Guidance

Capacity Analysis Tool for Housing and Regeneration

Published 2 November 2023

1. Purpose

This is a self-evaluation tool designed to help identify the skills and capacity of an organisation, and steps that can be taken to improve performance.

Note: This is for internal use and not part of any funding regime. Completion is not linked to any funding opportunities.

2. Structure

The tool evaluates organisational capacity and capability for delivery aligned to the following two lenses:

• Corporate: To identify and understand corporate maturity in terms of capability to support programme delivery
• Project: Understanding property-led opportunities and projects, and potential to achieve transformative regeneration.

3. How to use this tool

To complete follow the steps below:

Read the statements for each theme, and determine if the score for each statement (from 1 to 4) align with your current organisational capacity.

Use your score for each theme (or the average score if being used by multiple individuals at once) and map against the tangible actions and top tips that align with that score in order to improve capacity and maturity.

Save your score for the next time you wish to use the tool, in order to be able to track organisational improvement.

4. Self- Evaluation: Corporate and Project Maturity

5. Strategy and Vision

Score 1: A housing or regeneration strategy does not exist - and if it does, it doesn’t provide vision and clarity for the project/programme.

Score 2: Housing or regeneration strategy outlines programme objectives but does not feed directly into project/programme documentation. Project or programme mandate is unclear.

Score 3: The Project Initiation Document flows from the objectives in the housing or regeneration strategy. Project mandate, scope and brief are all aligned.

Score 4: Direct link between delivery of benefits and strategic objectives measured by post-completion reviews. Lessons learned incorporated across all project/programmes in the organisation

Insert answer:

5.1 Top tips and tangible actions

Score 1: Review documentation to ensure that the Housing or Regeneration Strategy is explicit about intended outcomes.

Score 2: Ensure a Project Initiation Document (PID) is in place to outline the project in detail.

Score 3: Ensure the PID is a live dynamic working document with an owner and freely accessible for viewing by the project/programme team.

Score 4: Check that all component parts of the PID are fully set out, approved and updated as required Utilise a cloud based central file sharing software.

6. Organisation and Leadership

Score 1: Only a few organisational processes exist, are rarely referred to and often out of date. Results that are achieved are driven by force of character of a key (or small number of) individuals. No effective delegation to an empowered and engaged team. Little sense of cross-departmental working and team commitment.

Score 2: Leaders understand the need to update and embed processes and procedures, but this has not been done. Leaders recognise the need for cultural change, but may lack the skills or the time to deliver it. Culture of the management team is linked to a healthy organisational culture.

Score 3: Leaders are consistently clear and focused on increasing effectiveness through better processes and governance. Leaders also establish a state of readiness for the changes that delivering new homes or regeneration will create. Direct reports engaged and committed to the approach, and deliver high quality, more efficient outputs. A decrease in unexpected issues arise

Score 4: Leaders facilitate high-quality work, focus on unblocking issues and building skills, capacity and capability. Strong focus on delivering the project/programme benefits and consistent and proactive reaction to internal and external threats. Leaders give credit to the people doing the work and to their managers.

Insert Answer:

6.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Leaders to focus on role of raising performance of team. Senior managers cease to resolve problems themselves and look instead to unblock issues for others.

Score 2: Focus on culture of organisation and start to break down silos by modelling teamwork and delivering cross functional workshops or team building. Set out in writing key processes and procedures, with regular reviews.

Score 3: Author a corporate guide to how programmes and project/programmes are to be managed. Create energy around cross-functional teamwork.

Score 4: Praise and apply for awards for the team delivering new homes and/or regeneration.

7. Culture of Trust and Accountability

Score 1: No culture of trust established, which means team members are unwilling to own decisions or propose creative ideas. Staff feel undervalued, overworked and not free to make decisions. Team expect conflict and finger pointing.

Score 2: Some individuals in the team are able and willing to be accountable. Significant proportion stick to the ways things have always been done. There is a divide between those who are process orientated, and those who are not.

