END PROJECT REPORT
Project Title:
Project Reference:
RIEP Work stream
Report Author:
Date:
Whole Life Value
CF04
Construction & Asset Management
Tony Gale
15 July 2011
End project Report Purpose
The purpose of this report is to:
 Review the Project using the PID as a baseline comparing the planned project to the
actual, delivered project, and determine what has not gone to plan and the impact of
this.
 Ensure that the lessons learnt from the project have been captured, reviewed and
disseminated.
 Provide assurance that all risks, issues have been closed or transferred.
 Confirm that hand over actions have been agreed.
 Articulate the position with regard to draw down of RIEP funding.
 Confirm that the project is on track to meet the desired outcomes and set a post project
implementation review date.
How to Use this Document
This document contains a series of different questions which are designed to compare what
the project actually achieved against what was originally planned. The questions will also
capture what went well and how this learning can be shared more widely.
Any text in italics provides further guidance to help answer questions.
Please answer questions as fully as possible. Most sections will be relevant to all projects
but there might be some exceptions. If you are in doubt, please contact your Programme
Manager to discuss.
Page 1 of 7
Table of Contents
Page
1 End Project Report History
1.1 Revision History
1.2 Approvals
3
2 Background
3
3 Reasons for closure
4
4 Project Performance
4
5 Risk analysis
5
6 Lessons Learnt
5
7 Post-Project Review
6
Page 2 of 7
1
End Project Report History
1.1
Revision History
Revision
date
Previous
revision
date
Summary of Changes
Changes marked
First issue
1.2
Approvals
This document requires the following approvals.
Internal (Local Authority) Approval
Name
Signature
Tony Gale
(Andrew Jarvis)
Title
Date
Issue
of Version
Project Manager
(now left – n/a)
Project Sponsor
SW RIEP Approval (Sign off to be managed by RIEP Programme Manager)
Name
Signature
Title
Date
Issue
of Version
Programme Manager
Programme Board
SMT
2

Background
What were the original goals, objectives, and success criteria?
The original goal was to develop an approach which would help local authorities to deliver
better whole life value on construction projects through a balance of improved service
outcomes and long-term cost efficiencies.
The original objectives were to develop a model which would take a construction project
from initiation to the sign-off of a concept design optimising whole life value considerations;
to test this model with a pilot project; and to produce and publish a working document
comprising a Decision-Maker’s Guide and a practical guide and toolkit for Project Teams
implementing such an approach.
The success criteria were to demonstrate how local authorities could improve the
achievement of service objectives for construction projects; how they could reduce whole life
costs; and how they could achieve improved sustainability outcomes.
Page 3 of 7
3
Reasons for closure
The whole life value model has been developed and the guide (“Achieving Whole Life
Value”) has been published.
The project objectives have been met and the promised outputs have been delivered.
A limited amount of funding remains, which might be used to promote the use (and possible
further development) of the project with a wider user-base, possibly through the NIEP.
4
Project Performance

State the original aim of the project:

