Conclusions and recommendations
The complex funding and accountability arrangements
1. Navan
had direct funding arrangements with ten organisations, including
four government departments. The lack of formal, clearly defined
lines of responsibility and of a co-ordinated approach to the
operation of the Centre created confusion. The Accounting Officer
for the Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
stated that her Department was only responsible for 2% of the
expenditure on the Navan Centre. We recommend that there should
be clear understandings between departments at the start of cross-cutting
projects such as this and responsibility for accountability arrangements
should be clearly established.
2. The financial viability
of the Centre depended crucially on revenue generated by visitors.
Because the numbers of visitors fell considerably short of forecasts
the Centre was in financial difficulties for most of its existence.
Although it was clear from an early stage that the Centre would
not be commercially viable, no one was prepared to face up to
this reality, and there was a continual drip feeding of funds
to the Centre over a number of years until it closed in 2001.
The over optimistic visitor numbers and the marketing
strategy
3. The
original forecasts of visitor numbers were grossly misleading
and were clearly based on the wrong comparators. This meant that
the Centre was always going to have an uphill struggle to survive.
There is a need to ensure, in the case of future projects, that
suitable comparators are used and that visitor forecasts are strongly
challenged to ensure that they are realistic before any decision
is taken to provide funding.
4. We were surprised
to find that when visitor numbers were below expectations, and
concerns were being expressed about the Centre's viability, that
more of an effort was not made to promote the Centre and attract
more visitors. In fact, we were amazed to find that the marketing
manager had been made redundant and the marketing strategy had
not been updated for two and a half years during a key period
for the Centre.
The unsatisfactory monitoring arrangements
5. Given
the involvement of so many funding sources for the Centre, it
is disappointing that the need for lead responsibility on the
part of one department was not recognised. As a result the monitoring
of the operation of the Navan Centre was totally unsatisfactory.
It is a cause for some concern that there was no formally agreed
protocol established between departments on Accounting Officer
responsibility for the Centre.
6.
There should have been a clear and formal understanding of the
business relationship between the lead department and the Centre.
The absence of such an understanding meant that, for example,
for much of its life no department was carrying out a regular
and detailed review of the underlying trading performance of the
Centre.
| 
