Why Post-project evaluation doesn’t help This begs another obvious question – why do such gaps not get picked up through processes such as Post-project evaluation (PPE) and Gateway reviews?
The system of reviews has been put in place by the Department of Health to provide a means for Trusts to demonstrate that the original business case objectives have been and are being met. PPE has at least five formal stages occurring before and after a contract has been formed, and is intended to continue year on year throughout the project life. This, you would think, would quickly flush out malpractice and ‘creep’ but the reality is less positive. PPE is (and is intended to be) largely a box-ticking exercise which compares the broad sweep of physical outturn with what the project was intended to deliver in the round. PPE is emphatically not an in-depth assessment of obligations owed – down to achievement of service response times and detailed application of the payment mechanism – and cannot identify gaps at that level. Whilst, therefore the ‘big picture’ assurance offered by PPE and other so-called ‘best practice’ management tools may afford comfort that all is well (or at least OK
