ARC Paper 5.2 HERITAGE HORIZONS Risk Register

HER­IT­AGE HORI­ZONS RISK MAN­AGE­MENT AND RISK REGISTER

Page 1

Own­er	Risk	Impact	L	I	Pre­vent	ML	Remedi­al	MI
	Gov­ernance: the pro­gramme gov­ernance is not clearly defined as regards respons­ib­il­ity for lead­er­ship and deliv­ery of stra­tegic outcomes.	Poten­tial for cre­ation of con­flict and com­pet­i­tion between pro­gramme lead­ers and man­agers and those of oth­er organ­isa­tions and entities.	4	5	Extens­ive con­sulta­tion with part­ners through bid devel­op­ment and sub­sequently after approv­al. Estab­lish clear and agreed lines of gov­ernance and reporting.	2	Ensure clear lines of two way com­mu­nic­a­tion is in place to make early iden­ti­fic­a­tion and res­ol­u­tion of any issues possible.	2
	Gov­ernance: the focus on innov­a­tion and cre­ativ­ity in design­ing and imple­ment­ing step change solu­tions is impeded by a risk averse leadership.	Fail­ure to real­ise the object­ives around a trans­form­at­ive and innov­at­ive pro­gramme through lack of lead­er­ship will­ing­ness to embrace new ideas and innov­a­tion. Key oppor­tun­it­ies are not taken up.	4	5	Spe­cif­ic Pro­gramme Risk appet­ite will be drawn up and agreed by Pro­gramme Lead­er­ship at early phase of devel­op­ment, giv­ing clar­ity of pur­pose and clear basis for innov­a­tion and embra­cing oppor­tun­ity. Imple­ment form­al oppor­tun­ity apprais­al meth­od to fit with risk appetite.	2	Pro­gramme Board and Pro­gramme Man­ager will reg­u­larly review feed­back on pro­ject and oppor­tun­ity apprais­als to test for decisions which are con­trary to agreed risk appetite.	3

Page 2

Own­er	Risk	Impact	L	I	Pre­vent	ML	Remedi­al	MI
	Engage­ment: scale of pro­ject acts to pro­hib­it engage­ment of people and com­munit­ies where per­cep­tion is their impact will be too small to matter.	Pro­gramme fails to attract levels of engage­ment with people and com­munit­ies and does not achieve ​“People” objectives	3	5	Com­mu­nic­a­tion focus on the poten­tial dir­ect bene­fit of pro­grammes of work to people and their com­munit­ies and the mean­ing­ful con­tri­bu­tions that can be make.	2	Estab­lish effect­ive feed­back loops to gath­er, ana­lyse and respond to incid­ences of lack of expec­ted engage­ment and adverse feedback.	2
	Engage­ment: pro­pos­als to estab­lish com­munity empower­ment cut across and / or con­flict with exist­ing com­munity and wider decision mak­ing structures.	Pro­gramme pro­pos­als cre­ate con­flict with exist­ing struc­tures and pro­cesses, and gen­er­ates sig­ni­fic­ant adverse feed­back or sen­ti­ment amongst some stakeholders.	3	5	Ensure clear map­ping of exist­ing rel­ev­ant decision mak­ing struc­tures and place of empower­ment pro­pos­als with­in that. Under­take full and effect­ive con­sulta­tions dur­ing design and implementation.	2	Ensure clear and trans­par­ent con­sid­er­a­tion of feed­back received; clear ana­lys­is and pub­lic­a­tion of rationale for actions.	4
	Repu­ta­tion: high pro­file incid­ents or one off stor­ies, can have an undue influ­ence on the Programme’s wider reputation	Pro­gramme achieve­ments are lost amongst neg­at­ive pub­li­city. Resources con­sumed in man­aging neg­at­ive pub­li­city are inap­pro­pri­ate to scale of incidents.	4	4	Estab­lish and imple­ment a clear, pro­act­ive com­mu­nic­a­tions strategy which estab­lishes appro­pri­ate reflec­tion of programme’s respons­ib­il­it­ies and oper­a­tions, gives con­sist­ent responses and builds pos­it­ive image.	3	Main­tain good bal­ance of tra­di­tion­al and social media releases present­ing pos­it­ive out­comes and gen­er­at­ing pos­it­ive over­all pro­file balance.	2

