Annex 8. Project Assurance Recommendations

Transcription

1 Annex 8 Project Assurance Recommendations Contents 1. Project Review Report 2. Recommendations and actions Taken 3. Project Board Roles and Responsibilities

2 This page is intentionally blank

3 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July Introduction Bus Rapid Transit North Key Stage Review A Key Stage Review was conducted by Daniel Ladbury and Phil Moorcroft from Sheffield City Council on 18 th, 19 th and 22 nd July The purpose of this review was to undertake a high level assessment of the progress made to date and the readiness of the project to move into the implementation stage once funding approval has been obtained. The scope of the review, as agreed by the Project Sponsor, was as follows: Review the Project Business Case and Objectives; Review the resourcing and governance of the project including partner interfaces and reporting; Review the project risks and whether the proposed mitigations are appropriate; Review the overall readiness of the project to move into delivery. The review was undertaken through looking at project documentation provided and interviewing selected members of the project board and delivery team to provide a holistic and rounded assessment of the project status. The findings and recommendations included within this report are based solely on the information obtained through the documents provided and interviews undertaken. The documents provided in support of this review are identified at Appendix A. The people interviewed as part of this review are identified at Appendix B. 2 Delivery Confidence Assessment The overall findings of the review are that the project is in a position whereby it should: Proceed to next stage, taking into account recommended actions. Version 0.1 Page 1 of 7

4 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July Summary of Recommended Actions Ref Recommendation Timescale 1 That the benefits and outcomes of the project are clearly identified and communicated to all parties. That a Benefits Realisation Plan is developed, identifying specific measures, owners and timescales and is monitored by the Project Board against a baseline position to ensure they are achieved as intended. 2 That the Project Sponsor ensures there is full buy in from Council Stakeholders to the Benefits Realisation Plan. 3 That the current funding position is reviewed to ensure there is an agreed position and that a single person is identified as the lead for further discussions with each of the funding organisations. 4 That the Project Sponsor reviews and revises the Purpose, Terms of Reference, Frequency and Attendance of the Project Board based on the project outcomes and risks and that these requirements are clearly documented and communicated to all relevant parties and agreed to ensure that the necessary attendance is maintained. 5 That the SYPTE, Sheffield CC and Rotherham MBC commit to provide suitable and sufficient continuity and capacity of the human resources required to deliver the project and that all key/ high risk roles are identified and regularly reviewed. It is suggested that this commitment is reflected in the Partnering Agreement. 6 That the Project Risk Register is updated to include all current and emerging risks and that this is reviewed by the Project Board to ensure there is a clear understanding of the risks together with the actions, owners and resources required to manage and mitigate these. 7 That a single audit of the procurement arrangements across all three public authorities in relation to this scheme be undertaken within a reasonable timescale to ensure that funder procurement requirements have been followed by each organisation involved in procuring works for the project. 8 That once funding has been confirmed, a single schedule is prepared identifying the funding conditions that need to be complied with and how these will be maintained. It is also suggested that the partnership of SYPTE/ SCC/ RMBC consider appointing a nominated person with experience of managing ERDF/ DfT funded schemes to act as a Funding Compliance Officer to minimise the risks of funding clawback to the project. 9 That the project team review and update the project programme to take consideration of the progress achieved to date and the remaining work packages that need to be progressed. This should include the Marketing, Communications, Branding, Quality Standard, Bus Routing and Bus Operator Agreement work packages and should identify key milestones at regular stages to enable effective progress monitoring of these workstreams to be undertaken. 10 That the Project Sponsor ensures that sufficient resource capacity is available to deliver these workstreams and that key workstream leads and stakeholders are represented at the Project Board. Within 2 months Within 2 months Within 2 weeks Within 1 month Ongoing Within 1 month Within 2 months Within 2 months Within 1 month Within 1 month 4 Review Findings 4.1 Business Case and Objectives Version 0.1 Page 2 of 7

