6  Criteria for assessment of proposals

6.1  Introduction

This section sets out each aspect of the criteria to enable proponents of initiatives to provide sufficient information for Cabinet to make the necessary judgements on investment potential.

Differing levels of detail will be required to support the submission dependent on the phase or stage of the initiative. For example, initiatives seeking funding for implementation will need to provide detailed proposals whereas an initiative seeking funding for a business case will need to provide sufficient information to provide confidence in the project's ability to deliver.

The criteria for assessment are:

1. Alignment with the Government’s Objectives.

2. Reach across the State Sector.

3. Return on Investment.

4. Robustness of Governance and Project Management.

5. Assessment of Risk.

6.2  Alignment with the Government’s objectives

The Government has set out six policy drivers for meeting its economic objectives:

• Regulatory Reform.
• Investment in Infrastructure.
• Better, Smarter Public Services for Less.
• Education and Skills.
• Innovation and Business Assistance.
• A World-Class Tax System.

Submissions are to set out the contribution the proposal seeks to make delivering Better Public Services.

While the CAIP is chiefly a mechanism to assist the Government in delivering better public services, submissions should, where appropriate, set out the likely contribution of the initiative to assisting the Government meet its other objectives.

6.3  Reach across the State Sector

Submissions are to address three main areas under this criterion:

• extent of AOG or cross agency coverage
• ability to transfer benefits across the State Sector
• ability to leverage current best practice capability
• evidence of little or no overlap with other initiatives.

Submissions are to provide an explanation of the extent of coverage, the spread of agencies to be involved and nature of the coverage. Detail of support and consultation arrangements are to be covered in response to Criterion 4 - Robustness of Governance and Project Management.

Where a submission is proposing that cross agency coverage but not AOG coverage it is to provide an explanation of the rationale behind that approach, and any evidence of the initiatives ability to transfer benefits across the State Sector. The submission should show how collaboration leverages best practice capability that exists within the State Sector.

Submissions are to provide evidence that the initiative is not going to duplicate another project or current State Sector capability. If any overlap or duplication is identified, the submission is to set out why the initiative should be considered.

6.4  Return on Investment

Submissions are to address the following:

• funding being sought
• support and contributions
• type and mix of returns - savings, service improvement
• ability to reap the return - savings, service improvement
• timing of funding and returns - short, medium or long term - and where the returns will be placed.

Submissions are to provide a financial proposal which outlines the full estimated costs and benefits of the initiative[1]. Where the submission is only seeking funding for a phase/s or stage/s (eg, business case, benchmarking) the financial proposal is to:

• identify the full costs, including (staff, contractors, etc)
• any contributions to the project (staff costs, in-kind costs, etc)
• where the contributions arise (eg, name of agencies), and
• the net funding requirement for the relevant phase/s or stage/s.

The submission is to identify the initiatives ability to leverage current best practice, including what, where and who demonstrates current best practice. This section should also set out how the initiative will take advantage of the best practice, eg, is it scalable or replicable, and at what marginal cost?

The submission is to also set out the expected returns on investment including the type and mix of returns (ie, savings, service improvements, etc), and the ability to actually reap those returns. This latter aspect is important to establishing the viability of potential investment.

Lastly, the submission is to provide estimates of the timing of the funding requirement - eg, single investment or schedule of investment, and the timing of returns - when, where and how they will be identified.

An outline of the basic financial information required is at Annex 3.

6.5  Robustness of Governance and Project Management

Submissions are to provide evidence that there is a robust governance structure for the initiative.

Submissions should also set out the proposed approach to project management including, where applicable, the proposed methodology (eg, Prince2). An outline of the major components should be included.

Further, submissions should set out the processes already undertaken to garner support for the initiative and also any consultations undertaken and outcomes from those consultations. This may take the form of an attached table of agencies agreeing to participate and the level of their involvement and/or a table of consultations (including nature of consultation).

6.6  Assessment of Risk

Submissions are to provide a summary of the risk assessment for the initiative covering the level of risk, and the ability to mitigate the risks identified. Submissions should also reference the risk methodology to be employed by the project, including where relevant the International Standard on Risk Management (AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009).

Issues of relevance may include:

• Strategic Risks - external impact, stakeholder engagement and support, requirements for legislative change.
• Scope and Complexity Risks - size, spread of activity and stakeholder population, level of costs, level of innovation.
• Capability and Approach Risks - maturity of approach, methodology to be used, track record in delivery of projects, availability and complexity of skills required and availability of skilled resources.