Section 7

Delivering capital investment

7.1 Introduction

As part of its capital strategy, an organisation should specify its objectives for delivery of the capital programme. It is useful to think in terms of three broad headings: time, cost and quality. The following table sets out typical objectives against each of these headings.

It will rarely, if ever, be possible to achieve all of these objectives for all the projects in the programme, but in order to maximise performance against them, organisations need to put in place efficient and effective systems for:

• ■programme management and project management
• ■procurement and contract management
• ■corporate monitoring, control and scrutiny.

The same principles apply to PPPs and outsourcing.

These issues are explored in the following sections.

7.2 Programme and project management

7.2.1 Importance of programme management

Efficient delivery of the capital programme requires that it is managed at the programme or service level, as well as at the individual project level. This enables:

• ■projects to be sequenced and grouped in accordance with the availability of delivery resources
• ■project management resources to be allocated efficiently to different projects and
• ■procurement to be planned across the programme rather than on a project-by-project basis.

These responsibilities could be given partly to a corporate team, such as a programme management office, and partly to programme managers working in specific delivery teams and managing the work of those teams. A local authority with large highways and education capital programmes, for example, might employ separate programme managers for each of these service areas.

7.2.2 Ensuring projects are managed efficiently

The prerequisites for efficient management of capital projects are:

• ■employing people with the right skills and experience to deliver capital projects
• ■recognising that project management is not a generic discipline, but must be tailored to the need of different kinds of capital project
• ■providing appropriate training that is specific to management of capital projects
• ■creating an environment that supports the delivery of capital projects.

Experience and skills in construction issues are particularly important in the delivery of capital projects.

The people required to deliver a capital programme include:

• ■programme managers, as explained above
• ■teams of project managers consisting of a mixture of individuals with a variety of skills to support each other and deliver different kinds of project
• ■those who provide a supporting role, such as finance and procurement officers.

All of these people need to have the right experience, skills and training. The role of the project manager is critical and so is explored in more detail below.

While public sector organisations need to have some degree of consistency in their systems and procedures, a one-size-fits-all approach to project management is unlikely to facilitate efficient delivery of capital projects. This is because:

• ■the ability to manage capital projects requires an understanding of construction issues
• ■capital projects vary widely in terms of size, complexity and the service outputs they are intended to provide.

Much progress has been made in recent years in developing the project management discipline in the public sector in the UK. Methodologies such as PRINCE2 have become well established and can provide a useful way of thinking about the issues that are common to management of all types of project. However, they do not provide the specific skills that are required for managing and delivering capital projects. Organisations may therefore need to develop and provide more specific training in this area.

Section 7.4.7 explains the need to reduce the bureaucratic burden to enable project management resources to be used efficiently.

7.2.3 Role of the project manager

The role of the project manager is a challenging one because it seeks to achieve the three potentially competing objectives set out at the beginning of this section relating to time, cost and quality.

The delivery of a capital project consists of three main phases:

• ■planning
• ■procurement (see section 7.3)
• ■construction.

The project management role may be carried out by more than one person during these different phases. There will typically be:

• ■a client project manager, who is directly employed by the public sector organisation and has overall responsibility for ensuring the project is delivered
• ■a separate construction project manager employed indirectly through external technical advisers.

The client project manager is typically responsible for:

• ■obtaining internal approvals
• ■keeping the overall costs of the project within budget
• ■ensuring the project is delivered on time
• ■ensuring the project meets its outcomes
• ■engaging and managing external advisers
• ■carrying out any project management activities that are not performed by the construction project manager.

The client project manager will often be the only person carrying out the project management role during the planning and procurement phases; he or she is therefore the person with ultimate responsibility for the delivery of individual projects.

Having good project managers is an essential ingredient in the successful delivery of a capital programme. However, recruiting and retaining them can be challenging, especially at a time when the construction market is buoyant and private sector firms are also recruiting. Public sector organisations may therefore need to be flexible about rates of pay. They may also need to use different methods of recruitment – including direct employment, use of agency workers and secondments from consultancy firms – in order to put in place a fully staffed team with the right mixture of skills and experience.

7.3 Procurement and contract management

7.3.1 Efficient and effective procurement

Efficient and effective procurement is critical to the delivery of the capital programme and to securing investment in public assets through public–private partnerships and outsourcing.

The procurement activities that are required to deliver capital investment may include:

• ■purchase or leasing of existing assets (such as land, buildings, vehicles, and furniture and equipment)
• ■procurement of technical, financial, legal and other specialist advice and skills
• ■procurement of works
• ■procurement of PPPs
• ■outsourcing.

