This page relates to the 2018-21 National Land Transport Programme.
The assessment of the business case is to provide assurance to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency that a robust process underlies the case and the principles of the business case approach have been applied to the appropriate degree.
Waka Kotahi assesses the business cases for proposed investments at various investment decision points during their development, eg after the strategic case is completed, when support for the strategic case and funding for developing a programme or detailed business case is being sought.
At each investment decision point an assessment is undertaken before the investment proposal progresses to assessment and prioritisation under the Waka Kotahi Investment Assessment Framework (IAF).
The assessment of the business case consists of a set of questions specific to the type of activity, ie whether it is an improvement activity, maintenance programme, public transport services programme or promotion of road safety and demand management programme or activity. The questions are listed below by each type.
Each of the following questions is rated on a 0 to 3 scale (zero being unacceptable, 3 being robust/advanced). An overall rating of pass, rework or fail is given. While the individual question ratings inform the overall rating, it is not a mechanical summing of the scores. Rather, it requires use of judgement to assess the how critical the questions and ratings are to the case being assessed and its context.
Strategic case (context)
Strategic alignment
What consideration has been given to progressing government priorities, regional priorities, the One Network Road Classification (ONRC) outcomes and measures? How do the strategic drivers align to the Long-Term View?
Strategic direction
What issues additional to the national (GPS) and regional priorities need to be addressed in managing the network?
Problem identification (current state)
For the issues identified above, does the business case documentation provide evidence to indicate the scale of the problem, or opportunity, and give some indication of the relative importance and urgency of the issues?
Objectives (benefits (outcomes) / key performance indicators) : identified & reasonable
What benefits and performance measures, at a network level related to the maintenance programme, have been identified and are they reasonable?
Programme case (context)
Core programme
For the programme as a whole and for each of the work category bids, is there sufficient evidence to show the programme has been optimised for both the mix and timing of interventions, and is there an appropriate procurement approach to deliver value for money in the short, medium and long term?
Enhanced programme
Where funding is sought above the core orogramme level, the investment partner will need to demonstrate the rationale and evidence of the value proposition for the enhanced funding request.
Alignment of programme expenditure
How well are planning documents aligned to the core programme (and any associated funding applications) in TIO?
Commercial case (procurement context)
Smart buyer
What, if any, emerging procurement-related issues and opportunities or outstanding issues have been identified?
Management case (delivery and performance)
Integration / Partnering
How well is the delivery of the proposed programme and related activities aligned and integrated?
Performance management
What is the confidence that the programme can be delivered and risks managed?
Confidence in delivery / risk management
What is the confidence that the programme can be delivered and risks managed?
CloseEach of the following questions is rated on a 0 to 3 scale (zero being unacceptable, 3 being robust/advanced). An overall rating of pass, rework or fail is given. While the individual question ratings inform the overall rating, it is not a mechanical summing of the scores. Rather, it requires use of judgement to assess the how critical the questions and ratings are to the case being assessed and its context.
Strategic case (context)
Strategic alignment
What consideration has been given to alignment with regional and government priorities and results for public transport?
Strategic direction
What trends and demand across the network have been identified and what is the role public transport will play shaping this in future?
Problem identification (current state)
What problems or opportunities are currently being addressed through the existing service level provision and supporting amenities?
Problem identification (future state)
What, if any, emerging issues have been identified in which public transport can be part of the solution?
Objectives (benefits (outcomes) / key performance indicators) : identified & reasonable
What benefits and key performance indicators at a network level related to the continuous programme have been identified and are they reasonable?
Programme case (context)
Options
What consideration has been given to options (eg through a network review or optimisation assessment)?
Robust, fit for purpose forward programme
What is the evidence that the proposed future programme will appropriately address the problems and opportunities identified and deliver the expected benefits?
Alignment of programme expenditure
How well are planning documents aligned to the core programme (and any associated funding applications) in Transport Investment Online (TIO)?
