Agenda item


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


Members were presented with information on RAG Monitoring Definitions.  A copy of the presentation is attached.


The Board were asked to consider the proposed split into Delivery, Spend and Risk, whether the overall RAG was useful and any changes they would like to see.


The Chair thanked officers for the information and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.


Comments were made that categories were important to highlight what had been designated a Major Project by Cabinet and what was not yet at that stage.  It was noted that the delivery of Business Cases was considered as a separate project to the actual delivery of the project, and this needed to be highlighted.


The definition of a Major Project, in accordance with the Board’s current Terms of Reference was a project that had been designated such by the Cabinet and the Board was reminded that any change to this approach would require a change to the Board’s Terms of Reference.  Councillor Dickinson suggested that it be changed to all projects over 1/4million and that took over 12 months to complete.


The Chair commented that if the Member Major Project Board felt a project did warrant consideration by the Board, but had not been designated a Major Project by Cabinet, it should come to the Board as a specific request/proposal.


Councillor Kemp commented that there was no process for post evaluation, and it was explained that this was part of the role of the Panels.  She was also reminded that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital was not a project in the Council’s control, although the Council would support where possible.


Councillor Morley made comments on the schedule and suggested that ongoing and un-started projects be separated out into two different schedules, bid phases and delivery phases also be separated out and additional columns be added for time, cost, scope and risk.


Councillor Middleton commented that the colour coding was required, and it should also be used to show what had been successful and celebrate the positives that the Council had achieved.


Councillor de Whalley addressed the Board under Standing Order 34.  He agreed with comments made by Councillor Morley in that there should be a separate schedule for the bid phase and the delivery phase of projects.  He commented that consideration needed to be given to post delivery evaluation and lessons learned.  The Board was reminded that their role was not post evaluation of projects as this was a scrutiny function and would be undertaken by the relevant Panel. 


Councillor Morley suggested that the Terms of Reference be brought to the Board for review.


The Assistant Director, Property and Projects commented that the Board could ask for a deeper dive of projects upon receipt of the schedule and then information could be presented to the Board.


The Chief Executive reminded the Board that only projects which had been determined as Major Projects by Cabinet were presented to the Member Major Projects Board.  All others were included in the Capital Programme which fell under the remit of the Panels to monitor.


The Vice Chair, Councillor Dickinson felt that there was some information missing in the schedule to enable the Board to fulfil its role and suggested the following be included:


-        Timeline for each project

-        Information on any delays or project creep and impacts this had on costs.

-        Delivery issues

-        Risk specific to each project

-        Costs and funding

-        Ongoing implications e.g., resourcing issues and revenue costs.


AGREED: 1. The Chair and Vice Chair to discuss the contents and coding of the schedule, taking into consideration the comments above.

2. The Assistant Director Property and Projects to look at a system for flagging up projects for which the Board want to look at in more detail and how they are brought back to the Board in a timely manner.


Supporting documents: