Paper 4 Internal Audit Report Project Initiation Process Cover

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee Paper 4 13 March 2026 Page 1 of 3

For decision

Title: Intern­al audit plan ²⁰²⁵⁄₂₆: Pro­ject initiation

Cov­er Paper: Louise Allen, Head of Fin­ance and Cor­por­ate Operations

Report sub­mit­ted by: Peter Clark, Scott McCready, wbg

Pur­pose

This paper presents the Intern­al Auditor’s review of the imple­ment­a­tion of the Park Authority’s pro­ject ini­ti­ation pro­ced­ures and was con­duc­ted as part of the agreed plan of work for 2025 – 26 (Annex 1). The pur­pose of this review was: a) to assess wheth­er the pro­cess is work­ing as anti­cip­ated, is being com­plied with and rep­res­ents an appro­pri­ate level of con­trol, and b) to assess wheth­er fund­ing con­di­tions are being met.

Recom­mend­a­tions

The Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee is asked to a) Con­sider the intern­al aud­it­ors report and find­ings. b) Endorse the man­age­ment responses to recom­mend­a­tions for future action and improvements.

Exec­ut­ive Summary

1. Wbg have com­pleted their intern­al audit review of the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Authority’s pro­ject ini­ti­ation procedures.
2. Sev­en con­trol object­ives were audited: a) Roles and respons­ib­il­it­ies for pro­ject man­age­ment are clearly defined, and key staff are aware of their spe­cif­ic roles b) Cri­ter­ia are in place to ensure key pro­ject decisions are fully informed at the out­set, includ­ing scope defin­i­tion, budget­ing and risk man­age­ment c) Decisions made are timely and at an appro­pri­ate level

Page 2 of 3

d) Pro­ject out­comes and when bene­fits will be real­ised are iden­ti­fied at the out­set. These are meas­ur­able and pro­gress against these are repor­ted on, at agreed levels e) Iden­ti­fied pro­jects com­ply with reg­u­lat­ory require­ments, any fund­ing require­ments and align with the stra­tegic object­ives of the Organ­isa­tion f) The Organ­isa­tion review pro­cure­ment plan­ning and com­pli­ance with pub­lic pro­cure­ment reg­u­la­tions, includ­ing early engage­ment of pro­cure­ment and adher­ence to pro­cure­ment thresholds g) The pro­ject con­trol sys­tem is being adhered to.

1. A sub­stan­tial level of assur­ance was provided in rela­tion to the pro­ject ini­ti­ation pro­cess. In addi­tion, sev­er­al areas of good prac­tice were identified:

The fol­low­ing is a list of areas where the Organ­isa­tion is oper­at­ing effect­ively and fol­low­ing good practice.

1. The roles and respons­ib­il­it­ies of those involved in the Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Pro­cess are clearly defined in the Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Process.
2. The Organ­isa­tion has a clear, defined Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Pro­cess doc­u­ment, set­ting out the approach to be fol­lowed at pro­ject con­cep­tion and incep­tion, and the con­sid­er­a­tions to be made through­out this process.
3. After ini­ti­ation, pro­jects are man­aged and mon­itored by the Pro­ject Lead and the Pro­gramme Managers.
4. The Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Pro­cess involves two stages of approv­al. This involves approv­ing the ini­tial idea of the pro­ject, before mov­ing on to a detailed scop­ing stage for the Head of Service’s approval.
5. The pro­cess requires that pro­ject out­puts and deliv­er­ables are con­sidered before pro­ject approv­al, and that these are defined with­in scop­ing documentation.
6. The Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Pro­cess suit­ably con­siders reg­u­lat­ory require­ments, fund­ing require­ments and align­ment to stra­tegic object­ives through­out Stages One and Two.

7. Pro­cure­ment is a required con­sid­er­a­tion when going through the Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Pro­cess. Dis­cus­sions with the Pro­cure­ment Officer con­firmed that Pro­ject Lead­ers are enga­ging with them to seek advice and assist­ance with the pro­cure­ments poten­tially involved in their pro­jects. All planned and poten­tial pro­cure­ments are recor­ded on the Pro­cure­ment Track­er by the Pro­cure­ment Officer, who noted that staff con­tact them well in advance, allow­ing for strong for­ward plan­ning and hori­zon scanning.

8. One medi­um-grade and four low-grade recom­mend­a­tions were made: i. The Park Author­ity should con­sider provid­ing train­ing ses­sions for staff most likely to be involved in the Pro­ject Ini­ti­ation Pro­cess (medi­um) ii. All sup­port­ing doc­u­ment­a­tion for pro­ject ini­ti­ation pro­pos­als should be linked to the pro­ject track­er (low)

Page 3 of 3

iii. The Park Authority should define clearly the level of detail expected at each stage of the Project Initiation Process (low)
iv. Required timeframes for implemented for the completion of the various project initiation steps (low)
v. The Authority should define clearly what levels of activity it would expect to be classed as a 'project' (low)

1. The Intern­al Aud­it­or also made obser­va­tions around the func­tion­al­ity of the track­er and the small sample size of items avail­able for review.
2. The recom­mend­a­tions made were accep­ted by management.

Louise Allen 02 March 2026 louiseallen@​cairngorms.​co.​uk