s Green Book-Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government is
the definitive guide to the appraisal and evaluation of programme and projects for
the UK public sector and requires business cases to include detailed
assessments against five components of an investment decision. The five
components, collectively termed the Five Case Model, are as follows:
Strategic – alignment with overall strategic aims;
Economic – wider economic cost and benefits of deliverables;
Commercial – proposal is commercially feasible and deliverable;
Financial - proposal is affordable and budgeted for;
Management – organisational capacity to deliver, governance and assurance.
7.5
We compared the business case requirement for Stage 1 and 2 with the best
practice represented by the Green Book’s Five Case Model and found that they
included all essential criteria and were consistent with best practice.
7.6
We reviewed compliance with the approvals process for a sample of projects and
found that detailed reports setting out the proposal and detailed business case
had been drafted by PMs, reviewed by AD SPP and H&L SMT and a formal
decision/recommendation to HIG had been recorded. We found that initial
proposals at Stage 1 and detailed investments business cases at Stage 2 had
been reviewed by HIG and clear recommendations made to the Mayor.
7.7
Subsequent reports were subject to review and approval by the Mayor or Director
and the relevant MD /DD had been published on the GLA’s website. As required
by the corporate Project and Programme governance and approvals procedure all
reports at Stage1, 2 and MD/DD stage had been reviewed by GLA Finance, TfL
Legal and GLA Governance teams.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
7
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.
Risk Management
8.1
H&L project managers follow the corporate Risk Management Framework (RMF)
that is provided by Governance and Performance team. The RMF clearly sets out
the accountabilities, roles and responsibilities for risk management for programme
and project management and requires that all investment projects have risk
registers and that these be reported via project dashboards.
8.2
Day to day project risks are managed by the H&L project manager and recorded
on the PCS database. Risks are discussed and further action/escalation agreed
at monthly and quarterly Peer Review meetings which are attended by project
managers and the AD-SPP. GLA project dashboards restrict the reporting of risks
to the ‘top three risks’ and these are agreed at Peer Review meetings by the AD
SPP along with risks to be reported to SMT via the Operation Plan report. The
Operation Plan report reflects the risks and ratings reported via the GLA
dashboards but may also highlight other risks that are for discussion at SMT for
review and action. Risks that are reported via project dashboards are
automatically reported to the GLA Corporate Management Team via the
Governance and Performance Team and the IPB.
8.3
In addition to directorate and corporate risk review and reporting, an overall Red
Amber Green (RAG) rating for all 71 developable sites managed by H&L,
including those relating to the 19 strategic projects, is reported to the HIG via the
HIG Status Report. We reviewed the Status Report for June 2015 and found that
all 71 sites were rated Green or Amber and there were none Rated Red. HIG’s
role is to review and agree the treatment of reported risks, either by agreeing
mitigating actions to control the risk, transfer the risk or accept the risk where
appropriate.
8.4
We reviewed a sample of project risk registers on PCS, Dashboards, and the
SMT Operational Plan and found that all were up to date and included a risk
description and an evaluation of its impact, inherent and residual risk
assessments, explanations of the control measures in place and actions taken. In
addition all risks were allocated an owner with deadlines for completing the
agreed mitigating actions. We confirmed that the risks included in the Operational
Plan were included in the Directorate Risk Register and had been reported to
SMT and HIG as required by the RMF.
9.
Financial Monitoring of Programmes and Projects
9.1
Once approved by the Mayor or Executive Director - Housing and Land, budgets
for new projects are agreed within the overall annual L and P programme budget
and set up within PCS as a baseline by the Programme Team in line with the
approved budgets in SAP. Expenditure forecasts in excess of the budget
baselines are flagged up as ‘unapproved’ within PCS and will be investigated by
the Programme Team and GLA Finance. The Programme Team monitor the
overall L and P programme and individual project budgets, to ensure that
forecasts, outturn and individual project budgets remain within the overall
programme budget agreed with GLA Finance. Requests for increases in project
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
8
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
budgets are made by PMs and agreed, where deemed acceptable, by the
Programme Team and the AD-SPP.
9.2
GLA finance system, SAP, feeds directly into the PCS and means that
expenditure and commitments are approved and paid in conformity with the
corporate GLA system, whereby TfL FSC pay invoices when matched to an
authorised Purchase Order. In addition to maintaining the necessary segregation
of duties between order and payment as required by Financial Regulations, the
direct feed from SAP to PCS avoids the inefficiencies and risk of error inherent in
a manual, non-standard payment process. For PMs the direct feed between SAP
and PCS ensures they are provided with real time information on expenditure and
commitments, which means they can promptly challenge miscoding or errors and
identify at an early stage potential overspends. The Programme Team provide
PMs with a number of financial reports from PCS, including Budget and
Expenditure Reports, Actual Spend and Purchase Orders Report. PMs use the
reports to monitor actual expenditure against their budget and payments against
commitments.
9.3
The Programme Team liaise with GLA Financial Services to ensure that capital
and revenue budgets on PCS and expenditure for the L and P Programme as a
whole and for individual projects is accurately reconciled to SAP data which is
reported via monthly management accounts. Project budget virements are
discussed and agreed by the Programme Team and AD SPP and confirmed with
GLA Financial Services.
