Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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