Project Governance: from data to recommendations to action or inaction

Project Description

Major projects in the public sector produce large quantities of data, and are subjected to regular reviews which commonly produce well-documented recommendations intended to improve performance. But those recommendations are not always followed. To seek to understand this, the study aims to answer the question “How are review recommendations formulated and why are they not always followed?” It also hopes also secondarily to start addressing “How does the use of data (supplied or reviewers’ own data) to frame recommendations lead to action or inaction by the project team?”
The project takes the opportunity to have a first-cut analysis of a major UK Government data-base of quarterly reports and gateway review recommendations of many of the UK’s most significant publicly funded projects. It aims to examine the actual practice of governance; and understand how recommendations are framed, the use of data, and the actions (or inaction) taken in response.

The heart of the study would be a textual analysis of the database, where possible identifying the basis of recommendations, such as data on which recommendations are based, the views taken of that data or the ways in which data are interpreted. It would then compare recommendations with the changes in performance reported in the data-base. Where actions do not seem aligned with the recommendations, reasons will be sought both within the data-base and by external sources, in particular face-to-face interviews with project team members. The aim of the study then will be to establish multiple vignettes, almost mini-case studies, with as much phenomenological analysis of each.

In analysing the data, and trying to understand people’s reactions (or lack of) to recommendations, the “lens” of various existing social theories will be tried to see whether they supply further insight