Many governing bodies have the power to approve all projects with a value greater than a certain level - £3m, for instance. In estates and infrastructure, this is a low financial threshold. Such powers may be delegated, but that may simply shift the locus of decision making rather than ensuring effective project procurement. In areas such as estates and infrastructure, significant resources will be committed to projects, and the risk of things going wrong is high.
The power to approve projects is entirely understandable in terms of ensuring that the governing body can execute its responsibilities, but it is not without problems. For example, is it just adequate for a governing body to approve a list of projects? If the answer is (an unsurprising) 'no', then the question is how much detail should be provided to meet the spirit of the power. The danger as ever is that the further the scope is extended, the more approval and monitoring may impinge on the timely initiation and completion of a project, and the greater the risk that the governing body will effectively become involved in management.
The key to finding a balance in such matters lies in ensuring that robust project management procedures exist in which the governing body has confidence. Such procedures will reflect the institutional approach to risk management.
The HEFCE Capital Investment Framework (CIF) was designed to encourage a more strategic approach to infrastructure planning and capital investment, while reducing the amount of regulation. The second CIF is now under way.
More information [PDF, 32kb]