5 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July 2013 The scheme is being delivered by the SYPTE in partnership with Sheffield City Council and Rotherham MBC. A Business Case for the project has been established and has been set out in previous submissions to the DfT and ERDF which include the Cost-Benefit Ratio of the scheme. It is evident that there are a range of outcomes which need to be delivered which include: Providing a high quality bus link between Sheffield and Rotherham, Reducing journey times between Sheffield and Rotherham, Providing the opportunity for regeneration and the development of the Lower Don Valley, Increasing investment into the Lower Don Valley to create new jobs, Improving links to the M1 to reduce current levels of congestion. Whilst all parties are aware of the general benefits and outcomes that the scheme will deliver, there are some differing views with regards to what the key priorities and benefits are. It is possible that this is as a result of recent changes in staffing together with the different approval requirements of the main scheme funders. If not resolved within the near future, this could present a risk that the project may not fully achieve some of the key objectives which could introduce a risk of either funding claw-back or not achieving some benefits. Recommendation 1: That the benefits and outcomes of the project are clearly identified and communicated to all parties. That a Benefits Realisation Plan is developed, identifying specific measures, owners and timescales and is monitored by the Project Board against a baseline position to ensure they are achieved as intended. It was also identified that the realisation of some of the project benefits may be influenced by other parties outside of the scope of the SYPTE, for example where policies may be controlled by the Local Authorities that could have an impact on the outcomes of the scheme. Whilst the Council stakeholders are bought into the scheme and the benefits that it will deliver, there remains a risk that future policy changes could impact on the scheme outcomes. Recommendation 2: That the Project Sponsor ensures there is full buy in from Council Stakeholders to the Benefits Realisation Plan. 4.2 Project Governance and Resources The project has recently been through the SYPTE s Project Assurance Process and there is evidence of ongoing monitoring and review. The SYPTE operates robust Project Management processes and there is evidence that these are well managed and are being followed. Relevant project documentation was provided and there are clear project organisational structures in place which identify the resources required to deliver the project. The project organisation structure does not identify a clear project lead for liaising with the ERDF and DfT, which are the main funding parties and therefore key stakeholders in the project. From the interviews, it appeared that there were a number of parties engaging with these stakeholders and there appeared to be differing levels of understanding of the status of the ERDF funding approval. This needs clarifying as a matter of priority. Recommendation 3: That the current funding position is reviewed to ensure there is an agreed position and that a single person is identified as the lead for further discussions with each of the funding organisations. Version 0.1 Page 3 of 7

6 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July 2013 Project Governance is appropriately formalised and Project Board and Delivery Team meetings have clarity of purpose and add value to the project. Project communication is effective - all interviewees were aware of the broader parameters of the project. Changes in senior staff positions within the SYPTE do not appear to have affected the project momentum. The Stakeholders interviewed are fully engaged with and supportive of the project and every stakeholder had confidence that the project will be delivered successfully, subject to existing resources being maintained. It is evident from Project Board minutes that some key attendees are not attending on a regular basis and that attendance in some instances has been delegated to Project Team members. Whilst delegation provides the benefit of operational knowledge for updates, it does present a risk that any strategic issues which arise within the organisations represented and could impact on the project are not being suitably captured and addressed. In addition to this, some of the workstreams that are essential for the successful delivery of the project are currently not attending the board regularly which means there is a risk that the focus rests on a limited number of the workstreams and does not fully integrate all of the workstreams required for the successful delivery of the project. Recommendation 4: That the Project Sponsor reviews and revises the Purpose, Terms of Reference, Frequency and Attendance of the Project Board based on the project outcomes, risks and key workstreams and that these requirements are agreed, clearly documented and communicated to all relevant parties to ensure that the necessary attendance is maintained. There is evidence from meeting records that the Project Board and Project Team meet regularly and all parties were aware of the key issues on the project and the stage that the project is at. The Project Team members have a strong team ethos and communication and information recording methods appear to be effective. The Project Team is currently resourced by skilled, knowledgeable and capable individuals. However, each of the team members is undertaking a key role within their own area and there appears to be very limited transfer of knowledge or capacity outside of the core delivery team. With emerging pressures and priorities on other projects, there is a risk that any future changes in personnel or changes to their capacity to work on the project will have an adverse impact on this project. A key area of risk is that the modelling workstream, which is necessary for funding applications and benefits realisation, appears to be the specialism of a single individual with limited understanding or capability of this function elsewhere within the organisation. Recommendation 5: That the SYPTE, Sheffield CC and Rotherham MBC commit to provide suitable and sufficient continuity and capacity of the human resources required to deliver the project and that all key/ high risk roles are identified and regularly reviewed. It is suggested that this commitment is reflected in the Partnering Agreement. 4.3 Risk Management There is evidence that robust risk management procedures are in place for the project and that mitigation measures are clearly identified with owners appointed. Given recent pressures to undertake additional, unanticipated and extensive work in an attempt to secure ERDF funding for the scheme, some of the project documentation such as the risk register and programme have not been updated recently. Whilst all parties are fully aware and in agreement of the key project risks, the risk register needs to be updated to reflect these and identify the actions required to mitigate and manage the risks to enable progress to be effectively monitored. Recommendation 6: That the Project Risk Register is updated to include all current and emerging risks and that this is reviewed by the Project Board to ensure there is a clear understanding of the risks together with the actions, owners and resources required to manage and mitigate these. Version 0.1 Page 4 of 7

