1

Learning legacyLessons learned from the London 2012 Games construction project

Programme assurance on the Olympic Delivery Authority construction programme

AuthorsKenna Kintrea BSc MBAHead of Programme Assurance, ODA

David Law FCIBHead of Risk and Audit, ODA

Neal ArgentExecutive Director, Capital Programme Advisory, Ernst and Young

Liam Organ BSc MPhilSenior Manager, Capital Programme Advisory, Ernst and Young

ResearchersKy Nichol BSc MBAHead of Government Practice, Pcubed

Peter Henderson MASenior Principal Consultant, Pcubed

AbstractThe publicly funded Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was established in 2005 to deliver the new venues and infrastructure required to host the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

To provide management and external stakeholders with assurance that the highly complex programme of work would achieve its objectives, the ODA put in place a programme assurance framework that was integrated into the organisation from the start of programme development.

The framework was built on a model of ‘three lines of defence’, with delivery managers acting as the first line, dedicated assurance functions making up the second line, and the third being provided by internal audit.

This case study describes how the assurance framework was established and operated within the ODA. It includes an assessment of the findings of interview-based research which aimed to draw out observations of the key success factors and the lessons learned from the manner in which the ODA implemented programme assurance.

2

IntroductionWhen the UK was awarded the London 2012 Games in 2005, there was nervousness about the ’UK plc’ capacity and capability to deliver large-scale complex infrastructure projects on time and budget.

Delays and cost overruns on projects in the recent past, such as Wembley and the Scottish Parliament Building, had undermined the public’s confidence in the ability of the construction industry to successfully deliver major projects.

This provided a sobering frame for what would be the largest peacetime construction programme in the UK, and heightened the priority of setting the Games programme up to succeed.

The ODA was established to deliver the new venues and infrastructure needed for the Games and beyond. For the ODA senior executives and board members to be confident that the organisation would achieve its critical objectives on time, within budget and to the required quality, it needed to assure itself on an ongoing basis of its performance.

Additionally, the ODA was required to give assurance to government and stakeholders that the programme objectives would be achieved, while minimising the call on public funds.

When the UK won the bid in 2005, there was nervousness about UK plc’s ability to deliver large scale complex infrastructure

In response to this need, the ODA developed an integrated assurance and approvals framework which was used to provide assurance to executive management, the ODA Board, government and stakeholders. ‘Assurance’ as used in this case study is taken to mean the provision of independent and objective oversight, both of performance and of the control systems used to manage delivery, providing confidence that critical outcomes are likely to be achieved.

Assurance typically focuses on the following three areas (defined in OGC PRINCE2 documentation as the three ‘primary views’ of assurance1): – Business: checking that the project

remains viable in terms of costs and benefits;

– User: checking that the users’ requirements are being met;

– Specialist: checking that the project is delivering a suitable and technically viable solution.

The ODA framework adapted these definitions to suit the specific requirements of its programme.

The paper is presented in two parts: – A description of how assurance

activities were established and managed at the ODA.

– An assessment of the findings of interview-based research which was conducted to test stakeholders’ views of the assurance regime and to review key success factors and learnings.

The ODA was required to give assurance to government and stakeholders that the programme objectives would be achieved.

3

Background Driving forces for programme assuranceThe ODA’s programme was subject to a number of overriding driving forces that are relevant when considering the assurance strategy deployed: – An immovable deadline: the

opening ceremony of the Games on 27 July 2012.

– A highly visible public profile. – A large investment from the public

purse, with attendant scrutiny from government bodies, the media and the public.

– Dual objectives of both delivering functional venues for the Games (with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) as client), and lasting benefits after the Games were over (with the Olympic Park Legacy Company and other legacy landowners therefore as clients).

– Multiple stakeholders, sometimes with conflicting objectives, whose specification of requirements sometimes lagged behind the ODA’s construction programme.

–– Significant–reputational–impacts––for–the–UK–and–government.

–– A–Bid–that–committed–to–an–overall–London–2012–vision–of–a–broad–lasting–benefit–of–economic,–social–and–environmental–benefits.–Aligned–to–this,–six–‘priority–themes’–were–defined–by–the–ODA,–against–which–it–committed–to–deliver–specific–objectives–(Health–and–Safety,–Design–and–Accessibility,–Equality–and–Inclusion,–Legacy,–Employment–and–Skills,–and–Sustainability).

