Services
Controls & Assurance
When a board is approving continued funding based only on the delivery team’s own word.
The Challenge
Cost and schedule status is frequently self-reported by the teams responsible for delivering on time and on budget - a structural conflict of interest that tends to delay bad news.
Independent baseline. Cost and schedule baselines set and monitored independently of the delivery team reporting against them.
Earned value, applied practically. Progress measured against actual output, not activity or time elapsed.
Early warning thresholds. Variance triggers defined in advance, so deviation is flagged automatically rather than judged case-by-case.
Integrated risk register. Cost, schedule, and risk tracked as one connected system, not three disconnected spreadsheets.
FAQ
How is this different from project reporting we already do?
Standard reporting is usually self-reported by the delivery team. Controls are set and monitored independently, removing the incentive to present status more favourably than reality.
Does this require new software?
Not necessarily - controls discipline is a methodology first; it can be implemented in existing tools or alongside a tool upgrade, depending on current state.
The Challenge
Boards and investment committees frequently approve continued funding for major programmes based solely on internal reporting from the team delivering the work — with no independent check on that report’s accuracy.
True independence. Assurance reviewers have no role in programme delivery and no incentive to soften findings.
Gate-aligned. Reviews timed to major funding or go/no-go decision points, so findings are actionable, not retrospective.
Direct to the accountable body. Findings go to the board or investment committee — not filtered through the programme team being reviewed.
Actionable, not academic. Every finding comes with a specific recommendation, not a general observation.
FAQ
Who typically commissions a project assurance review?
Boards, investment committees, audit committees, or major funders ahead of a key decision point.
Does this create tension with the delivery team?
It can, which is precisely why independence matters — assurance findings are more credible, not less, when the reviewer has no stake in the programme’s internal politics.
The Challenge
When a programme underperforms significantly, organisations often need a defensible, evidence-based account of what occurred — for internal accountability, regulatory requirements, or in some cases, dispute resolution.
Documentary evidence first. Findings are built from project records, not just interviews or recollection.
Structured against recognised standards. Reviews reference established project management and governance standards, not an ad-hoc checklist.
Clear accountability mapping. Findings identify where decisions were made and by whom, without editorialising.
Confidential by default. Review findings are held to strict confidentiality, particularly where dispute or regulatory exposure exists.
FAQ
Is this the same as project assurance?
No — assurance is forward-looking, checking programme health ahead of a decision. A delivery review is backward-looking, establishing a documented record of what already happened.
Can review findings be used in a formal or legal context?
Reviews are conducted on a documentary, evidence-based basis suitable for formal review; specific legal admissibility should be confirmed with your legal counsel.
The Challenge
Leadership often senses a programme is drifting but lacks a fast, structured way to confirm it without commissioning a lengthy formal review.
Rapid diagnostic. Structured review completed in under two weeks, not months.
Standard scoring framework. Programme health assessed against a consistent set of criteria - scope, schedule, cost, risk, governance, team capacity.
Direct findings. A clear, plain-language readout to leadership, not a lengthy academic report.
Action-oriented output. Every health check ends with specific, prioritised next steps.
FAQ
How is this different from a full delivery review or assurance review?
It’s faster and lighter-touch - designed to quickly confirm or rule out a concern, not produce a comprehensive formal record.
What happens after the health check?
You receive a prioritised set of recommendations; from there, deeper engagement (recovery, governance redesign, etc.) is optional and scoped separately.