Score 3: Team understands their objectives and responsibilities, and celebrates success together. RACI chart created and agreed. Strong evidence of cross-departmental teamwork. Less effective members have moved on. Team profile is getting noticed.

Score 4: Staff consistently report satisfaction with their work. Team recognised as high-performing via robust Key Performance Indicator (KPI) methodology. High performers want to become part of the team. Stability and staff retention delivers improving capability.

Insert Answer:

7.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Identify team and individual objectives which are tied directly to programme/project plans. Live the cultural values and display model behaviours.

Score 2: Ensure regular team sessions/standup meetings take place to build sense of commitment.

Score 3: Celebrate success and ensure learning built into all assessments.

Score 4: Apply for external validation via accreditations and awards

8. Governance

Score 1: Project/programmes run through single layer team management structure. Governance lacks appropriate structure and/or terms of reference. Budget envelope ill-defined.

Score 2: Some governance structure, but irregular meetings and uncoordinated cadence of meetings of decision making boards. Programme/project managers in place but working in silos - leaning on colleagues for ad-hoc support. Senior Responsible Officer not fully authorised to make decisions. Project/programme plan created but progress is not regularly reported against key milestones.

Score 3: Calendar for board meetings set annually. Strategic, programme/project board, and a design authority in place. Meeting minutes, decisions and actions recorded, assigned and followed up. Project Initiation Document establishes clear framework for delivery. Industry standard RIBA stages and gateway reviews are used. Decision making based on real and timely data. Change control protocol established.

Score 4: Information of the appropriate level of detail flows between Boards. Difficult decisions are made for projects that are unviable, delayed or unlikely to deliver the expected benefits. Lessons learned are studied and process changes made.

Insert Answer:

8.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Establish a governance structure with clear lines of accountability and delegations at all levels of the project/programme.

Score 2: Make sure a PID is in place and used to guide the programme. Publicise a Programme Plan with milestones and gateways.

Score 3: Ensure meetings, decisions and actions are minuted and shared across the team.

Score 4: Evidence continued improvement through learning from difficult decisions.

9. Project and Programme Management

Score 1: Project/programme manager(s) lack formal skills and the capacity to run the programme effectively. Project/programme control is limited, typically only by line manager or Head of Service. Lack of core cross-functional team awareness.

Score 2: Project/programme manager has the necessary skills and experience. Key processes are documented but less than 100% adherence. Sporadic governance meetings and inadequate clarity of decision-making processes. Cross-functional team in place.

Score 3: All processes are configured around established project management methodology held in a central accessible location. Project/Programme Management Office (PMO) established to track and report progress, control information management, lead financial accounting, track risks and issues, and ensure quality controls and change management processes are embedded.

Score 4: All processes managed with measures of both quality and quantity. Continuous improvement through lessons learned and peer reviews, and applied consistently across the organisation. Appropriate authority vested in expert project/programme managers.

Insert Answer:

9.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Use an agreed project management methodology. Document, agree and regularly review all key processes.

Score 2: Develop a cohort of skilled Project Managers. Implement a PMO.

Score 3: Develop project/programme based scorecards.

Score 4: Identify and commit to appropriate governance structure with agreed terms of reference.

10. Performance Measurement

Score 1: Reporting is inaccurate, untrusted and irregular. Reports not sufficiently detailed and/or delayed and not used to drive decisions. Individuals entrusted with a large capital budget with limited/no control. No KPI’s in place.

Score 2: Basic financial measures are available at close of reporting period, but not all costs fully accounted for. Incomplete data leads to erroneous decisions. Communication on performance between project/programme managers and finance staff in place. Occasional disagreement with regards to actual financial position. Some measurements on time/cost/quality are collected/reported but not all.

Score 3: Appropriate suite of KPI’s is used to manage and measure the performance of the project/programme. Business case sets out the expected benefits and outcomes, and how they will be measured. Analysis of stakeholder satisfaction is a key factor when planning new prokect/programmes.

Score 4: KPI’s directly linked to the success of the whole organisation. Post-project evaluations take place with stakeholders, occupants, residents and team members. Actions taken and lessons learned embedded into future projects/programmes.