The–external–stakeholder–environment–was–particularly–complex–due–to–the–funding–arrangements–and–public–profile.–A–large–number–of–external–bodies–had–an–interest–in–overseeing–the–ODA’s–performance–and–the–ODA’s–approach–to–internal–programme–assurance–kept–this––firmly–in–mind–when–designing–and–developing–the–assurance–framework–that–was–used.–This–is–further–addressed–below.

Figure 1: ODA stakeholder map

ODA/CLM

Mayor

LOCOG

DCMS

DCLG

Home Office

CABE

Office for Govt Commerce

Office for Govt Commerce

DfESEnglish Nature

Learning and Skills Council

Skills Forecasting Unit

Health and Safety Exec

Devolved administrations

ClientsPartnersConsulteesAudiences

Nations and Regions Group

World Wildlife

Fund

Local interest

Delivery

Sport

Stakeholders

London/Local Government

National Government

English Heritage

London Citizens

London Citizens

ELBA London 2012 Forum

Local Strategic Partnerships

London Business Board

Construction Industry

International Feds

Individual boroughs and

authorities

Natural England

LVSC

Trades Unions

DEFRA

LSDC

CABE

A+UU

A+UU

DEFRA Parliament

DTI

DTI

BOA

IOASport

England

UK Sport

LDA

TGDC

LSDCEnv Agency

Env AgencyNAO

D of Health

D for Transport HMT

5 boroughs

5 boroughs

London AssemblyALG

Met Police Auth

Fire

Ambulance

OLD

LDAContractors

Weymouth Trade Unions (on site)

Broxbourne

TfL

TfL

The external stakeholder environment was particularly complex.

4

Delivery capabilityIn recognition of the fact that the ODA was set up as a limited life organisation with the fixed deadline of the Games in 2012, the ODA decided to buy-in expertise rather than attempting to build a fully skilled in-house organisation.

A Delivery Partner (DP), CLM (a consortium of CH2MHill, Laing O’Rourke and Mace), was appointed in September 2006 to act as project and programme managers, accountable for managing the delivery of the programme to time, budget and the agreed requirements.

The DP was incentivised to deliver the programme, directly overseeing the performance of contractors. The ODA performed the role of ‘intelligent client’ and established the assurance framework to support this role.

Part 1: How programme assurance was deployed as part of the ODA programmeAs the ODA was set up from scratch, it had the opportunity to embed the assurance functions into the culture at the inception of the organisation, aligning programme assurance with the needs of the programme and the life cycle of the organisation. Discussions between the CEO, Finance Director and the Audit Committee Chair in the early days of the organisation highlighted the need for a strong control framework where each function and phase of the programme was adequately supported and overseen.

An assurance framework was implemented that initially focused on the design and implementation of controls, processes and governance, and thereafter shifted towards assuring active management of delivery performance and effective decision making.

To deliver the project on time, ODA decided to buy in expertise

The ODA performed the role of ‘intelligent client’ and established the assurance framework to support this role.

5

The ODA’s assurance framework for programme delivery Establishing the three lines of defenceThe framework of assurance activities that was implemented early in the ODA’s life was based on the recognised ’three lines of defence’ model2. In this model, line managers perform the role of the first line of defence, Programme assurance functions provide the second line and internal audit form the third line (Figure 2). For such a framework to be effective it required, and received, strong sponsorship from the Chair of the ODA Audit Committee and the CEO.

In addition to the ODA three lines of defence, the DP also undertook assurance activities which provided DP executives with delivery assurance. The ODA had full visibility of this and used the data and findings of DP assurance to supplement its own independent assurance.

Outside of the three lines of defence there were also a number of bodies that provided assurance on the programme. This assurance was generally conducted on behalf of external ‘clients’, such as Parliament or Government (for example the National Audit Office conducted annual Value for Money reviews on behalf of parliament). The ODA proactively embraced such assurance reviews as they helped build confidence with key stakeholders as well as providing a further source of assurance on programme control or performance issues.