9.4
For a sample of projects we reviewed the Budget and Expenditure Reports,
Actual Spend and Purchase Orders Report derived from PCS and confirmed that
the information was comprehensive and up to date and clearly flagged
unapproved expenditure forecasts. We reviewed the overall Programme Budget
and confirmed that it had been regularly reconciled to SAP data provided by GLA
Finance via monthly management accounts
9.5
Expenditure for both the L and P Programme and its constituent projects is
effectively monitored against budgets and accurately accounted for. Forecast
overspends are identified promptly and budget virements reviewed and approved
by senior management.
10. Record Management
10.1 Project records are maintained on the PCS system, which records information
relating to project milestones, budgets, expenditure, outputs, risks and receipts.
The direct link between PCS and SAP means that records of payments made,
including invoices and purchase orders, and income are automatically retained.
PMs are responsible for ensuring accurate information is held in PCS and
produce regular project status reports that are reviewed by the Programme team.
10.2 We reviewed expenditure, commitments, output and milestone information held
on PCS for a sample of projects and agreed expenditure and commitments
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
9
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
records to the corresponding SAP data via the monthly management accounts
prepared by GLA Finance and outputs and milestones to the and risk for a
sample of projects and found that up to date information were retained and that
the accuracy of PCS data had been reviewed by the Programme Team via
Project Status reports.
10.3 Management information is produced and reported at various levels including
project, programme, housing area (for non SPP projects) and directorate level for
a number of different users, including Project/Programme managers, Directorate
SMT, HIG, London Assembly and Mayoral level.
10.4 The SMT oversee and monitor the progress of SPP programme and individual
Projects through the monthly Operational Plan Report. The report details the
programme budget expenditure, outputs, and forecasts against phases ensuring
that if forecasts are not being achieved that early remedial action can be taken.
10.5 Project managers monitor their projects through PCS reports and monthly
Dashboards. These are reviewed and approved by AD –SPP and SMT before
being sent to the GLA Performance and Governance unit. Senior management
use dashboard reports as the basis of their reports to HIG and IPB. We reviewed
a sample of SPP dashboards found them to be sufficiently detailed. They included
a Red Amber Green (RAG) status, project description and aims, benefits and
outputs and key performance measures and indicators.
10.6 The Housing and Land Directorate’s risk register is updated and reviewed
monthly to cross check consistency of reporting risks between the GLA
dashboards and SMT Operational Plan. The directorate risk register is updated
with current risks that are identified from the programme dashboard report, these
risks are both current and long term, and are assessed and prioritised to ensure
project risks are reduced and managed. Officers will update the Operational Plan
and this provides the opportunity to report additional risks that are not covered in
the GLA dashboards. Project and Programme risk are escalated to, reviewed and
monitored by H and L SMT using the Operational Plan and escalated to GLA
corporate level if appropriate.
10.7 Regular reports are submitted to HIG on the SPP Programme and provide
updates on the programme’s current position and direction of travel. We reviewed
a sample of HIG reports and found that they included details of the SPP
programme’s progress against target outputs and set out the major risks facing
the programme and individual projects. The reports clearly set out SMT
recommendations to HIG in terms of the decisions and actions required. HIG
reports are available to the general public on the GLA website except where they
contain information that is legally privileged or commercially confidential.
10.8 H and L provide regular information and updates to the London Assembly on how
the SPP programme contributes to the achievement of Mayoral objectives as set
out in the corporate ‘Mayor’s Report’ and the Governance Team’s central
reporting on ‘Monitoring Priorities Flowing From The Mayor's Manifesto’.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
10
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
10.9 Overall we found that PCS records are effectively maintained to ensure they are
complete and accurate and that management information is reported and
scrutinised on a regular and timely basis. There is regular reporting by project
managers to senior management and regular directorate reporting to the HIG and
the London Assembly. Directorate and Programme performance is reported to
HIG, IPB and the Budget Sub Committee of the GLA each quarter and reports are
available to the general public via the GLA website.
11. Scrutiny and Review of Outputs and Lessons Learned
11.1 Outputs from projects that make up the L&P Programme are regularly scrutinised
and reviewed by the Senior Project Managers, Programme Team, the AD –SPP,
and monthly and quarterly Peer Review meetings, attended by AD – SPP,
Programme Team and Project Managers.
Overall progress of the L&P
Programme and individual projects is reviewed fortnightly by H&L SMT and
quarterly by the HIG and IPB.
11.2 Programme and Project outputs are defined in line with the requirements for
reporting within the GLA and against Mayoral priorities. There are currently seven
core outputs for reporting purposes:
 Gross Development Value (£)
 Employment Floor Space (square metres)
 Jobs Created (potential)
 Land Brought into Beneficial Use (hectares)
 Housing Starts on Site
 Housing Completions
 Apprenticeships
11.3 Proposed output baselines, based on the approved project deliverables, are
reviewed and agreed by the AD - SPP and entered on PCS at the start of the
financial year and detail the proposed delivery expected in the year. Project
outputs are collected within PCS and monitored via PCS Output Reports which
show actual and forecast performance against baselines. The baseline output for
each project, per the categories listed at paragraph 11.2, is derived from the
original approved Strategic Cases and Investment Decisions and are input onto
PCS by the Programme Team after review and approval by the AD – SPP. Output
Reports are used by PMs and the Programme Team to track delivery for each
project and check that the forecasts remain in line with the expected outturn.
