Agenda item

Click here to view a recording of this item on You Tube.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained that the purpose was for the Council to strengthen its post-project review process and explained the differences to what had happened before.  She outlined the process to the MMPB.  Included within the agenda was a draft template but it did need slight amendments to the language used within it.

It was confirmed that there was a named project sponsor for each project.  The different types of project sponsor were explained, which was dependant on the type of project.

Councillor Kemp asked that when a project was reviewed if residents could be asked if it has contributed to their quality of life.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained that the project would look at outputs and outcomes of the project and were outward looking.

Councillor Blunt added that projects evolved and what was started with was not always what you ended up with.

The Assistant Director explained that any changes to the project should be documented, and it was important to get the framework and documents in place to be able to measure performance at the end of the project.

The Chief Executive added that it was the role of the MMPB to monitor projects and if there was any scope creep it was up to the sponsor / officer to make the MMPB aware.

The Chair added that there could be standard item on the agenda to report any changes to the projects.

The Assistant Director, Resources advised that officers would need to give some consideration to what the criteria would be for major project creep.

Councillor de Whalley added that in relation to the draft template which gave the impression that it was more for capital works, but the other part was the operational phase was the other half of the project which was important to ensure that the project was sustainable, and the outcomes had been achieved.

The Chair outlined the other issues which needed to be considered as part of the project citing delivery, risk, cash flow, financing and revenue or other implications as examples.

The Assistant Director, Resources added that the nature of the projects some of those would determine the timescales of where those outputs and objectives would be met, whether it was Year 1, Year 2, etc.  Also, the template did have a section for Forward Actions and that might be an appropriate area where future reviews were required, 6 or 12 months and brought back to the MMPB.

Councillor Morley asked whether there should be template covering the interim phase.

The Corporate Projects Programme Manager explained the Town Deal Board projects there was a very robust monitoring and evaluation programme in place already and there was a requirement to monitor 3 years post-delivery and that supplemented what Councillor de Whalley had asked. She agreed that Section 7 could be used.  She added that there must be an end to projects.

The Assistant Director asked the MMPB to let officers if they had any suggestions / good ideas that could help to improve the process,

RESOLVED:  That further consideration be given to how project creep would be reported to the MMPB.