Figure 2: ODA assurance framework

Third Line: Internal Audit

Second Line: Compliance

First Line: Management Controls

DP assurance

External

“3 L

ines

of D

efen

ce”

Gov

erna

nce

mod

el

Delivery

External assuranceOGC Gateway, NAO, CSL, DCMS

ODA Risk and AuditReview and assure the effectiveness of the control framework

ODA programme assurance functions Programme Assurance Office, Priority Theme Teams,

Commercial, Finance, Design Quality, ETR, Supervisors

To coordinate, facilitate, challenge and oversee the effectiveness and integrity of the first line

Senior management/project sponsors

Management and control of delivery from partners/contractors

DP programme assurance functions Programme Assurance, Priority Theme Teams, Quality Assurance,

Design Management, Programme Controls

Assure that delivery meets the agreed requirements

DP project delivery teams/Tier One contractors

The framework of assurance activities was based on the recognised ’three lines of defence’ model.

6

The ‘three lines of defence’ operated by the ODA can be described as:

First line – management controls: The first line of defence was the senior management and project sponsors who were accountable for delivery of the project. It was incumbent on those accountable for delivery to assure themselves at all times of the management controls in place, of the robustness and accuracy of the data and performance reporting and of the likely successful delivery of the project.

Working directly with suppliers and delivery partners, the first line provided oversight of the delivery from the DP and contractors.

The first line of defence was required to act as an intelligent client to the suppliers and the DP, adopting a ‘challenge and support’ role towards the project teams, overseeing performance and supporting issue resolution and escalation. As both the ODA and DP were committed to the assurance processes, the first line of defence worked proactively to address the findings of assurance/audit reviews.

Second line – compliance and assurance: ODA programme assurance functions formed the second line of defence. Programme assurance was largely staffed by in-house ODA resources with broad experience of project and programme delivery, supplemented by specialist consultant resources for specific assurance needs, such as the provision of technical assurance.

The second line had no direct delivery responsibility, but was responsible for challenging and overseeing the effectiveness and integrity of the first line.

The second line of defence worked with the project teams, the project sponsors and the senior management accountable for delivering the project to ensure that processes were embedded and being followed, to make improvements where necessary and to assist the teams in working towards successful delivery of objectives.

The Programme Assurance Office (PAO) was responsible for planning and coordinating assurance activity and led the coordination and engagement with external assurance areas in government and other bodies. In addition, the PAO: – established governance processes; – reviewed organisational models; – oversaw performance monitoring

and reporting; – provided assurance of business

cases; – ran internal performance reviews;

and – provided ‘challenge and support’

to delivery teams.

The PAO reported directly to the CEO, meaning that it was well placed to keep senior management informed of any emerging concerns with the delivery programme. It produced monthly Programme Performance Reports, and provided frequent informal reviews of performance and key issues to executive directors and the CEO.

Of the three ‘primary views of assurance’ referred to above, the PAO focused on assuring the ‘business view’ – checking that the project remained viable in terms of costs and benefits; and the ‘user view’ – checking that the users’ requirements were being met.

The PAO coordinated input from others (for example, Commercial assurance and Finance) to ensure that all aspects of the project for each of these two views was fully assured. To assure the ‘specialist view’ – that the project was delivering a suitable and technically viable solution – the ODA’s other assurance functions (including Sustainability, Health and Safety, and External Technical Reviewers etc) oversaw the performance and fed into monthly project status reports.

Programme assurance was largely staffed by in-house ODA resources with broad experience of project and programme delivery.

7

Key specific second line assurance functions included: – Commercial assurance:

A dedicated assurance team was established within the ODA Commercial Directorate. It provided assurance in the following areas: – Procurement processes and

procedures. – Administration of the DP

contract. – DP administration of contracts

on behalf of the ODA. – Other ODA administered

contracts. – Delivery of other agreements

(including Network Rail, Transport for London (TfL), London Underground Limited (LUL) and Thames Water).

– Assurance reports were provided to the ODA Commercial Board and ODA Senior Management.

– Priority theme assurance: As the ODA had committed to deliver specific performance objectives against its ‘priority themes’ (for example Sustainability and Health and Safety), dedicated assurance functions for each priority theme were set up between ODA and CLM to oversee and provide assurance that the objectives were being delivered. Monthly reports were provided to the DP-led project reviews and to dedicated Priority Theme Boards, chaired by senior ODA leaders.