Insert Answer:

10.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Review both systems and processes for collecting financial and other data and amend as necessary.

Score 2: Identify a suite of performance data to drive the project/programme and ensure all understand the purpose and importance. Agree a template reporting format.

Score 3: Structure project/programme meetings to review data and drive decisions. Ensure clear lines of delegated authority are in place, allied with appropriate change control measures.

Score 4: Consider investment in systems that provide real time data.

11. Quality Management

Score 1: Quality standards are an ambition; no real checks made. No consistency or learning from experience.

Score 2: A set of employer’s requirements (ER) may exist but with limited focus on impact of time, cost and quality. Changes made unilaterally by project/programme managers to meet budgetary constraints. Compliance with ER’s is unenforced or monitored. Little or no change control in practice.

Score 3: Individuals responsible follow procedures and processes are clearly understood. Quality standards are prepared but limited checks made. Project reviews held, but lessons learned not implemented fully.

Score 4: All members of project/programme team - including elected members - take shared responsibility to ensure quality of deliverables. Quality standards table is prepared and all have a minimum required standard. Quality checks are carried out to ensure every deliverable is fit for purpose, meets requirements, and realises the benefits.

Insert Answer:

11.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Ensure agreed set of ERs approved in advance of project/programme start.

Score 2: Establish that the ERs reflect on time/cost/quality impacts of decisions as well as feedback from end users.

Score 3: Develop quality standards and prepare quality review documentation.

Score 4: Reviews of all quality indicators incorporated into project/programme team meetings (and update ER’s as necessary)

12. Risk and Issues Management

Score 1: Risk management, if carried out, is a superficial exercise and rarely reviewed. Project/programme managers avoid discussing risks and issues; lack of clarity around authority to approve mitigation plans. Risks and issues dealt with reactively

Score 2: Approved protocol of delegated authority in place. Some active risk management in place but not carried out by the whole team. Lack of clarity over risk ownership. Identified risks are usually project/programme level risks and not strategic risks.

Score 3: Risk management embedded in the project/programme using appropriate tools. Centrally held Risk and Issues Register is regularly reviewed at each board meeting and continually updated. All risks have an allocated owner.

Score 4: All risks have an allocated owner and a mitigation strategy. Risks constantly monitored, appropriately communicated and appropriate timely action taken. Informed decisions based on accurate data and appropriate controls are in place.

Insert Answer:

12.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Establish that delegated authority for decisions is in place.

Score 2: Embed risk management in governance process. Utilise risk management tools from start of project/programme.

Score 3: Identify and evaluate all potential risks, agree action plan and take actions.

Score 4: Review RAID log regularly at Project/Programme Boards.

13. Stakeholder Communications

Score 1: Sporadic and reactive consultation, often prompted by negative media or political interest. Stakeholder plan non-existent or not fit for purpose. Little or no thought to identifying all stakeholders. Limited communication results in low market confidence to invest or develop.

Score 2: Stakeholder plan in place but only superficial consultation planned. Some resident engagement, but no iterative process as designs progress. No wider communications plan to advertise Local Authority’s strategy and progress. Limited use of website and hoardings to provide updates. Limited dialogue with investors and developers.

Score 3: All stakeholders identified and a consultation and management strategy approved. Communications plan agreed with appropriate use of social media. Effective political engagement in place. Consultation over a wider area than just the immediate development

Score 4: All stakeholders identified and a consultation and management strategy approved. Communications plan agreed with appropriate use of social media. Effective political engagement in place. Consultation over a wider area than just the immediate development site. Some limited iterative consultation with residents.

Insert Answer:

13.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Map stakeholders.

Score 2: Develop multi-media communications plan and agree within project/programme team.

Score 3: Regularly review stakeholder feedback/interventions at team meetings and respond.

Score 4: Bring politicians and especially local ward councillors into proactive 2-way communications

14. Finance

Score 1: Little connection between finance and project/programme teams. Limited capacity in finance team to support project/programme. Limited ownership of financial performance. Little connection between project/programme plans and the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP) and capital strategy. Limited or no investment appraisal tools used.