The type of procurement process that is used and the way it is conducted should suit the project, so that public funds are used efficiently. There are two issues here that have a direct impact on value for money:

• ■the cost of the procurement process as a percentage of the total scheme budget
• ■the quality of the procurement process in terms of its impact on the outcomes of the project.

Small schemes, if procured individually, require a simple process; otherwise procurement costs will consume too high a proportion of the budget. On the other hand, putting insufficient resources into procurement is likely to result in poor value for money in the long run. Large and complex procurements, however, whether of a single project or group of projects, will require more resources to plan and manage them effectively.

Procurement should be planned and managed across the programme rather than on a project-by-project basis. This enables:

• ■procurement resources to be used efficiently
• ■timing of different procurement processes to be planned and co-ordinated
• ■economies of scale to be achieved.

The use of framework agreements and the appointment of a single contractor for more than one project are two options that can deliver significant savings in procurement costs. In a period of austerity it is particularly important that full use is made of these options where appropriate.

Framework agreements

A framework is an arrangement whereby an advertised procurement process is carried out to select a contractor or a number of contractors who can then be offered work within the scope of the framework without a further full procurement process. The procuring authority enters into a framework agreement with each contractor, which sets out the terms and conditions under which individual contracts (call-offs) can be made throughout the period of the framework (normally a maximum of four years).

The use of a framework agreement can significantly reduce the time and cost of procurement for a contract that would otherwise have to be advertised, especially if it would have to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).

In the UK, framework contracting has become more prevalent in recent years. Most public sector organisations now have access to a number of frameworks, set up by others, that are specifically designed for delivering capital projects. These include frameworks for construction works and for construction-related professional services. There are also frameworks for procurement of specialist supplies and services relevant to capital projects, such as for modular buildings. One example of an organisation that has used a variety of frameworks is Waltham Forest Council.

There are two key issues to be aware of when considering the use of frameworks set up by others:

• ■the public sector organisation should obtain its own legal advice on whether it may use the framework
• ■the framework must be used in accordance with the rules established under the framework itself, eg to hold a mini-competition among the framework contractors.

The rules of each framework are different and so it can be a time-consuming exercise for an organisation to familiarise itself with a framework that is has not used before, but this can save time in the long run.

Single contractor for more than one project

Another way to reduce procurement costs for capital projects is to procure a single works contractor for more than one project, resulting in either:

• ■a single contract for all the projects within the scope of the procurement, or
• ■separate contracts for each project, but all of them with the same contractor.

This approach may be particular useful where:

• ■the cost of procurement is high in relation to the value of individual projects
• ■a number of projects are being procured as part of a programme covering one service area, eg a programme to refurbish a number of libraries
• ■the projects are taking place simultaneously but are geographically close so that the contractor can manage them together
• ■the projects are taking place sequentially so that the contractor can move its delivery team on from one project to another, saving on set-up costs.

While this approach is most relevant to the procurement of works, it can also be used for other types of contract, eg for the procurement of specialist advisers.

7.3.2 Ensuring sufficient competition

Projects that are large, complex or innovative may not automatically attract competition. Indeed there are numerous instances where procurement processes have failed due to there being insufficient bidders. This occurs because contractors consider that the risks are too great and/or that the bidding costs are high in relation to the rewards.

Ensuring sufficient competition is particularly challenging in PFI projects, IT projects and other complex PPPs and outsourcing arrangements, where bidding costs and the risks to the contractor tend to be particularly high.

Public sector organisations can encourage competition through:

• ■market warming – engaging with potential bidders before procurement commences to make them aware of the project and encourage them to bid
• ■obtaining feedback from bidders about what is deliverable and modifying requirements if necessary, eg increasing the budget or reducing the specification if the original specification is not deliverable within the original budget
• ■reassuring potential bidders that the public sector organisation is committed to the project and will run an efficient procurement process
• ■ensuring all documentation is clear and ‘bidder friendly’
• ■building up the organisation’s reputation as one that is good to do business with.

Pre-procurement engagement with bidders must, however, be carried out in a way that ensures fair competition; otherwise the public sector organisation is at risk of legal challenge and damage to its reputation. It is particularly important to ensure that all potential bidders are given the same information.

