The document outlines a review of the UK government's Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) assurance model. It finds that while IPA reviews can be high-quality, valuable, and focused on key issues, they are not always consistent in quality. The review recommends changes to ensure assurance is applied appropriately and quality is managed. It suggests the IPA transform to take a stronger portfolio view, focus on highest risks, get involved earlier, and ensure access to experienced experts, to have greater impact in supporting the government's major projects.

1. Assurance of Major Government Projects
How can we Improve?
APM Assurance SIG
November 2018

2. What did we set out to do?
Terms of reference:
This review will examine the appropriateness, effectiveness and quality of the current IPA
assurance model and make recommendations on where the model could be enhanced or
changed to better meet the evolving needs and priorities for Government, ensuring best value
for money. The findings from this review will inform the future operating model and business
plan for the IPA.
The Review Team will consider:
● The purpose of IPA reviews.
● Where IPA reviews fits in the wider system of assurance and approvals.
● The actions that happen as a result of an IPA reviews.
● How reviews are organised, resourced and managed.
2

3. How did we go about it?
We have spoken with:
● nearly 200 people ̶ Review Team Leaders, Directors General, Programme Directors,
SROs, NAO, Internal Audit, Control Owners, Heads of Project Delivery across Government,
Portfolio Directors, Major Project Leadership Academy graduates and HM Treasury.
● 8 global private sector companies delivering finance, technology, digital, infrastructure
change.
And researched:
● 8 other countries project assurance regimes ̶ Norway, Denmark, Sweden,
The Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the United States of America.
● Case studies of IPA assurance on high risk projects.
● Academic studies on assurance ̶ literature review led by Cranfield University.
The work of the review team was also overseen by an independent expert panel.
3

4. Why is there a need for change?
The Government is leading a portfolio of unprecedented change - transforming the way services are
delivered to citizens and the infrastructure that supports future growth; reforming IT contracting
models and upgrading the nation’s Defence capabilities.
At the same time it is preparing for exiting the EU which will bring significant new programmes of
change.
Never before has:
• the need for a strong project and programme management capability across the civil service been so
compelling.
• the imperative to achieve excellent value for money and to reduce the waste associated with failing
projects been so great.
The Government needs a strong, expert authority at the heart of the project delivery profession that
will work hand in hand with Departments to:
• drive ever higher standards in the delivery of projects
• provide timely, expert and high-quality advice to Ministers and senior officials on delivery issues at
project through to portfolio level
• build stronger Project Delivery capability across Government
Our findings resulted in a number of key recommendations for change.
4

5. What are our findings?
When they are at their best, IPA assurance reviews are high quality and highly valued by
stakeholders. A good review provides:
● a fast, concise confidential report that highlights the key issues facing a major project.
● makes a small number of recommendations which, if implemented, will increase the
chances of successful delivery.
IPA reviews are at their best when they are:
● delivered by independent, objective, professional peers with a supportive mindset
and appropriate experience and skills.
● of short duration, timely, focussed on the strategic issues, and providing unambiguous
recommendations which go to the heart of complex issues without over-prescription.
5

6. But we have also found that IPA reviews are not always ‘at their best’.
The objective should be to ensure that assurance is always applied on the right projects,
at the right time, with a quality assured process; and that the right team is deployed to
make the best possible judgements and present the right recommendations to the right
stakeholders. We believe that more active quality management of the review products
and processes is required to achieve this.
6

7. How could the IPA have greater impact?
Given the scale of delivery challenges across Government, IPA is aiming for greater impact by
going through its own transformation. The outcome would be a world class projects
authority that identifies the vital issues at the project and portfolio level and does not rest
until they are addressed. The authority will:
● take a portfolio view of Government projects, advising ministers and the Civil Service
Board on constraints, risks and dependencies across the board; calling out the difficult
questions and being relentless in pursuing answers.
● focus on the highest risks and devolve more lower risk assurance to suitably qualified
Departments.
● involve itself earlier in the development of projects; encouraging project professionals
to work hand in hand with the policy and operations professions to ensure that major
government policies turn into projects that are designed to be deliverable from the
beginning.
● have access to world class experts with experience and professional judgement that
has been earned the hard way.
7

8. Recommended areas for change
IPA project assurance that is
consistently of high quality,
proportionate, coherent and
addresses the biggest risks. A stronger and more proactive
role for the IPA in supporting,
assuring and advising on the
portfolio of major projects
across Government.
Ensuring the IPA is a centre of expertise and
source of experienced professionals who provide
sound judgements and recommendations.
1
2
3
8

9. Questions?