KPMG’s approach to infrastructure prioritisation for Big Cities

Following on from our previous post: Big Cities Infrastructure Prioritisation, we review KPMG’s approach to prioritising the infrastructure projects that will have the greatest impact and long-term benefit.

Our approach

The process involves working closely with the City and stakeholders to identify key goals, mandates and agendas that prioritisation needs to support. In addition to this we unpack with the City what sustainability would mean in their context over a 30 year time horizon. We will then establish a context to the prioritisation, measuring and evaluating a City’s base case and performing a needs analysis. During this time we will be collecting relevant policy statements, performance data and data on various measures of sustainability.

The result of this will be a picture of the city compared to the key goals, mandates, agendas and sustainability. The areas that need major investment will be clearly visible compared to the above agendas.

At this point we will capture the proposed project proposal data as inputs to our assessment. Data will be collected to categorise, prioritise or sequence infrastructure projects. Data may be collected from diverse sources, including project proposals, master plans, business plans and interviews. After data collection, each project will have a profile which will form the basis of the prioritisation assessment.

The three phases of evaluation

The next phase of our prioritising assessment is to evaluate the confirmed list of infrastructure projects against criteria in as 3 phased set sequence:

  • Phase 1 involves evaluating the financial and economic benefits and costs including the risk profile in the infrastructure project. It also involves a consideration of funding and financing options.
  • Phase 2 entails an assessment of Sustainability criteria against City base line performance and City-specific Sustainability needs. Results are then adjusted by weighting of infrastructure projects assessment criteria according to City context, priorities and mandates.
  • Phase 3 Thereafter an evaluation of project and programme interdependencies, locational and non-metric factors, budgetary and funding constraints, capacity constraints, and other key practicalities will be considered. This will result in proposed sequencing of infrastructure projects.

Results review and reporting

After this we will perform a results review with the client to evaluate the accuracy and sense in the prioritisation results. We will confirm the assumptions and model inputs, as well as the appropriateness of criteria measurement and weighting.

Based on discussions with city staff and stakeholders we will adjust the model to reflect the agreed inputs, perspectives and directives. The process ends with a report indicating the final prioritisation. The report will detail all key model inputs, processes and results whilst providing clear indication on reviews and decisions taken throughout the process to arrive at the final result. The report will provide a summary of the prioritisation process to be kept for record, re-evaluation, review and as supporting documentation for executive approval.

David Okwara

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Twitter Linkedin Facebook YouTube RSS