11.4 Projects outputs are scrutinised and reviewed within H and L by the Programme
Team, AD-SPP and H and L SMT. The main method of project assurance within
H and L is via monthly and quarterly Peer Review meetings which are attended
by PMs, Senior PMs, the AD-SPP and Programme Managers. Peer Reviews
cover all aspects of a project’s performance, including progress against targets,
issues and problems encountered assessment of existing and new risks, the need
for new approvals, budgetary performance and PCS data issues.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
11
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
11.5 A Peer Review meeting schedule is in place for each Project and the Programme
Team produce bespoke reports that are reviewed and discussed at meetings. For
a sample of projects we confirmed that a monthly Peer Review had taken place,
was supported by a Programme Team report and the minutes of Peer Review
included specific actions, including lessons learned, where appropriate.
Information from Peer Reviews feeds into the regular reporting carried out within
H and L and at the corporate level.
11.6 At a corporate level, scrutiny and review is carried out by GLA Corporate
Management Team, based on Dashboards submitted by H and L to the
Governance and Performance Team, HIG and IPB. Individual Dashboards are
produced for the six largest L&P Projects, such as Royal Albert Dock, Silvertown
Quays, London Sustainable Industries Park and a composite Dashboard is
produce for key remaining smaller projects, such as Gallions Quarter and Beam
Park. Dashboards provide GLA Corporate Management Team with a snapshot of
projects RAG status and concentrate on reporting against key targets, timescales
and highlight current project issues and the status of key risks. The overall RAG
status is determined by an assessment against five criteria:





Timescale: milestone delivery is on schedule
Issues are simple and manageable
Targets: KPIs and outputs are on track
Budget: costs and expenditure is as forecast
Risks: are potential risks impacting on delivery
11.7 We reviewed the latest Dashboard reports for a sample of projects and found that
all had an overall project rating of Amber, meaning that the projects are broadly
on track but that delivery as planned depends on the resolution of issues, such as
concluding planning agreements with site developers, Local Authorities and land
lords.
11.8 We reviewed the PCS Output Reports for sample of Projects and found that
output types reported on were consistent with those originally approved and that
actual and forecast performance was reported against baselines. We reviewed
the H and L SMT and HIG reports for a sample of projects and found that they
included detailed information on Project outputs and enabled SMT and HIG to
discharge their scrutiny and review remit.
11.9 Overall we found that there is an effective framework in place at both the
Directorate and Corporate level to ensure that the delivery of agreed outputs at
SPP Programme and individual project level are scrutinised and reviewed and
that lessons learned and acted on.
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
12
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RISK AND AUDIT ASSURANCE STATEMENT – DEFINITIONS
Overall
Rating
Criteria
Impact
Substantial
There is a sound framework of control
operating effectively to mitigate key risks,
which is contributing to the achievement
of business objectives.
There is particularly effective
management
of
key
risks
contributing to the achievement of
business objectives.
Adequate
The control framework is adequate and
controls to mitigate key risks are
generally operating effectively, although
a number of controls need to improve to
ensure business objectives are met.
Key risks are being managed
effectively; however, a number of
controls need to be improved to
ensure business objectives are met.
Limited
No
Assurance
The control framework is not operating
effectively to mitigate key risks. A
number of key controls are absent or are
not being applied to meet business
objectives.
A control framework is not in place to
mitigate key risks. The business area is
open to abuse, significant error or loss
and/or misappropriation.
Some improvement is required to
address key risks before business
objectives can be met.
Significant improvement is required
to address key risks before business
objectives can be achieved.
RISK RATINGS
Priority Categories recommendations according to their level of priority.
Critical risk issues for the attention of senior management to address control
1
weakness that could have significant impact upon not only the system, function or
process objectives, but also the achievement of the organisation’s objectives in
relation to:
 The efficient and effective use of resources
 The safeguarding of assets
 The preparation of reliable financial and operational information
 Compliance with laws and regulations.
2
3
4
Major risk issues for the attention of senior management to address control
weaknesses that has or is likely to have a significant impact upon the achievement of
key system, function or process objectives. This weakness, whilst high impact for the
system, function or process does not have a significant impact on the achievement of
the overall organisational objectives.
Other recommendations for local management action to address risk and control
weakness that has a low impact on the achievement of the key system, function or
process objectives ; or this weakness has exposed the system, function or process to
a key risk, however the likelihood is this risk occurring is low.
Minor matters need to address risk and control weakness that does not impact upon
the achievement of key system, function or process or process objectives; however
implementation of the recommendation would improve overall control.
ISA4D87D77654C404A9A924F78FE705525##Finding
October 2015
Project and Programme Management Framework- Strategic Land and Property
13