7.3.3 Procurement within timescales

Ensuring procurement is carried out in a timely fashion is important for various reasons including:

• ■negative effects on the procurement process itself if procurement is delayed, such as:
• – increased procurement and bidding costs due to a protracted process
• – increased construction costs due to inflation in the construction market
• – reduced competition due to bidders losing confidence in the process or moving on to other projects
• ■negative effects if the project is not delivered on time, such as:
• – failing to meet a critical deadline, eg for facilities to be completed in time for the 2012 Olympics
• – damage to the organisation’s reputation if it fails to deliver on a promise
• – delays in achieving savings in operational costs.

For larger projects that are tendered on the open market, the deadlines for placing advertisements in the relevant publication must be factored in. This is particularly important within the European Union for contracts above specified thresholds, which must be advertised in OJEU.

It is therefore important to commence and carry out procurement in a timely fashion. This requires:

• ■good planning – a robust project plan with realistic timescales for the procurement process
• ■starting the procurement process on time, in accordance with the project plan
• ■putting sufficient resources into the procurement process for it to be run efficiently.

However, it can be counter-productive to stick to a timetable come what may. Starting the process without having the right resources and tender documentation in place is likely to result in delays further down the line and a poor overall outcome. It is therefore sometimes wise to be flexible, for example to give bidders more time to develop their bids if it becomes apparent that the original period allowed for this is insufficient.

7.3.4 Contract management

Effective contract management is also essential to the delivery of capital programmes.

The management of works contracts is usually relatively straightforward, in which case responsibility can be left to construction project managers. This is not always the case, however. Managing the contract may be more challenging if the project is complicated or innovative and issues arise that the client and contractor are not used to managing. More intensive contract management may also be required if the contractor is not performing well. In these cases, the client project manager and even the programme manager may need to get involved. The same principles apply to contracts for professional services.

Framework agreements, strategic partnerships, PPPs and outsourcing contracts require different skills to manage them. Public sector organisations commonly fail to put effective contract management arrangements in place from the beginning of these contracts because they have been focusing on completing contract negotiations and/or have allowed insufficient time for mobilisation. Good planning is needed to avoid this.

Organisations also need to plan ahead to allow sufficient time for re-procurement or putting new arrangements in place when contracts are due to expire.

7.4 Corporate monitoring, control and scrutiny

7.4.1 Introduction

The senior managers of an organisation have overall responsibility for ensuring that delivery objectives are met for all projects, but they will have a particular focus on ensuring that:

• ■high-profile projects are delivered on time and achieve the intended outcomes
• ■good progress is being made in delivering the programme generally
• ■the overall use of capital and revenue funding is as close as possible to the plans set out in the current year’s budget, the capital programme and the medium-term financial strategy.

It is therefore essential that robust corporate monitoring and reporting systems are put in place and that there are effective processes for corrective action to be taken where necessary. It is counter-productive, however, to make these systems and processes too bureaucratic and onerous, as this diverts resources away from delivery. This issue is explored in section 7.4.7.

7.4.2 Financial monitoring

The need for clarity

It is essential that there is clarity and transparency about:

• ■who is responsible for the budget for each capital project
• ■how each project is financed.

Clarity is also needed, both at the project and the programme level, about which budget expenditure is being monitored against: the original budget or a revised budget and, if the budget has been revised more than once, which revised budget.

The original budget for a project is the one that is set when the project is approved for inclusion in the capital programme. At the programme level the original budget is the aggregate of the original budgets for all the approved projects and any separate contingency provisions.

The programme budget for a financial year may change because:

• ■changes are agreed to the budgets for individual projects, eg to reflect an agreed increase in the scope of a project
• ■projects progress more quickly or slowly than expected and project budgets are re-profiled accordingly.

However, if an increase in a project budget is met from the programme contingency, there will of course be no change to the overall programme budget.

Because of the complexity of capital programmes, changes to budgets are frequent and common. It is likely that the aggregate budget for the programme will change every quarter and so it is important that the process for approving any changes is clear. These changes need to be tracked carefully so that there is an audit trail from the original to the latest budget. References to the ‘revised budget’ need to be clear about which iteration of the budget is meant.

Variances are the differences between actual expenditure, or estimated expenditure, and budgets. Again, clarity is needed as to which budget the variance is being measured against.

Monitoring the outturn cost of projects

The key financial delivery objective is that projects within the programme are being delivered within budget. This is difficult to judge before a project is complete, because it could appear to be on target to be delivered within budget, but end up being overspent due to something that happens at a late stage. To get an accurate picture of whether projects are being delivered within budget, it is necessary to look at projects that have been completed. One way to do this is, as part of the outturn report for a financial year, is to report on all projects that have reached completion within that financial year.