7 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July 2013 The most significant risk to the project at the moment is securing the ERDF funding and obtaining this approval has required substantial input from the Project Team over recent months. At the time of undertaking this review, ERDF approval remains outstanding. Once funding approval has been obtained, there will remain a risk that funding could be clawed back should the funding conditions not be complied with. SYPTE and SCC have undertaken procurement reviews to ensure that funder procurement conditions have been complied with; however it is not clear whether Rotherham have done this. Furthermore, there will be an on-going requirement to ensure that funding conditions are not breeched as the scheme is delivered. A Partnering Agreement is currently in the process of being agreed between SYPTE/ SCC and RMBC which provides a framework for the management of the project and apportionment of funding risks across all three partner organisations. This is due to be closed out within the next few weeks. Recommendation 7: That a single audit of the procurement arrangements across all three public authorities in relation to this scheme be undertaken within a reasonable timescale to ensure that funder procurement requirements have been followed by each organisation involved in procuring works for the project. Recommendation 8: That once funding has been confirmed, a single schedule is prepared identifying the funding conditions that need to be complied with and how these will be maintained. It is also suggested that the partnership of SYPTE/ SCC/ RMBC consider appointing a nominated person with experience of managing ERDF/ DfT funded schemes to act as a Funding Compliance Officer to minimise the risks of funding clawback to the project. 4.4 Readiness to Deliver Next Phase The dominant focus of the project team s efforts in recent months has been on obtaining the funding necessary to deliver the scheme and the procurement of the highway infrastructure works. This focus is appropriate given these are currently two of the highest risk areas. It is evident that additional unplanned and substantial work has been required in order to attempt to obtain the ERDF funding and this has meant that some other workstreams, including forward planning, have not progressed at the same rate due to the focussed attentions of key team members. This needs to be accounted for in resource allocations. The project plan provided for review was last updated in May 2013 and from the interviews, it is evident that a number of workstreams on this programme have progressed or been closed out, however there are also a number of additional workstreams such as Marketing/ Communications, Bus Branding and finalising agreements with Bus Operators that are not identified in detail and do now need progressing. It is not considered that this is a critical issue that will have an adverse impact on the project at this stage; however, this does need to be addressed as soon as possible to enable works to be planned and monitored to ensure that the necessary works are delivered within the requisite timescales. Early discussions have taken place with potential commercial operators of the service. Stakeholders are confident that the route is commercially viable and that the two key operators, First Group and Stagecoach, will be able to run the route economically. Operators proposals are being fed into the final DfT submission. Further work is required to finalise the route of the service with regard to end of route loops, taking into consideration the impact of and on existing bus services, the future impact of the tram-train route that is under development and a scheme driver to achieve a modal shift from cars to public transport. Further work on the route and bus branding, communications, fares and timetable commitments needs to be progressed as the project moves into the delivery phase. Consideration should also be give to the possible value of further integrating bus operators within the project organisational structure and governance as it moves into the implementation phase. Recommendation 9: That the project team review and update the project programme to take consideration of the progress achieved to date and the remaining work packages that need to be progressed. This should include the Marketing, Communications, Branding, Bus Routing, Quality Standard and Bus Operator Agreement work packages and should identify key milestones at regular stages to enable effective progress monitoring of these workstreams to be undertaken. Recommendation 10: That the Project Sponsor ensures that sufficient resource capacity is available to deliver these workstreams and that key workstream leads and stakeholders are represented at the Project Board. Version 0.1 Page 5 of 7

8 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July th July 2013 Daniel Ladbury, Head of Capital Delivery Service, Sheffield City Council Phil Moorcroft, Commercial Services, Sheffield City Council Version 0.1 Page 6 of 7

