Our assurance gives executive sponsors of high-stakes programmes what they need most; control.
insight
“Are you in control?” is a question I’ve seen posed by boards to executive sponsors of over-running, over-spending, slippage-laden transformation programmes dozens of times over the past three decades: Four simple, yet hugely challenging words. This article examines the good the bad and the ugly answers.
How are you supposed to control the complex, fast-moving and sometimes opaque world of programme delivery and still do your day-job?
The solution
Programme assurance does the heavy lifting for you. We supply the line of sight, the insight, the foresight, and crucially, the options that enable you to exercise effective oversight.
insight
High-stakes delivery demands more than oversight; it requires forensic accountability. Explore why modern boards must bridge the gap between executive responsibility and detailed programme assurance to avoid systemic failure.
Programme assurance - not to be confused with accounting assurance - is the delivery of expert support to a programme, with the full authority of the executive sponsor; a combination of advisory, training, coaching and challenging, specifically designed to alter the odds of a successful programme outcome. And the beauty of it is that it's entirely self-funding, with a very short ROI.
First contact between a client and Oxford8 typically happens at one of three moments in a programme’s lifecycle. We term these moments The Outset, The Onset and The Reset.
alignment
From the outset
Programmes don’t go wrong, they start wrong. The effort involved in starting a programme the right way isn’t really any greater than the effort required to start it the wrong way.
We’re exclusively former hot-seat practitioners; people who have delivered some of the most challenging programmes in the field of change. We originated from the first-ever Master’s degree in Major Programme Management at the University of Oxford back in 2009, so we’re research-informed, but make no mistake: We learned our craft in the field.
Why Oxford8?
The flip answer? Because we're the only provider in the market who does purely programme assurance for a living. There are about 200 companies in the UK who purport to provide programme assurance. They do so for a variety of reasons - everything from utilising resources that would otherwise be sat on the bench, through to account presence for further opportunities and even the displacement of competitors. We do it, free of conflicts of interest, for one reason and one reason only; because we know that it is the effective route to controlled programme delivery.
If you’re looking for passive fence-sitters with a risk and controls background, that’s not us. Effective assurance has to be multi-dimensional and actively involved: Ox8’s version of it blends advisory, training, case-studies, worked examples, pressure-testing and a variety of other approaches and techniques to support the programme. Below are some examples of exactly how we get our hands dirty:
OVERTITLE
Planning
Discovery highlighted deficiencies in planning, resulting in daily instances of improvisation within the programme. A two-day training reset provided the programme team with a new approach to planning, supported by specific techniques and worked examples. This was used as the springboard for a replanning exercise, which was closed out via three, 5-day iterations. The outcome was a robust, definitive plan, underpinning a stable, predictable and controlled delivery. Governance of the plan was also modified to track, report and intercept slippage in real time.
Discovery identified weaknesses in risk management, resulting in the programme team being more reactive rather than proactive. A new approach to risk was introduced, supported by clear definitions and worked examples. A rigorous, 2-day review of the programme risks reduced the volume, sharpened the clarity and identified clear paths to reduce overall risk exposure by converting risks into activities in the plan. Governance was modified to move away from the conventional ‘top 5 risks’ approach to focus instead on overall risk exposure and risk trajectory, and deal with the root causes of risks by enabling line-of-sight to thematic risks.
Discovery demonstrated a tendancy for issues to stagnate, resulting in ongoing slippage. A new approach to issue management was introduced, providing clearer definition and a more structured method of issue resolution. The result was a smaller volume of issues, faster, more focused resolution and therefore less management time consumed by issue management. Governance was also revised from the conventional ‘top 5 issues’ approach to focus instead on ‘cycle time’ (the duration from issue identification to issue resolution) and root cause analysis to reduce exposure to recurrent issues.
Examination of the business case revealed an over-reliance on minimal cost savings in the back office whilst overlooking substantial revenue opportuninites that could be unlocked in the front of house operations. An action plan was developed to test and prove the revised business case, which also enabled front of house operations to advance up the learning curve, further accelerating return on investment. The first 12 months of operation following go-live delivered a 19% increase in EBITDA – considerably above the break-even target of 6%.
Execution of user acceptance testing was running 70% behind projections. Examination of the problem revealed significant coordination challenges across a test community of 50 resources. By mapping testers to system-specific roles, the testing team was reduced to a headcount of 8. This accelerated testing to achieve not only a run-rate of 130% of projected, it also freed up operations staff to concentrate on other aspects of the programme such as training and operational readiness.
Discovery revealed significant assymetry of information – and therefore understanding – within the stakeholder community. A brief training exercise to equip the wider programme team with stakeholder engagement skills and techniques was followed by a reset of the stakeholder engagement plan. The resulting uptick in programme support and participation was cited as a major factor in the successful delivery of the programme, and its subsequent adoption by the business.
Interaction with the implementation partner during the discovery phase surfaced a number of issues that were impeding both the supplier and the client. Rapid resolution of the issues reduced friction in the reationship, resulting in greater productivity and flexibility. This was cited as a major factor in the successful delivery of the programme, and led to ongoing engagement of the implementation partner which resulted directly in the client introducing market-leading functionality within its platform.
Ongoing analysis of the programme budget throughout the delivery cycle highlighted a range of fiscal constraints that were slowing down both the vendor and the internal leads. Strategic reallocation of these funds removed bottlenecks in the process, resulting in higher capital efficiency and output. This was regarded as a critical element in the overall solvency of the project, and paved the way for continued funding of the growth strategy which resulted directly in the business launching premium-tier services within its global portfolio.