Score 2: Some dedicated finance resource allocated to the project. Finance team make limited links between project and corporate financing. Financial performance and value for money considerations are not integrated in overall project/programme reporting. Non-finance staff have limited understanding of business case and financial indicators. Business planning is not suitably mature to support effective decision-making. Limited cost control even when actual/forecast project spend is over budget.

Score 3: Financial team member is available and integral to the project/programme team. Visible connection between project/programme plans and MTFP, and other financial plans. Financial data used to manage and monitor performance proactively. Finance colleagues report to boards alongside project/programme managers. Business case is reviewed at each gateway.

Score 4: Robust controls and variation process embedded across all project/programmes. Each project/programme has its own scorecard. Project/programme is embedded in finance team members’ personal objectives. Sophisticated strategy for using Local Authority financing for long-term housing and regeneration projects.

Insert Answer:

14.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Identify finance team members and allocate project/programme team objectives to them. Ensure appropriate team members are competent in business planning.

Score 2: Embed financial performance data in project and programme meetings. Agree variation process.

Score 3: Ensure stage gate reviews reconsider business case.

Score 4: Provide support and training to upskill non-financial staff.

15. Legal

Score 1: Capacity or capability (or both) to undertake housing and regeneration related legal work is lacking. Sporadic use of external suppliers. Limited use of legal frameworks. Legal costs escalate rapidly.

Score 2: Some experience in-house, although may not always be available when needed. External legal support not readily available to supplement internal team.

Score 3: Legal department resourced to deliver support at key stages. External legal support available as required. Lack of support available for strategic matters; for example CPO/site assembly.

Score 4: High level of understanding of relevant legal matters within the project/programme team. Support from legal team (internal or external) requested and received as required.

Insert Answer:

15.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Identify legal team members and allocate project/programme team objectives to them.

Score 2: If legal team lack capacity, procure external support in advance to undertake work at pressure points.

Score 3: If legal team lack capacity, procure external support in advance to undertake work at pressure points.

Score 4: N/A

16. Procurement

Score 1: Capacity or capability (or both) to undertake built-environment related procurement is lacking. Project requirements are not well-defined. Contract provides limited control and/or penalties for cost, quality or time overruns. Reporting methodology not fit for purpose. Work commences on-site with no contract in place leading to unexpected costs incurred. Unapproved vendors instructed.

Score 2: Some procurement expertise exists but may not always be available. Limited knowledge of the procurement of construction contracts. Procurement process is generally being followed in line with the programme plan. Some cost analysis performed, however negotiations with contractors are limited and robust challenge is avoided. Over/under utilisation of procurement frameworks. Contingency sums are accepted but aren’t sense checked and/or appropriate.

Score 3: Procurement colleagues are able to resource at appropriate time. Use of appropriate public procurement processes and frameworks. Contracts negotiated to include relevant KPI’s. Timing for procurement decisions is aligned with overall plan, but sometimes not delivered in practice. Consideration given to new technologies, methods and opportunities (such as Modern Methods of Construction).

Score 4: Full knowledge and utilisation of appropriate routes to market. Procurement risk is considered and managed effectively. Suppliers are monitored and poor performers are managed carefully and/or replaced.

Insert Answer:

16.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Ensure clarity on pre-agreed frameworks setting out each vendor and pricing.

Score 2: Agree absolute caps or acceptable mitigation within contracts as labour and material costs can be volatile.

Score 3: Diversify and expand approved supplier lists to reduce risk and increase bargaining power.

Score 4: Instil a robust change control process across the whole programme/project.

17. Town and Country Planning

Score 1: Dedicated planning resource is not allocated to the project or programme. Input from a Planning Officer is sporadic. Limited and mainly reactive advice given. Limited effort to link housing and regeneration ambitions with local planning strategy. Limited consideration of design quality.

Score 2: Planning resource identified but largely reactive. Not involved from inception and/or site identification stages. Planning feedback unduly unimaginative and/or pessimistic. Inconsistent approach to design input and advice across one or more projects.