– Design quality assurance: Client reviews were set up with key internal and external stakeholders who were responsible for assuring the integrity of the designs produced at each design stage by each of the projects. This function acted as a gateway with the projects not allowed to progress the designs to the next stage if major issues were outstanding. Client review reports were produced and reviewed with all key stakeholders.

– External technical reviewers: Provided technical assurance of designs and engineering via written reports to ODA project sponsors and to the DP Project Manager.

Third line – internal audit: The third line of defence constituted the Risk and Audit function within the ODA, which engaged Ernst and Young LLP to provide internal audit services. An external organisation provided both experience in programme level assurance for major capital projects and the independence required for successful implementation. The purpose of the third line was to assure the effectiveness of the control framework for internal stakeholders while giving a level of confidence to external assurance functions.

Dedicated assurance functions kept the build on track

Dedicated assurance functions for each priority theme were set up between ODA and CLM.

8

The third line undertook audits of key areas of business risk, providing assurance as to their effective management. Risk and Audit developed a comprehensive programme-wide audit plan, covering not only the construction projects, but also key functions such as Security, Transport and IT. This provided a level of assurance equal with the risk profile of the programme.

The audit plan was reviewed twice a year with ODA management and the Audit Committee (made up of non-executive Board members) to ensure that it remained aligned with the key business risks. The plan recognised the nature and speed of the programme and was flexible, enabling it to be tailored to areas of critical importance. An illustration of the changing activity profile as the programme moved from planning, through construction and into operations is shown below.

Key features of the ODA’s implementation of third line assurance are as follows: – In the early days of the

organisation the focus of Risk and Audit was making sure that newly developed processes and controls were embedded and operating effectively and consistently. The Audit Committee recognised that once major construction started it would be difficult to review, amend or change processes.

– When the ‘Big Build’ started, the spotlight moved to the performance of the projects, the management of risk and interfaces/dependencies across projects. In the final stages, effective close out of projects will be centre stage.

Figure 3: Activity profile of the ODA programme – sources of risk

Oly

mpi

c D

eliv

ery

Aut

horit

yD

eliv

ery

Part

ner

Gen

eral

Programme mobilisation and organisation set up

Staff turnover – knowledge loss

Governance and Controls

Planning, land acquisition and consents

Park operations and maintenance

PROJECTS: Scope, Design and Procurement

Supply chain procurement Insolvency Management

OCOG interface and governance

Scope creep – OCOG design and venue requirements

Scope creep – Olympic Broadcaster Services requirements

Security and Fraud

Stakeholder management and communications

Transport networks and capacity buildings

Delivery Partner appointment

PROJECTS: Schedule risks Cost pressures Quality issues Interface risks

6 years to go 5 years to go 4 years to go 3 years to go 2 years to go 1 years to go

Early focus of the third line was to make sure that processes and controls were embedded.

9

– In carrying out audits the Audit team included deep subject matter expertise in specialist areas, such as security, major project delivery, contract and financial management and IT and management, and deployed them flexibly, according to the audit subject.

– The audits were carried out in ‘real time’, that is while the projects were mid-execution, and feedback was provided quickly to allow management to take action to address issues.

– The review findings and reports to the Audit Committee shared the understanding of the root causes of issues, along with agreed actions from management to avoid similar issues recurring. In general, the reports were forward looking, focusing on prevention of future issues, rather than attributing responsibility for issues that had occurred in the past.

– The reviews considered how processes and governance needed to evolve, as the programme developed, and advised management accordingly.

The audit reports were provided to executive management and the ODA Audit Committee. They provided assurance that key risks and issues were understood and being addressed and allowed management to respond to findings and demonstrate that actions were being taken.

All complex, publicly-funded programmes, such as the Olympic Park, attract high levels of external scrutiny

Integrated approach of the three lines of defenceAlthough each of the three lines of defence had a dedicated role in the assurance framework, they worked closely together to maximise efficiency and support the programme. Representatives of each of the three lines held a monthly meeting to share emerging review findings, exchange information on areas of concern and plan the overall assurance programme to minimise overlaps and reduce ‘review stress’ on the delivery teams.