9 BRT North - Project Review Report Version th July 2013 Appendix A Documents Reviewed The following documents were provided as part of the review and form part of the evidence used to inform the review recommendations. BRT Project Board Roles & Responsibilities BRT Project Organogram Project Board Notes May 2013 Project Board Report June 2013 Project Assurance Review Certificate Appendix E3 Risk Register dated BRT North BAFO Volume 1 Supporting Information BRT Delivery Team minutes, 12 June 2013 BRT Project Board minutes, 13 June 2013 BRT Project Board notes, 20 June 2012 BRT Project Board notes, March 2013 BRT North Project Programme, May 2013 Appendix B Persons Interviewed The following individuals were interviewed as part of the review. Project Role Name Job Title Organisation Senior Responsible Owner Executive Senior Supplier Senior Supplier Senior Supplier Senior User BRT Project Manager David Young Peter Elliott Roy Mitchell, John Bann Tom Finnegan-Smith Julie Hurley Melanie Dei Rossi Deputy Interim Director General & Director of Customer Experience Principal Programme Delivery Manager Principal Public Transport Manager Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services Division Transportation Unit Manager Interim Director of Strategy Principal Project Manager SYPTE SYPTE SYPTE Sheffield City Council Rotherham MBC SYPTE SYPTE SYPTE Project Manager Ambrose White Project Manager SYPTE SCC Project Manager David Budd SCC Work Package Project Manager Sheffield City Council RMBC Project Manager Matthew Lowe RMBC Work Package Project Manager Rotherham MBC Modelling and Forecasting David Andrews Transport Economist SYPTE Version 0.1 Page 7 of 7

10 Project Assurance Recommendations And Actions Taken Ref Recommendation Timescale Actions Taken 1 That the benefits and outcomes of the project are clearly identified and communicated to all parties. That a Benefits Realisation Plan is developed, identifying specific measures, owners and timescales and is monitored by the Project Board against a baseline position to ensure they are achieved as intended. 2 That the Project Sponsor ensures there is full buy in from Council Stakeholders to the Benefits Realisation Plan. 3 That the current funding position is reviewed to ensure there is an agreed position and that a single person is identified as the lead for further discussions with each of the funding organisations. 4 That the Project Sponsor reviews and revises the Purpose, Terms of Reference, Frequency and Attendance of the Project Board based on the project outcomes and risks and that these requirements are clearly documented and communicated to all relevant parties and agreed to ensure that the necessary attendance is maintained. Within 2 months Now Complete Within 2 months Now Complete Within 2 weeks Now Complete Awaiting Full Approval Within 1 month Now Complete On-going The Realisation Plan has now been completed and attached at Annex 9 ref section 5.8 in FA form. This plan identifies benefits and outcomes. The roles of Project Board members have been updated and this includes ensuring ownership of all elements of this plan. A copy is attached below. The monitoring plan is also now complete and attached at Annex 5 ref section 5.3 of the FA form. The roles of Project Board members have been updated and this includes ensuring ownership of all elements of the benefit review plan. A copy is attached below. The Project Agreement (Appendix 1) has been revised to make clear who will be responsible for liaison with funding bodies. The Full Approval submission (when approved) will finalise the funding plan. The Project Agreement (Appendix 1) has been revised to make clear who will be responsible for liaison with funding bodies. The roles of Project Board members have been updated and this includes ensuring ownership of all elements of this plan. A copy is attached at below. Project Board meetings have been booked through to the New Year and on confirmation of Full Approval will be agreed for the duration of the Project.