Score 3: Dedicated resource to the project/programme and released in part from other work. Fed back planning policy into early feasibility studies and concept designs. Separate planning officer resource ring-fenced to ensure impartiality in role as Local Planning Authority. Use of pre-application discussions for all schemes and Planning Performance Agreements for larger schemes. Design guides and expertise used with regularity.

Score 4: Capacity and timings of planning committee meetings carefully considered to allow for new schemes as well as business as usual. Applications dealt with within statutory timetable. Independent Design Review Panel set up, resourced and inputting at appropriate stages. Clear relationship between Strategic Plan and Local Plan.

Insert Answer:

17.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Ensure dedicated planning resource within the LPA and allocate project/programme team objectives to them.

Score 2: Install and develop effective Design Review Panel process.

Score 3: Encourage sharing and discussion of creative ideas to resolve challenges.

Score 4: Identify a Planning Officer to act independently to process planning applications made by the project team.

18. Sustainability and Net Zero Carbon

Score 1: Little practical application to address climate emergency. Inconsistent application of sustainability measures through built environment policies. Short-term financial pressures reduce investment in sustainability.

Score 2: Some reference within strategic documents. Renewable heating and electricity utilised. Awareness and limited introduction of Sustainable Underground Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Score 3: Whole life cost approach used. All relevant strategies lead to practical measures to address climate change. Low-carbon, high-quality urban design at forefront.

Score 4: High-quality design aligns with best practice sustainability measures. Sustainability extends beyond built assets to include infrastructure, circular economy and biodiversity. Organisation commits to both science-based decarbonisation pathways and purchasing carbon offsets.

Insert Answer:

18.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Review all relevant strategy documents to include sustainability aspirations and understand cost and other implications.

Score 2: Embody sustainability approach into Project Brief, ERs and KPIs.

Score 3: Ensure procurement process identifies contractor suitability/track record. Develop customer focused guide to use of buildings.

Score 4: Carry out reviews of customer experience and implement lessons learnt.

19. Site Readiness and Pipeline

Score 1: No centrally agreed and resourced site list. Sites identified on ad-hoc basis. Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) not regularly maintained and updated. Little or no technical or legal due diligence carried out.

Score 2: Single list of potential sites exists. Basic information held, mostly viewed using online mapping tools. Sites being progressed without empirical assessment of priority. Some leaseholders and freeholders identified. Limited due diligence carried out.

Score 3: Sites reviewed by cross-departmental team, all sites visited, photographed and brief summary reports prepared. Tools used to analyse and compare each site to prioritise the pipeline list. Legal and technical due diligence carried out on preferred sites (including some contingency sites). All affected occupiers and owners correctly identified.

Score 4: Prioritised schedule of sites approved. Feasibility and/or massing studies concluded. Where relevant secure cabinet approval to the principle of progressing CPOs. Pre-application discussions held and supportive reports received. Site assembly progressed to maximise potential opportunities in a timely manner. Budget approved to purchase unexpected sites that become available.

Insert Answer:

19.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Use collective knowledge to identify all potential sites. Visit sites with cross-departmental, multi-disciplinary team.

Score 2: Review site potential, allied with any risks or issues, to create a prioritised list.

Score 3: Share and gain support for pipeline list, especially with politicians and other key stakeholders.

Score 4: Continue to horizon scan funding sources.

20. Housing Development and Delivery Track Record

Score 1: Some small scale developments developed in an ad-hoc way and without a multi-skilled team. Lack of clarity about client role and skillset. Total build cost per square metre (excluding abnormal costs) vary considerably from one project to another.

Score 2: Some new build schemes have been completed or are underway. The team is under resourced. Project managers have the required skillset but lead too many projects. Costs have a tendency to overrun.

Score 3: The team has a track record and a pipeline of projects. Staff are experienced in project, programme and client management, although issues over pace and cost still occur.

Score 4: Progress and quality standards are monitored regularly and carefully. Effective change and cost control in place. Confident team looking for opportunities to maximise impact. Organisation is well-regarded as a leader in their locality.

