Agenda item

The report was noted.

Jonathan Burnes gave members an overview of the Evaluation Framework as per the report.

Members were advised that this was about bringing everything that was happening previously all together and encapsulating it into a document that is readable by everyone and then a plan to look at what, how, when and who will be evaluating.

Officers advised that the frameworks first question answers why they are evaluating and explained that it is crucial for demonstrating the impact of the city deal over its lifetime and that officers have had lots of feedback through scrutiny, both this committee and through gateway assurance reviews and audit, all looking at emphasising how benefits are now being evidenced and start being reported through the City deal.

Jonathan Burnes advised that he chaired an evaluation task and finish group that oversaw the development of the framework.

The Task and finish Group consisted of project programme leads and PMO team members who met monthly and shaped the framework into the one in the report. They looked at making sure that it was practical and workable in in what they were trying to present. Members were advised that the point of the framework is looking at the rationale, the principles, roles and responsibilities and its methodology.

How are you calculating these things? How, how was it presented and being open and transparent about that approach.

Officers explained that they want to look at two midterm evaluations and a final evaluation for the portfolio. Basing it on years 1 to 7 for midterm evaluation and then the second midterm would be between 25/26 up to 2029/30. The final evaluation will be in 2032/33, which is when the 15 years of the portfolio ends.

Members were advised that in the document every project and programme is listed with a schedule of what will be evaluated and when.

Officers have worked with all the projects and programmes, and they put them into a draught, and these are all collated in the portfolio office into an evaluation profile. The Profile will summarise every evaluation that projects will do, what that will entail and who will conduct it. Officers stated that they don't want to start evaluating things for evaluation’s sake and want to do it at the right time.

The framework will form part of a large document called the monitoring evaluation plan. Officers will do the monitoring reports, this will be the evaluations which help support that reporting.

Members felt that the framework was good but on item 7, in relation to the governance and oversight it should have wording in there about scrutiny so that people are aware that there is a scrutiny function to carry out especially as the document is one of the more important documents the committee scrutinises on a regular basis.

Officers agreed and noted that there is only one reference to scrutiny and that is more about the input as opposed to the process so they will feed that back through the governance process and add some words.

Jonathan Burnes advised that he can write wording or he can receive any narrative of people would like to see in it and then review it with the committee members if that would help put it in the next iteration of the framework.1:09:38

Members asked if GVA features in the document.

Officers confirmed that GVA features in it twice and that GVA can still be used and it's in the business cases as an economic appraisal part of the process. Officers advised that they are not requiring the projects and programmes to report GVA because you can't attribute GVA to a building, however if somebody can then they will accept it.

Members stated that if officers do use things like GVA on websites and documents then they will hold officers to GVA standards.

Members noted in a previous meeting that they requested a letter to the Chair of the Corporate Joint Committee relating to the use of GVA and asked if a reply had been received. The democratic services officer confirmed that a reply was received and was on the last meetings agenda.

Officers advised that they are happy to incorporate GVA into it if they can evidence it. But they want to make sure they can evidence the economic impact indicators that they utilise. Currently they can’t do that with GVA.

The report was noted.