11 Project Assurance Recommendations And Actions Taken 5 That the SYPTE, Sheffield CC and Rotherham MBC commit to provide suitable and sufficient continuity and capacity of the human resources required to deliver the project and that all key/ high risk roles are identified and regularly reviewed. It is suggested that this commitment is reflected in the Partnering Agreement. On-going The SRO will seek written assurance that all partners will continue to provide sufficient resources to ensure that the project will be delivered in line with the commitments made in the funding bids. Compliance with these assurances will be managed by the SRO and relevant project board members throughout the remaining life of the project. 6 That the Project Risk Register is updated to include all current and emerging risks and that this is reviewed by the Project Board to ensure there is a clear understanding of the risks together with the actions, owners and resources required to manage and mitigate these. Within 1 month Now Complete A Quantified Risk Assessment has been completed and a new risk register has been created using SYPTE Issue Management System. These are attached to the application for Full Approval at Annex 4 (Quantified Risk Assessment) and Annex 7 (Project Risk Register). To ensure Project Board have a clear understanding of the project risks a Project Board risk owner has been assigned to all risks in line with the Partnership leads for their respective work packages. 7 That a single audit of the procurement arrangements across all three public authorities in relation to this scheme be undertaken within a reasonable timescale to ensure that funder procurement requirements have been followed by each organisation involved in procuring works for the project. Within 2 months On going A revised ERDF funding profile has been completed in line with the revised tender prices and the required contribution from ERDF has reduced as a result of this. To minimise the exposure to ERDF clawback the profile now focuses on the remaining works and fees. All Parties have reviewed the suggested profile and have confirmed their support for this approach. This will form the basis of the response to ERDF to in response to the pre contract conditions.

12 Project Assurance Recommendations And Actions Taken 8 That once funding has been confirmed, a single schedule is prepared identifying the funding conditions that need to be complied with and how these will be maintained. It is also suggested that the partnership of SYPTE/ SCC/ RMBC consider appointing a nominated person with experience of managing ERDF/ DfT funded schemes to act as a Funding Compliance Officer to minimise the risks of funding clawback to the project. Within 2 months On going Following submission of full approval the Partners will carry out an audit of procurement arrangements in advance of entering into contract with ERDF and to inform early engagement discussions with the DCLG audit team. We are pursuing the nomination of a project team member to act as a funding compliance officer. The details of this role are currently being developed. We will also prepare a single schedule of funding conditions as recommended. 9 That the project team review and update the project programme to take consideration of the progress achieved to date and the remaining work packages that need to be progressed. This should include the Marketing, Communications, Branding, Quality Standard, Bus Routing and Bus Operator Agreement work packages and should identify key milestones at regular stages to enable effective progress monitoring of these workstreams to be undertaken. Within 1 month Now Complete An updated summary programme to reflect the Implementation stage of the project has been completed and is attached to the application for Full Approval at Annex 6 (Project Plan (Programme)) 10 That the Project Sponsor ensures that sufficient resource capacity is available to deliver these work streams and that key work stream leads and stakeholders are represented at the Project Board. Within 1 month On going As noted above the Project Board roles and attendance have been reviewed and this recommendation will be incorporated into the on-going work.

13 BRT North Project Board Roles and Responsibilities The BRT North Project Board is organised in line with PRINCE2 recommendations and is chaired by the Senior Responsible Owner: Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) David Young, Deputy Interim Director General & Director of Customer Experience, SYPTE. As SRO, Mr Young is responsible for delivering the project, and ensuring that the project meets its objectives and delivers the projected benefits. In this role Mr Young is also responsible for ensuring that sufficient resource is available to allow the project to be delivered and the benefits of the project are realised. As SRO, Mr Young receives Periodic highlight reports from the Project Manager. In his capacity as Deputy Interim Director General & Director of Customer Experience, Mr Young is appointed by the South Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority (ITA) to lead, direct and oversee all aspects of the Executive s activities on behalf of the ITA, including the development, implementation and management of all areas of the Executive s strategy, delivery plans and associated decision-making processes in order to ensure that the organisation continuously achieves the ITA goals and objectives; this includes a strategic coordinating role in relation to the public transport element of Local Transport Plans and to manage the future development of the ITA & PTE in the context of the Government s latest proposals for Passenger Transport strategies, and the possible implications of other local developments such as City Regions. Mr Young is also a member of SYPTE s Management Board and Executive Board. The Management Board receives monthly reports on the delivery of the overall Capital Programme and on this project when required. The other members of the Project Board are as follows: Executive Peter Elliott, Principal Programme Delivery Manager, SYPTE. As Executive, Mr Elliott deputises for SRO as required and provides the interface between Management Board (represented by the SRO) and the day-to-day management of the project, ensuring delivery of the desired objectives as identified in the Business Case. In his capacity as Principal Programme Delivery Manager, Mr Elliott is responsible for the delivery of the SYPTE s Capital Programme. The Project Executive is named Project Board Risk owner for SYPTE project risks. Mr Elliott will be the project lead for funding liaison in relation to DfT funding and will oversee the liaison with DCLG for ERDF funding. Senior Suppliers The Senior Suppliers represent the interests of those involved with the design, procurement, implementation, operation, and maintenance of the services to be delivered by the project and as this project is being delivered in Partnership with Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) and Sheffield City Council (SCC) this role is shared between the three parties.