This was partially successful, although a more rigorous approach to coordination among the three lines would have been beneficial, as observed by some interviewees during the research in Part 2.

Degrees of independence of the three lines of defenceThe three lines provided progressively greater degrees of independence in their assurance activities, achieved by virtue of the reporting arrangements and the use of an external partner to provide third line services.

The third line reported to the Chair of the ODA Audit Committee and was completely independent of executive management.

The three lines provided progressively greater degrees of independence.

10

The PAO (second line) reported to the CEO and had no delivery responsibility. It could provide an objective view of performance and risk to executive management. The first line had accountability for delivery, and had the risk of being less capable of truly objective assessment of performance. Nevertheless, their role in assuring project performance was vital.

The cost of assuranceThe ODA estimates that the total cost of providing second and third line assurance equates to around 0.4 per cent of the total programme costs. Benchmarks provided by the National Audit Office suggested that programme assurance costs run to between 0.2 per cent and one per cent depending on the risk profile and complexity of the programme.

Assuring external stakeholdersAll complex, publicly funded programmes attract high levels of external scrutiny, both by government stakeholders to protect the investment that has been made and also by the media and interested stakeholders. The ODA programme was no exception and, indeed, attracted exceptionally high levels of external scrutiny. One of the key roles of the assurance functions was to provide information to stakeholders that would stand up to scrutiny and enable them to satisfy themselves that the project was delivering its objectives on time and budget, while protecting the delivery teams from excessive external intervention and allowing them to focus on delivery.

Figure 4: External assurance environment

National Audit Office (NAO)

externally assured by

ODAprovides assurance to

Government Olympic Executive (GOE)

London Development Agency (LDA)

Olympic Lottery Distributor (OLD)

Greater London Authority (GLA)

Sport England

Department for Culture Media and

Sport (DCMS)

HM Treasury (HMT)

Department for Transport (DfT)

Department for Communities &

Government (DCLG)

LOCOGInternational Olympic

Committee (IOC)

Sporting Federations

British Olympic Association

(BOA)

Commission for Sustainable London (CSL)

Office for Government Commerce (OGC)

Funders

External Assurance

Olympic Family

Government Departments

Direction of Primary Assurance

Direction of Secondary Assurance

The ODA programme attracted exceptionally high levels of external scrutiny.

11

Performance monitoring and reportingThe various projects in the ODA’s Programme, and especially those within the boundaries of the Park, had numerous interfaces between them, many of them with the potential to impact on the programme critical path. An early decision was taken to require contractors to use the ODA’s programming tool, so that a master programme could be maintained and the interfaces managed centrally by the DP.

The use of this common platform resulted in there being ‘one source of the truth’ for all programming and progress monitoring, which was used as the basis for all reports, both internal and external. All management reports and the reports generated for stakeholders and assurance bodies were consistent in format and fully auditable at all levels in the programme, and across time periods, with changes and trends being traceable from month to month.

Parliament

AssuranceReporting

DCMS/Funders

ODA

Delivery Partner

Project management team

Contractor

Sub-contractorPerformance data

Performance report

Performance status reports

Monthly programme report

Programme performance report

Ministerial briefings

National Audit Office value for money review

Programme support and assurance team

Programme assurance office

Performance assurance

Project management/ Sponsor client reviews

Contractor quality assurance processes

Consistent management data, produced by the project teams, was re-used for external assurance as the monthly status reporting subsequently rolled up into a variety of reports for use by various stakeholders. The open and transparent flow of information from delivery to external assurance helped both internal and external stakeholders to build trust and confidence in the assurance process.

Schematically, the reporting and assurance regimes can be represented in the diagram below.

The PAO engaged closely with the DP throughout the development of the reporting process and mechanism. This resulted in the monthly production of Project Status Reports for each project that were driven from the central programme and cost management tools.

Figure 5: Relationship between reporting and assurance at various levels of the programme

An early decision was taken to require contractors to use the ODA’s programming tool.