Monitoring the overall spend in a period

The main focus of financial monitoring in public sector organisations is usually on the overall spend in a particular period, such as a quarter or a financial year. However, the headline figure, ie the overall underspend or overspend, says as much, if not more, about the progress of projects (the time objective) than about whether projects are within budget (the cost objective).

Capital programmes commonly underspend, not because there are genuine savings on projects, but because projects are delayed. This is known as slippage, which is described in more detail below. The effect of slippage is to mask the true financial performance of projects. The possible scenarios are set out in the following table.

In each of the four scenarios highlighted in the above table , there is an overall underspend of £10m, but the reasons for this are different in each case. This illustrates that underspending can be due:

• ■entirely to genuine underspends, ie to savings or other underspends that do not simply result from a delay
• ■partly to genuine underspends and partly to slippage
• ■entirely to slippage with no genuine underspends or overspends, or
• ■to slippage that is partly offset by genuine overspends.

In order to understand the true financial performance of projects across the programme, it is necessary to get behind the headline figures. This requires detailed monitoring at the project level to identify reasons for variances, which can then be aggregated to the programme level and reported accordingly. In the final scenario shown in the above table, for example, it would be reported that there had been slippage of £15m and overspends of £5m.

When there has been slippage on a project and it is agreed that the relevant unspent budget should be carried forward to the following financial year, care needs to be taken to ensure that the overall budget allocated to the project remains correct.

Causes and effects of slippage

Slippage commonly occurs in public sector capital programmes because organisations tend to be too optimistic about how quickly projects will be delivered. As a result, expenditure across the programme in each quarter and each financial year is considerably less than the programme budget for that period.

There is a strong tendency for organisations to overestimate how quickly projects will be delivered. This occurs for a number of reasons, including:

• ■senior management or those charged with governance putting pressure on departments to set unrealistic timescales for the delivery of pet projects
• ■departments putting forward unrealistic timescales in order to get their projects prioritised
• ■pure optimism.

Delays can occur for reasons too numerous to mention, including:

• ■late start due to poor project management or lack of project management resources
• ■delays in securing a suitable site
• ■stakeholder resistance and/or complications with the consultation process
• ■procurement problems, eg insufficient bids resulting in the need to re-tender
• ■delays in obtaining planning permission
• ■problems on site, eg awkward location of a water main not revealed by surveys
• ■delays caused by the contractor.

The factors that cause slippage also tend to result in projects overspending in the long run because:

• ■optimism about timescales tends to go hand in hand with optimism about costs
• ■delays before or during the procurement phase tend to result in increased costs due to construction inflation
• ■delays on site that are not the contractor’s fault tend to result in increased costs due to contractor claims.

Minimising and mitigating slippage

The best way to minimise slippage is to tackle its root causes by:

• ■improving the processes and skills for estimating project costs and timescales across the organisation
• ■improving project management
• ■putting in place effective monitoring processes that are not overly burdensome on delivery teams
• ■engaging with stakeholders regularly
• ■ensuring delivery teams have sufficient resources and the flexibility to operate efficiently
• ■avoiding a culture of blame and encouraging honest reporting.

These steps should help to reduce slippage, but are unlikely to eliminate it because of the nature of the risks that are inherent in delivering capital projects.

Slippage can also be mitigated by over-programming or having projects in reserve, but organisations should think carefully about what they are trying to achieve in the longer term, rather than in a single financial year, before pursuing either of these options.

Over-programming means approving a greater number of projects so that the aggregated project budgets for the period exceed the allocated resources. This approach may seem attractive where:

• ■there has been consistent slippage in previous years, and/or
• ■there are inherent risks in the programme beyond the organisation’s control that can be expected to result in a proportion of projects being delayed.

The rationale for over-programming is that a particular level of spend must be achieved within a given period, usually a single financial year. However, it is likely to result in
lower-priority projects being implemented, and so does not usually make sense over the longer term, unless:

• ■there is a risk of losing resources either because a grant must be spent by a particular deadline or because the allocation of future funding is dependent on a track record of delivery, or
• ■the additional projects are of equal benefit to the organisation as other projects in the programme.

When considering over-programming, organisations should therefore look at the longer-term position and satisfy themselves that:

• ■there is a clear rationale for over-programming
• ■the overall outcome will not be worse due to resources being allocated to lower-priority schemes
• ■there will be sufficient resources available in subsequent periods to cover the commitments from the current period.

Another option is to have a number of reserve projects that can be brought into the programme relatively quickly. This is similar to over-programming except that the additional projects only get the go-ahead if currently approved projects are either removed from the programme or delayed. The reserve projects may otherwise be treated as priorities when the capital programme is next revised.

The rationale for approving reserve projects is similar to that for over-programming and similar objections apply. One instance where this approach may make sense is where it is necessary to ensure that a funding stream that is available for a class of assets, eg to improve school play equipment, is fully utilised if there is a risk that some projects cannot be delivered by the deadline set in the funding conditions.

Best practice is, however, to tackle the root causes of slippage so that the need for mitigation is minimised.

Contingencies

The purpose of contingencies is to cover risks. Organisations need to make a balanced judgement about what provision to make for contingencies, depending on:

• ■the nature of the risks inherent in the type of projects being undertaken
• ■how tightly project budgets excluding contingencies have been estimated.

In the construction industry, it is usual for the contract price to include a contingency to cover risks for which the contractor is responsible, such as poor performance by a
sub-contractor. As the contingency provision is part of the agreed contract price, it is controlled by the contractor, and the client organisation does not usually benefit if is unspent. Public sector organisations need to be aware what risks are allocated to the contractor and to avoid duplicating the contractor’s contingency.

To cover risks for which they are responsible, such as variations resulting from a change in policy, organisations may either:

• ■include contingency provisions in the budgets of individual projects, or
• ■make a separate contingency provision to cover risks across the programme.

On the whole it is better if contingency sums are held at the programme level because:

• ■if they are included in project budgets it is more likely that they will be spent, even if this is not the best use of resources for the organisation as a whole
• ■a programme contingency enables the risks on different projects to be spread across the programme and facilitates more realistic budgeting for individual projects.

Where there is slippage on the programme, contingency provisions will exacerbate the overall underspend for the relevant period. But slippage does not mean that projects will be underspent on completion. The use of contingencies therefore needs to be monitored on a multi-year basis depending on how projects are progressing. If, for example, there has been 20% slippage in a financial year, this means that some of the risks that the contingency is meant to cover have been postponed and part of the contingency for that year should be carried forward accordingly.

7.4.3 Approvals and delegation

Accountability is of fundamental importance in public sector organisations, because they are funded from the public purse and, in democratic countries, are ultimately answerable to the electorate.

Most public sector organisations have well-defined rules about levels of authority for decision-making, particularly over financial matters. There may be general rules that apply to all financial transactions and specific rules that apply to contracts and/or capital programmes and expenditure.

The controls that apply to a capital project through its lifecycle typically include approval for:

• ■the project to be included in the capital programme
• ■the project to proceed to procurement, eg invitation to tender
• ■contract award
• ■contract variations.

The level at which each of these approvals takes place will depend on rules that are typically set out in a scheme of delegation and based on financial thresholds.

In addition to these controls, which are specific to capital projects and contracts, the project will be subject to the normal controls over financial transactions, including approval of orders, payments and transfers of budgets between projects.

Compliance with rules can be challenging for capital projects because:

• ■delays to a project can have a knock-on effect in terms of obtaining approvals, eg where a committee meets once a month
• ■capital projects are susceptible to things happening ‘on the ground’ at construction stage, requiring approval for variations and increased spending, with the risk of contractor claims for delays if these are not obtained quickly.

This underlines the need for good planning and management to ensure that projects are delivered as efficiently as possible. It is essential that the rules are clear and strike the right balance between control, to ensure accountability, and flexibility, to facilitate delivery. How the burden on delivery teams can be reduced is discussed in section 7.4.7.

7.4.4 Gateway reviews and business cases

A gateway review is a review of a project or programme carried out at a key stage or ‘gate’ in its lifecycle. The technique can be applied to any major project or programme, but is particularly useful for capital projects and programmes.

It may be appropriate to link the reviews with business cases. The role of business cases in the development of the capital programme is described in section 4.4.1.

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC), now part of the Efficiency and Reform Group within the Cabinet Office, introduced gateway reviews in the UK in the early 2000s. The model envisages reviews at five points, which tie in with HM Treasury’s five case model for developing business cases. These are set out in the following table.

The gateway review concept has become fairly widespread in the public sector in the UK. Local Partnerships, a body set up by the Local Government Association and HM Treasury, carries out reviews for local authorities in England and Wales based on the Cabinet Office model. The Australian Government has also adopted the model.

