NORTHERN IRELAND: THE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY UNIT
APPRAISAL,
MONITORING
AND
EVALUATION
OF
ASSISTED
PROJECTS
11. IRTU's R&D programmes form part of the Department's
range of selective financial assistance to industry in Northern
Ireland. This is an area which our predecessors examined, in detail,
on several occasions and one where the procedures for disbursing
funds are well established. We were concerned, therefore, that
the NIAO had found deficiencies in a large proportion of the projects
which it had examined.[11]
The Department told us that weaknesses previously identified by
the Committee of Public Accounts had been brought to the attention
of all the agencies in the Department and said that under its
current schemes, COMPETE and START, there has been a marked improvement
in administration.[12]
We noted, however, that the NIAO considered that there were some
aspects of the COMPETE scheme where further improvements in procedures
could be made.[13]
Project Appraisal
12. We agree with the NIAO that IRTU's control would
be strengthened in the COMPETE scheme, if all appraisal results
were reviewed by the Casework Committee. Scrutiny by the Casework
Committee is an important control and not one that we see as unnecessarily
bureaucratic.[14]
13. We note that IRTU were not properly operating
the additionality criterion in the COMPETE scheme. We were told
that IRTU has been applying additionality on a programme basis
and that this was achieving good value for money.[15]
However, as subsequently confirmed by the Department, there is
a very clear requirement to ensure, in each individual case, that
the assistance provided is the minimum necessary for the project
to go ahead.[16] Current
practice is therefore out of line with the scheme approved by
the Department of Finance and Personnel.
14. We were not convinced by the Department's claims
that they were securing good value for money through their programme
approach to additionality and our overall impression was that
IRTU could exercise more control in this area. Although they told
us that the average level of assistance offered under the COMPETE
scheme had dropped to 35 per cent in 1996-97, this level remains
close to the maximum of 40 per cent.[17]
Given that IRTU's funds are limited, we consider it particularly
important to apply the additionality criterion in every case,
including smaller projects. We recognise, however, that the approach
adopted by IRTU may vary according to the size of the project
involved, but we would normally expect, in those cases where amounts
are more substantial, that IRTU would enter into negotiations
with companies to ensure that the assistance offered is the minimum
necessary.[18]
Project Monitoring and Evaluation
15. It is a condition of assistance that companies
must submit a report on the progress of their projects at six-monthly
intervals. NIAO examined 10 projects to assess the extent and
quality of IRTU's monitoring and found that, in seven cases, there
were deficiencies. Overall, IRTU had received only 28 out of 43
reports due. In some cases, reports were very brief and did not
cover aspects such as costs, timetabling or the degree of technical
progress against plans. In addition, IRTU had not been carrying
out post-completion project evaluations, as required, under its
former S&T scheme.[19]
16. We were surprised at the weaknesses revealed
in the NIAO report. The Department accepted that control over
monitoring and evaluation had not been satisfactory but told us
that, since the NIAO report, a new computerised system had been
introduced which prompts monitoring and evaluation reports and
the issue of reminders. Monitoring reports now follow a prescribed
format which directly addresses progress being made against agreed
targets and milestones, while evaluation reports now describe
in detail the extent to which technical and commercial targets
have been achieved and the benefits which have accrued from the
assistance provided.[20]
The Department also said that payments of grant are now tied directly
to the submission by companies of monitoring and evaluation reports.[21]
Conclusions
17. We recommend that the results of all appraisal
work in the COMPETE scheme be referred to the IRTU Casework Committee
before any offer is approved.
18. We were concerned that IRTU were not properly
operating the additionality criterion in the COMPETE scheme. The
Department told us that this scheme has developed in such a way
that additionality is only addressed at programme level. However,
it is our view that value for money cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated
unless IRTU has attempted to ensure, in each individual case,
that the assistance provided is the minimum necessary for the
project to go ahead. The Department has accepted that, in this
respect, practice has been out of line with the scheme approved
by the Department of Finance and Personnel. This is not acceptable.
19. We expect that, in future, IRTU will seek to
minimise the assistance provided in every project and that case
papers will contain sufficient evidence and explanation to show
how the level of assistance being offered has been determined.
With a more effective application
of the additionality criterion, we would expect the
average level of assistance offered to continue to fall.
20. We were surprised at the weaknesses in IRTU's
monitoring and evaluation of projects. However, we welcome the
improvements which have now been introduced. We note that a number
of the shortcomings reported by the NIAO arose from a failure
by IRTU to apply the procedures which previously existed. It is
important, therefore, that IRTU ensures that their new monitoring
and evaluation system is fully and consistently applied.
11 C&AG (NI)'s Report paragraphs 2.9-2.13. Q 68 Back
12 Qs
2, 79 Back
1 13 3C&AG
(NI)'s Report paragraph 2.14 Back
14 C&AG
(NI)'s Report paragraph 2.15. Qs10-11 Back
15 C&AG
(NI)'s Report paragraph 2.16. Qs 3-4, 12, 30-32, 62-64 Back
16 Evidence,
Appendix 2, p 11-12 Back
17 Qs
33-35 Back
18 Q
63 Back
19 C&AG
(NI)'s Report paragraphs 2.21-2.26 Back
20 Qs
35-38, 43. Evidence, Appendix 1, p 10-11 Back
21 Qs
75-77 Back
| 
