Lessons learned: Governance and decision-making on mega-projects

HM Treasury and NISTA should develop how they categorise major projects according to their risk and strategic importance. In particular, they should define a category for ?mega-projects? that may require a different approach to governance and specify the criteria for giving a project ?mega-project? status

HM Treasury and NISTA should consider using alternative governance approaches for the projects it determines are mega-projects to ensure those who have the authority to make decisions are accountable for the impact of those decisions on the project. This could include, for example, HM Treasury or NISTA having greater involvement in a mega-project during its development ? such as a formal position on a project board ? to provide it with executive authority and certainty, and to improve alignment between the funder and delivery organisation during the critical early stages of a mega-project.

the roles and responsibilities of those who may not be directly involved in governance but are part of the broader government decision-making landscape, such as HM Treasury, cross-government or departmental programme boards, mission and leads, and NISTA, are clear and understood

For mega-projects, HM Treasury and NISTA should strengthen the project gateway and business case approval processes to ensure that government has assurance about the affordability, value for money and feasibility of the project before it is given final approval to proceed. This might include only providing funding to take the project to the next stage of development and maturity. Each decision stage should provide governance bodies and funders with assurance that the project?s development should continue. NISTA and those charged with governance should advise government to stop a project if early work indicates that the project is too risky and/or costly, or that successful delivery of the benefits is too uncertain to proceed.