Page 3

Own­er	Risk	Impact	L	I	Pre­vent	ML	Remedi­al	MI
	Part­ner­ships: key part­ner­ships are not formed or not suf­fi­ciently developed to deliv­er priorities.	Lack of clar­ity on part­ner­ship respons­ib­il­it­ies and / or lack of part­ner com­mit­ment to pro­gramme object­ives pre­vent achieve­ment of key outcomes	4	5	Estab­lish clear Memor­anda of Under­stand­ing which are author­ised at seni­or level to estab­lish part­ner­ship frame­works. Estab­lish clear deliv­ery tar­gets and part­ner con­tri­bu­tions to those.	2	Imple­ment reg­u­lar per­form­ance and deliv­ery mon­it­or­ing with early iden­ti­fic­a­tion of deliv­ery gaps and pro­cesses of remedi­al action clear and effective.	2
	Pro­gramme Man­age­ment / Fin­ance: pro­gramme deliv­ery and resource man­age­ment is not suf­fi­ciently sep­ar­ated from that of the lead applic­ant / account­able partner.	Deliv­ery and fin­an­cial man­age­ment lacks trans­par­ency and the spe­cif­ic invest­ment and bene­fits of the pro­gramme are lost	3	5	Clear design of sep­ar­ate cash and man­age­ment account­ing pro­cesses. Clear design of sep­ar­ate oper­a­tion­al and per­form­ance man­age­ment and report­ing processes.	2	Test all fin­an­cial and oper­a­tion­al report­ing to ensure there is trans­par­ency around pro­gramme man­age­ment and clear sep­ar­a­tion from the report­ing of the lead applic­ant / account­able partner.	3
	Pro­gramme Man­age­ment: COV­ID Pan­dem­ic con­tin­ues to impact on oper­a­tion­al deliv­ery possibilities	Com­mu­nic­a­tions, engage­ment and deliv­ery pos­sib­il­it­ies are lim­ited through restric­ted activ­ity and face to face contact.	4	5	Design COV­ID adapt­a­tions into all rel­ev­ant pro­ject plans.	3	Mon­it­or pro­ject impacts and use feed­back loops to inform ongo­ing adaptations.	3

Page 4

Risks Under Monitoring

The risks in this sec­tion of the risk assess­ment either have ini­tial risk scores of under 15, or 15 where impact is 3. Risks fall­ing into these risk scores will con­tin­ue to be mon­itored by man­age­ment and any escal­a­tion will require remedi­al action to be taken. At present, risks are accep­ted without the need for imme­di­ate (with­in the next 3 to 6 month peri­od) remedi­al action being taken.

Own­er	Risk	Impact	L	I	Pre­vent	ML	Remedi­al	MI
	Repu­ta­tion: the Programme’s repu­ta­tion is impacted by a small num­ber of voci­fer­ous social media opin­ion leaders	Pro­gramme achieve­ments are lost amongst neg­at­ive pub­li­city. Resources con­sumed in man­aging neg­at­ive pub­li­city are inap­pro­pri­ate to scale of incidents.	3	4	Estab­lish and imple­ment a clear, pro­act­ive social media and digit­al com­mu­nic­a­tions ele­ment of com­mu­nic­a­tions strategy.	2	Main­tain good bal­ance of tra­di­tion­al and social media releases present­ing pos­it­ive out­comes and gen­er­at­ing pos­it­ive over­all pro­file balance.	2
	Fin­an­cial stew­ard­ship: the scale of cash flow man­age­ment is too great to be man­aged by the lead partner.	Pro­gramme fail­ure as a res­ult of lack of effect­ive cash flow support.	1	5	Util­ise exper­i­ence of pre­vi­ous multi-mil­lion annu­al extern­al fund­ing sup­port in devel­op­ment of treas­ury man­age­ment and cash flow sup­port arrange­ments for programme.	1	Close cash flow mon­it­or­ing of pro­gramme and impacts on lead part­ner. Close work­ing between pro­gramme lead­ers and lead part­ner stra­tegic finance.	3

Page 5

Own­er	Risk	Impact	L	I	Pre­vent	ML	Remedi­al	MI
	Staff­ing: Recruit­ment of pro­ject staff takes longer than anti­cip­ated or is unsuccessful	Pro­gramme delays or fail­ure through lack of staff resources	2	5	Util­ise exper­i­ence of lead part­ner HR and recruit­ment staff. Advance plan­ning of recruit­ment plans and timetables.	1	Agree con­tin­gency plans for instances of reduced recruit­ment interest. Agree scope for wider recruit­ment sup­port and advertising	2
	Fin­an­cial stew­ard­ship: match fund­ing is not secured to provide the full and expec­ted pro­gramme budget	Fail­ure to take sig­ni­fic­ant oppor­tun­it­ies tar­geted by the pro­gramme. Fail­ure to achieve sig­ni­fic­ant objectives.	3	4	Multi stage pro­cess of identi­fy­ing and con­firm­ing match fund­ing offers. Use exper­i­ence gained from sim­il­ar pri­or processes.	2	Ongo­ing man­age­ment of match fund­ing pack­age and iden­ti­fic­a­tion of any delays for quick resolution.	3