12

The reporting mechanism evolved over time to ensure continuing focus on the key priorities and risks associated with the changing programme phases (for example design and planning, procurement, site set-up, construction, completion and commercial close-out). This meant that the reports were appropriate to the needs of the phase and provided useful data to executive management and key stakeholders.

The Risk and Audit team, and all the key assurance bodies, therefore had access to consistent and appropriate data throughout the life of the programme, facilitating their ability to provide robust and timely assurance to senior management and stakeholders. The transparency of data also enabled the audit programme to be ‘tuned’ to align with key programme risks.

Risk and Audit reported on the outcomes of audits/reviews to the Audit Committee, a sub-committee of the Board that met seven times a year. This provided the ODA Board with comfort that the programme was meeting its objectives and was being effectively managed.

Part 2: The effectiveness of the assurance activitiesTo evaluate the key factors that influenced the effectiveness of the ODA assurance process, a number of interviews were conducted with individuals who had been either ‘customers’ for ODA assurance, or had been the subject of assurance activities. A semi-structured standard questionnaire was used to guide the interviews. The 13 interviewees included DP Project Managers, ODA and DP Senior Management, ODA Board members and third parties who required oversight of elements of the ODA’s delivery, such as the Commission for Sustainable London. Interviews were carried out by independent parties who also oversaw the interpretation of the results and several themes emerged from the interviews.

The integrated assurance framework helped drive performanceInterviewees were asked to discuss whether they saw the assurance

process as having contributed to the successful delivery of the programme overall. Two principal areas of commentary emerged: – The assurance process helped

drive performance. Assurance activities helped risks to be anticipated and issues to be surfaced and resolved sooner than they were.

– Provision of comprehensive assurance and progress reporting to outside parties helped reduce ‘interference’ to the delivery teams.

Integration of the three lines of defence improved assuranceBy all three activities working together the assurance provided was more robust and comprehensive than would have been the case if they had operated in isolation. Interviewees recognised the different but complementary roles performed by the first, second and third line.

Behaviours that contributed to the successful adaptation of the frameworkThree factors in particular were identified by interviewees as having been key to ensuring that integrated assurance was effective and added value.

Top management supportSenior executive management and non-executive directors were seen as being very supportive of the assurance process, both for the intelligence it provided to them, and also for the confidence it helped instil in outside agencies. This in turn meant that assurance activities were taken seriously by the organisation.

Proactive approachAssurance was seen to be data driven, collaborative, and proactive, focused on process improvement and problem solving rather than simply highlighting deficiencies. This was found to promote a transparent, ‘no blame’ culture where issues were more likely to be raised early. Real time reviews allowed a more forward looking approach that helped gear the programme towards a focus of performance improvement instead of retrospective thinking that encouraged a ‘blame culture’.

Real time reviews helped gear the programme towards a focus of performance improvement.

13

One senior executive observed ‘a feature of the assurance process was its open nature; it wasn’t a defensive process, was strongly supported by line management and open to outside stakeholders to participate in a way that wasn’t seen as critical of management’.

Collaborative working between the ODA and the DPIt was recognised that there had been a collaborative approach between the DP’s own assurance activities (assuring its own delivery performance) and the ODA’s client role.

Although some DP interviewees felt that the level of scrutiny had been high, they recognised the value and in particular the openness of the reviews.

Both parties recognised that the enterprise had benefited from close working of the ODA second line and DP in developing the monitoring and reporting systems which were relied upon by management from DP, ODA and external parties.

The level of assurance was matched to the programme risk profileIt was acknowledged that the level of assurance provided was scaled to the challenges faced and the cost and uniqueness of the ODA programme. This meant that the three lines of defence were ’heavyweight’, reflecting the magnitude of risk and the size of the programme.

The assurance process helped drive the successful programme delivery

Some suggested that although there was clearly a collaborative approach between the second and third lines of defence there were opportunities for improved coordination, to reduce ‘assurance overload’ on the delivery teams. Commentators did however recognise the differing responsibilities of the second and third lines and that these would inevitably lead to a degree of overlap.

Evolution of assurance over the programme life was necessary to maintain effectivenessThe progressive evolution of the assurance programme with the changing nature and risk of the programme was seen as being important to its effectiveness.