Did the project achieve what it set out to? Was it successful? If not, why and what
elements weren’t successful? What is the impact of this?
The original aim of the project was to provide local authorities with a means of identifying and
quantifying whole life value in construction projects, with a view to improving performance in
this area.
The project has been successful insofar as we developed and tested the model in the
context of the pilot project, with a positive response from the project team as to how valuable
they found it.
We have also published the documentation to make it available for use on other projects.
This has been reviewed by the COPROP SW Cost &Performance Management Group which
was involved in initiating the project at their meeting 8th June 2011. The Group confirmed that
the model as presented met their expectations, and that the documentation would be very
useful for use with appropriate projects. However, the recent massive cutback in capital
programmes means that there are far fewer opportunities to use these tools on new projects.
It was a matter of regret that we were unable to compare two design options on the pilot
project, as this would have enabled us to demonstrate and test the “quantification” elements
of the model more effectively, and to examine how project teams use this information to
achieve better whole life value (i.e. would they base their choice on the option
“recommended” by the Whole Life Value model? Could we demonstrate quantifiable savings,
as a result?). This aspect of the model remains untested, although we are confident that it
could be used effectively.
The model as developed only covers the initial stages of the project lifecycle. It would be
beneficial to develop and test further modules to carry through the whole life value principles
and to generate further benefits.
Page 4 of 7
Milestones Performance
How did the project perform against its forecast timescales. Complete the following table to
illustrate how the milestones were delivered.
Key Milestone
WP1 (Work Package 1) : Draft
WLV Methodology / Route Map
documentation (March 2010)
WP2 : Select Reference Group
to review the WLV Methodology
/ Route Map; collate and
analyse comments; amend draft
as appropriate (April 2010)
WP3: Identify stakeholders for
Pilot Project; Process preworkshop questionnaire;
arrange and hold Value
Management Workshop 1
(VM1); compile and publish
workshop report; review process
and outcomes with stakeholders
(June 2010, subject to
programme for pilot project)
WP4 : Arrange and hold Value
Management Workshop 2
(VM2); compile and publish
workshop report; review process
and outcomes with
stakeholders; amend draft
Framework incorporating
learning from VMs 1 and 2 (by
September 2010, subject to
programme for pilot project)
WP5 : Present amended
Framework to Reference Group;
collate and analyse comments;
present final version and
associated documentation to
SW IEP / COPROP
Construction & Asset
Management group (November
2010, subject to timetable for
previous Work Packages)
Project completion
Report to Inform Project Closure
Annual report on project* benefits delivery (as at
31/03/2011)
Forecast
date
31/03/10
30/04/10
Actual
date
31/03/10
30/04/10
Impact
Positive response from all
parties
Good response from Reference
Group – helpful changes
incorporated in documentation
Useful workshop session with
Pilot Project Team. Learning
points incorporated in
documentation.
30/06/10
30/09/10
30/06/10
30/09/10
30/11/10
08/06/11
31/12/10
31/01/11
Mid April
11 date TBA
15/07/11
15/07/11
Less effective workshop (key
participants not available), but
useful test of model. Substantial
work to produce “user-friendly”
final version of documentation.
Significantly delayed by
dissolution of SW IEP /
COPROP Construction & Asset
Management group and nonavailability of Cost &
Performance Management
Group until June 2011.
Follows late completion of WP5
As above
n/a
Page 5 of 7
Outputs
On time
List each output delivered
Develop WLV model
Publish “Achieving Whole
Life Value” guide
√
√
Was the output delivered
To agreed quality
Within budget
√
√
√
√
Outcomes

List the outcomes that can be assessed at this stage. (Others will be assessed at the
Post Project Implementation Review).
For the reasons stated above, we are unable to point to any quantifiable “outcome”
benefits. We continue to believe that there are substantial benefits to be gained from
using the model, but unless and until authorities choose to do so, this remains as
untapped potential.

What benefits have been achieved?
Value for Money (i.e. on-going year on year savings)
Non cashable savings (i.e one off financial savings)
Performance improvements – model available for use, significant potential for improvements
in process, outputs and outcomes related to capital projects.

Is the project on track to deliver the remaining planned outcomes? If not, why not? What
is the impact of this to the RIEP priorities?
Scale of benefits massively reduced by major cut-backs in capital programmes, but
potential remains “proportionately” as before.
5
Risk Analysis
Closing Project Risk Register / Handing over open risks

Are all the Risks identified on the Risk Register/Log/Template closed? Yes

For those that are not, have owners been identified actions to manage into the future?
n/a

Have those risks that may affect the operational use of the outputs been articulated?
Yes (see above)
Assessment of risk capture

Did any risks arise that had not been captured? If yes, why? What was the impact?
o Prof John Kelly (WLV consultant, key member of project team) was unavailable
due to health problems in the early part of 2010. He arranged for suitable
“back-filling” during his absence, which worked effectively
o There were important “absences” from the second workshop with the pilot
project team. The Gloucestershire CYPS rep was unavailable due to
Page 6 of 7
restructuring issues, and a key client member (parent representative) from the
school pulled out at the last moment. This diminished the effectiveness of the
workshop.
6
Lessons Learnt

What went well?
o Development and testing of WLV model
o Consultation with the Reference Group
o Production of the documentation

What did not go so well?
o Decision of pilot project team not to go with “Option Appraisal” (ie early choice
to adopt one option)
o Key players absent from second workshop
o Lack of opportunity to test model on further projects, to date

What was lacking?
o Full commitment of all parties to pilot project
o Availability of second pilot project (as originally intended) to compare and
contrast
o Involvement of SW IEP Construction & Asset Management team in later stages
of the project, due to close-down of programme
Page 7 of 7