14 The Senior Suppliers are named Project Board Risk Owners for their respective work package project risks. Senior Supplier - SYPTE Roy Mitchell, Principal Public Transport Manager, SYPTE As Senior Supplier, Mr Mitchell is responsible for the delivery of all SYPTE work packages and represents all contractors and suppliers appointed by SYPTE in delivering those work packages. Mr Mitchell is also responsible for ensuring the delivery of all activities identified to ensure the provision of bus services, and the realisation of the benefits of the project relating to passenger numbers (on BRT and other bus services), and the quality and capacity of the BRT service. In his capacity as Principal Public Transport Manager, Mr Mitchell is responsible for Bus Network & Development, Tram & Train Team, and External Relations teams within SYPTE. Senior Supplier - SCC John Bann, Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services Division, SCC. As Senior Supplier for SCC, Mr Bann is responsible for the delivery of all SCC work packages and represents all contractors and suppliers appointed by SCC in delivering those work packages. As senior supplier he receives highlight reports from the Sheffield Project Manager every two months. In his capacity as Head of Transport, Traffic and Parking Services Division, Mr Bann is responsible for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people around the City of Sheffield, and for planning, co-ordinating and regulating activities on the roads and public rights of way. Mr Bann has various Traffic and Highway Authority powers delegated from the City Council and is responsible for improving air quality in Sheffield. Mr Bann will be the project lead for funding liaison in relation to Developer Contributions (SCC) and the Growing Places funding. Senior Supplier - RMBC Tom Finnegan-Smith, Transportation and Highways Projects Manager, RMBC. As Senior Supplier for RMBC, Mr Finnegan-Smith is responsible for the delivery of all RMBC work packages and represents all contractors and suppliers appointed by RMBC in delivering those work packages. Tom discusses project progress with the Rotherham Project Manager prior to Project Board meetings and on an ad-hoc basis when issues arise. In his capacity as Transportation and Highways Projects Manager, Mr Finnegan-Smith is responsible for various Transportation and Highways issues which includes: the identification and implementation of schemes and promotion of policies that deliver the aims of the SYLTP; delivery of Road Safety ETP; Highways Development Control; Travel Planning, cycle training, Urban Traffic Control, Highway Design, Bridge Structures and Smarter Choices within Rotherham. Mr Finnegan-Smith will be the project lead for funding liaison in relation to Developer Contributions (RMBC).

15 Senior User Julie Hurley, Interim Director of Strategy and Head of Policy and Planning, SYPTE. As Senior User, Ms Hurley is responsible for specifying the needs of those who will make use of the services and infrastructure delivered by the project, and representing their interests through appropriate liaison. In her capacity as Interim Director of Strategy and Head of Policy and Planning, Ms Hurley is responsible for the development of the relevant strategies and action plans to deliver the public transport and accessibility elements of the Local Transport Plan on behalf of the Transport Executive. Ms Hurley provides leadership of the SYPTE Policy and Planning Department and proactive participation in organisational strategy and decision making. Ms Hurley will be the Project representative at DCLG Performance Monitoring Board (PMB) for ERDF Funding Project Board Responsibilities In addition to the individual duties, the collective responsibility of the Project Board includes: Ownership of the Benefit Realisation Plan including actions to ensure the outcomes of the project are achievable within the local political climate; (Please see Annex 9 of the DfT Full Approval Submission for Detail) Managing identified risks; Providing overall direction and guidance; Making decisions on exceptional situations; Ensuring the project remains consistent with business plans and the external environment; Notifying the Project Manager of changes outside the project that could/will affect it; Ensuring projects remain on target for time, cost, quality and outcomes; Making decisions on changes (via RFC process). The details of the Project Board s other duties are mainly as detailed in the PRINCE2 guidance, subject to: Bus Service Operators will not be represented on the Board during the initial phase of the project as Senior Supplier SYPTE will undertake this role; but are likely to be invited as appropriate once the Service Procurement has been completed. The partners have agreed that contractors will not attend Project Board directly but will be represented by the relevant Senior Supplier.