Gateway reviews may be carried out by an internal or an external team. Some organisations have set up permanent internal review teams; others have a ready pool of expertise, which they may not be aware of, consisting of employees who have taken part in reviews in other organisations. It may therefore be worthwhile for senior management to identify this resource and to use it.

Reviews may be linked to approvals, especially when carried out internally, or may simply be a way to help the organisation to ensure the project is delivered efficiently in accordance with corporate objectives. In either case, reviews help to ensure that projects are managed efficiently and continue to meet the organisation’s objectives.

Smaller organisations may not have the resources to conduct or commission gateway reviews; even in a larger organisation it may not be cost-effective to carry them out for smaller projects. However, the gateway principle, ie to check projects are on track at key stages, can be applied without carrying out a full gateway review. A relatively simple peer review or a check by someone not directly involved in delivering the project helps to ensure that projects are being delivered as planned and to determine what action needs to be taken if they are not.

7.4.5 Post-project evaluation

In order to improve the way that capital programmes are formulated and delivered, organisations should carry out reviews of projects once they have been completed. These should consider the three key delivery objectives – time, cost and quality.

Lessons learned should be used to improve the organisation’s processes for selecting, developing and delivering capital projects, as discussed in section 4.

In some cases it may be years after the completion of the project before a definitive judgement can be made as to whether it has fully achieved its intended benefits, for example whether improvements to a building have reduced energy consumption as much as expected. But it is important for an organisation to learn lessons as quickly as possible, and so it is best to carry out the evaluation shortly after completion based on what is known at that stage. This will show if the project has completed on time and within budget and at give at least an indication of whether all the benefits will be achieved.

It is unlikely to be cost-effective to carry out reviews of every project. Resources may be better targeted at carrying out more in-depth reviews of a smaller number of projects than superficial reviews of every project. Getting to the bottom of what has happened can be
time-consuming and require the skills of experienced reviewers. This is especially true of projects that have not gone smoothly, which is where the most useful lessons can often be learned.

On the other hand, it is also useful to review projects that have gone well, especially where these were expected to be challenging, so that good practice can be disseminated across the programme.

7.4.6 Scrutiny

In public sector organisations, scrutiny of decision-making and performance should be carried out by individuals who are independent of the decision-making process. In the UK, this role is carried out by parliament and parliamentary committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, for central government, and by scrutiny committees for local government.

Scrutiny of capital delivery should as a minimum cover:

• ■the process for determining which projects are included in the capital programme
• ■the extent to which projects have been delivered on time and within budget
• ■the extent to which projects are delivering or are set to deliver their intended outputs.

7.4.7 Reducing the bureaucratic burden

There is a risk that corporate monitoring and scrutiny, as described in the preceding sections, put too much of a burden on delivery teams, so that they have insufficient time to spend on delivery. This problem is particularly acute in organisations where project management resources are stretched due to difficulties with recruitment and retention or a sudden increase in workload, but it is an issue in all organisations in the sense that it is not an efficient use of the resources of delivery teams if they must spend a large proportion of their time dealing with monitoring and reporting requirements.

Creating an environment that supports the efficient delivery of capital projects can sometimes conflict with the organisation’s duty to account for the use of public money.
This is a dilemma that must be faced, however, if projects are not to be mired in bureaucracy. This requires a willingness to delegate and accept a reasonable level of risk.

Much can be done to facilitate efficient delivery without increasing risk. One way is to make the approvals process more user-friendly by ensuring that:

• ■internal rules are well thought-through and clearly written
• ■internal and public procurement rules are clearly communicated across the organisation
• ■there is good communication between delivery teams and those responsible for determining and administering the approvals process
• ■those responsible for determining and administering the approvals process have a good understanding of the particular requirements of capital projects and works contracts
• ■finance, procurement and legal teams allocate their resources appropriately, so that they can provide timely input to the approvals process for capital projects.

Over-elaborate governance and reporting is a common problem in the public sector, which can put an excessive burden on delivery teams. Organisations can reduce this burden by:

• ■rationalising and clarifying governance processes
• ■standardising the formats of reports and designing templates well to make them
  user-friendly
• ■being clear about what information is required and when
• ■ensuring the information requested is no more than is required.

It may be illuminating to monitor the proportion of time that project delivery staff spend on dealing with monitoring and reporting, but this should be done in a way that does not itself put an unnecessary burden on them. Where staff are already keeping appropriate records, this information should not be duplicated.