The early reviews and assurance activities focused on establishing effective governance and the monitoring and control processes. Later in the programme the focus moved to real time reviews of project delivery, where current risks and issues that could be mitigated were identified. As the programme came to a close it was seen as appropriate that the focus of assurance shifted to close out activities.

Although the assurance framework was established early in the life of the programme, a number of interviewees felt that the progress monitoring and reporting processes took some time to settle down into a format that could be relied on to provide critical data to management and stakeholders.

As the programme came to a close it was seen as appropriate that the focus of assurance shifted to close out activities.

14

ODA assurance provided support to external stakeholdersThe external parties interviewed generally felt that the ODA’s internal assurance supported and complemented their own responsibilities to provide assurance to their own stakeholders. Most commented that the ODA had been flexible in responding to their needs and incorporating them into the base ODA process, and had been transparent in sharing information. ODA and DP senior management recognised that external assurance was inevitable and embraced it as part of the overall assurance process.

TransferabilityInterviewees were asked to discuss whether they felt elements of the assurance structures and processes established at the ODA could be readily transferred to other enterprises. It was felt that the three lines of defence framework would be transferable, but the level of assurance and audit would need to be scaled appropriately to the risk profile. The project review and reporting processes were seen as being replicable and beneficial to other organisations.

The project review and reporting processes were seen as being replicable and beneficial to other organisations.

Key learnings and recommendationsBoth internal and external interviewees believed that the assurance process had helped drive successful programme delivery by getting issues and risks surfaced earlier than they might otherwise have been. External bodies agreed that the ODA internal assurance had provided them with useful assurance, visibility, consistency and confidence that the programme supported their own aims. It is recommended that establishing an effective assurance framework should be an integral part of setting up any new programme, with clear communication to all stakeholders so that they are clear on the roles and responsibilities of each line of defence.

The projects and management should be encouraged to embrace the requirement for a level of external assurance and attempt to tailor the internal processes to support this as seamlessly as possible, ensuring that they receive value from the assurance.

Key factors contributing to the successful implementation of assurance that were identified included: – strong support from senior executives and non-executives; – a flexible and transparent approach to ensure the assurance priorities

remained aligned with the programme risk profile; – open and rigorous debate around issues identified focused on

solutions; and – close cooperation between the three lines of defence.

Clear and simple progress monitoring and reporting was important both for delivery teams and for assurance bodies to provide transparency of the programme status and risks. Establishing a common progress reporting format across all elements of the large, complex programme was essential to be able to collate a total programme view and understand interface issues.

15

References1 Available from: www.prince2.com/prince2-structure.asp (accessed

12 September 2011).

2 See Financial Services Authority: “Enhancing frameworks in the standardised approach to operational risk”, section 2.23 for more information on the model.

AcknowledgementsKy Nichol and Peter Henderson, Pcubed, for conducting the interview programme and overseeing interpretation of results

Peer reviewers – Roy Millard, Chair of Assurance SIG, Association for Project Management – Chris Wobschall, Head of Assurance and Financial Reporting Policy,

HM Treasury – Don Ward, CEO, Constructing Excellence

Interviewees – Jason Millett, Director of Venues, CLM – Ken Owen, Commercial Director, CLM – Jackie Rowe, Project Manager, CLM – David Richards, former Gateway Portfolio Leader for the 2012 Olympics,

Office of Government Commerce – Shaun McCarthy, Chair, Commission for Sustainable London – Keith Hawkswell, National Audit Office – Keith Lloyd, National Audit Office – Ian Williams, Head of Projects, Government Olympic Executive – Sir Roy McNulty, Deputy Chair and Chair of Audit Committee, ODA – Howard Shiplee, Construction Director, ODA – David Higgins, former CEO, ODA – Dennis Hone, CEO, ODA – Alison Nimmo, Director of Design and Regeneration, ODA – Ian Crockford, Project Sponsor, ODA

16

© 2011 Olympic Delivery Authority. The official Emblems of the London 2012 Games are © London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Limited (LOCOG) 2007. All rights reserved.

The construction of the venues and infrastructure of the London 2012 Games is funded by the National Lottery through the Olympic Lottery Distributor, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Mayor of London and the London Development Agency.

For more information visit: london2012.com/learninglegacy Published October 2011 ODA 2011/031