Insert Answer:

20.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Develop a team with skilled key representatives from each department.

Score 2: Utilise appropriate governance tools and structure. Identify potential pipeline.

Score 3: Build outline business case for approval.

Score 4: Ensure project forms part of the team members personal objectives.

21. Development through Partnerships

Score 1: Limited knowledge of the benefits and process of partnering by members and offices. Little or no governance in place for the partnership. Lack of trust and conflicts of interest between partners leading to limited transparency. Power imbalance skews focus of projects away from original aims. Business partners remain too focused on short-term financial gain.

Score 2: Recognition that delivering projects and programmes requires coordination with partners but limited clarity on roles and responsibilities. Only tentative links have been made between seemingly disparate projects/areas. Partnership agreement not concluded. Partners start to look long-term and recognise the benefits of aligning their interests.

Score 3: Leadership by those with most relevant skills and experience rather than the largest partner. Resources are often committed over timescales that are too short to deliver realistic and lasting change. Civic leaders/project champions prioritise partnership outcomes and create confidence in vision, strategy and delivery of the action plan. Project, management and advisory boards are set up as appropriate and regular communications delivered to all partners. Appropriate partnering agreements and legally binding contracts are agreed and in force.

Score 4: Organisation is identified by senior level commitment, a partnering mindset and skillset. Ongoing collaborative relationship among partners who are all sufficiently experienced and empowered within their respective roles. Different stakeholders have aligned interests around a common vision and share resources, competencies and risk. Projects seek to maximise value creation and deliver benefits to all partners.

Insert Answer:

21.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Identify great personal leadership: brave, risk-taking people able to operate in ambiguous situations while remaining outcome-focused. Spend time identifying institutional blockages to partnering and put mitigation plans in place.

Score 2: Develop a shared clear vision, strategy and action plan. Agree and approve Partnering Agreement that sets out the principles, values, mechanism for resolving conflicts and expected behaviours to which all partners commit.

Score 3: Facilitate an engagement event for potential partners to meet each other and to create new ideas and opportunities.

Score 4: Install a mechanism for partners and/or groups of interested town centre stakeholders to meet as a group.

22. Regeneration Delivery and Track Record

Score 1: Lack of strategic plan and limited co-ordinated delivery. Individual sites progress in isolation from rest of locality. Limited understanding of the varying professional disciplines required. Limited consideration of the relationship between physical interventions and economic/social benefits. Limited investment in development-enabling activities. No appreciation of complex land assembly processes.

Score 2 Strategic plan exists but only loosely defined, with no monitoring, scale or context to surrounding area. Where plans exist, often conceived on basis of deductive reasoning and not observational facts. Limited or no infrastructure planning. Timing disconnect between varying inter-related projects (especially infrastructure). Small-scale targeted investment made in enabling works/actions/

Score 3: Recognition at a senior level that regeneration is a long-term aspiration requiring co-ordinated delivery of the varying parts of the plan. Place making, planning and regeneration policies recognise trends. Regeneration plans align development priorities with business/community needs and resources. Developers begin to engage with communities, businesses and services. Business case emphasises wider benefits of regeneration.

Score 4: Integrated approach to regeneration agreed across local authority functions, businesses and communities. Regeneration focuses on people, place, environment and economy. Transport connectivity and infrastructure planning delivered in line with programme plan. Active involvement with local businesses. communities and stakeholders. Results chains linking activities and inputs with anticipated outcomes are well established.

Insert Answer:

22.1 Top Tips and Tangible Actions

Score 1: Ensure strong civic leadership and Project Champion to ensure effective and coordinated decision making. Develop critical evaluation and appraisal skills within the regeneration team. Identify and provide guidance and training on the KPIs to be monitored.

Score 2: Ensure routine data to be collected is timely, robust and shared with partners and stakeholders. Ensure complex concept & Town Centre regeneration strategies are integrated and sitting within whole town strategies.

Score 3: Critique early plans and provide feedback to promising projects on how to strengthen results chains.

Score 4: Focus on a smaller number of priority actions. Carry out town centre health checks and monitor regularly.