Programme type identification
How has the investment required for the core programme and any service level improvements been determined and entered into TIO?
Continuous (core) programme (cost & value for money considerations)
Specifically related to the core programme, what evidence is provided that the indicative costs for the proposed programme are both reasonable and affordable (ie deliver in terms of value for money)?
Commercial case (procurement context)
Smart, fit for purpose procurement of services
What, if any, emerging procurement related issues and opportunities or outstanding issues have been identified?
Management case (delivery and performance)
Integration / partnering
How well is the delivery of the proposed programme and related activities aligned and integrated? How does the approved organisation give effect to on-going partnering with operators providing services?
Evidence / testing of evidence
How robust is the organisation's approach to modelling / forecasting demand?
Performance management
How is performance against key performance indicators (both at the network and unit/contract level) being managed, and what evidence is available to demonstrate that benefits and key performance indicators previously identified have been achieved?
Confidence in delivery / risk management
How confident are we in the ability of the approved organisation to deliver the programme and manage any risks?
CloseEach of the following questions is rated pass, rework or fail. The individual question ratings inform the overall rating, but not in a mechanical summing of the scores. Rather, it requires use of judgement to assess the how critical the questions and ratings are to the case being assessed and its context.
Strategic case
How clear are problems that need addressing (including the cause and effect for these problems)? Provide a brief explanation.
What is the evidence available to confirm the cause and effect of the problems? Provide a brief explanation, including an assessment of whether the level of evidence is appropriate for the current stage of development.
What are the factors that determine urgency or otherwise? How much uncertainty is there?
Briefly explain whether the problems are specific to this investment or if it is (or should be) part of a broader perspective.
Briefly explain whether the benefits have been adequately defined.
Briefly explain the value of the benefits to the organisation(s) involved. Note that this should include any benefits that are relevant to the GPS results, the objectives of the organisation developing the business case, or a combination of both. Alignment with GPS results will be made separately using the results alignment IAF criteria.
Briefly explain how the specified performance measures will provide reasonable evidence that the benefits have been delivered.
Briefly explain whether the performance measures are measurable and can be attributed to the investment.
Programme case
Briefly explain the range of strategic alternatives and options that have been explored, including whether these include consideration of demand, supply and productivity responses.
Briefly explain the strategic options and alternatives that are proposed and whether there is a clear rationale for the selection of the preferred programme.
Briefly explain why the proposed alternatives and options are likely to be the most effective response to the problem.
Briefly explain whether the proposed alternatives and options are feasible.
Implementation case
Briefly explain whether a reasonable range of project options have been analysed, including an assessment of whether these are consistent with the strategic alternatives and options considered.
How clearly and fully specified is the proposed solution? Provide a brief explanation, taking all proposed business changes and assets into account.
Briefly explain why the proposed solution is the best way to respond to the problem and deliver the expected benefits.
Briefly explain whether the solution can be delivered as proposed.
CloseFor improvement activities over $1 million each question is assessed as a pass, rework, or fail.
Improvement activities over $1m:
Each question:
| Assessment | Description |
| Pass | There is evidence that a robust Business Case Approach has been followed for the question. |
| Rework | There is evidence that there has been some application of the Business Case Approach principles for this question, but in order to put a robust investment proposal forward for investment assessment, rework is required. |
| Fail | There is insufficient evidence of robust application of the Business Case Approach to enable Waka Kotahi to assess this question. |
Continuous programmes:
Each question (but not the overall proposal) is assessed on a scale of 0 to 3.
Each question:
| Assessment | Description |
| 3 | Robust / advanced (complete / fit for purpose) |
| 2 | Acceptable / balanced (minimal gaps / risks) |
| 1 | Basic requirements (recognition of some issues) |
| 0 | Significant issues |
Close
After assessing each question, Waka Kotahi will assess the overall investment proposal in its entirety. This assessment will check that the investment proposal is robust and demonstrates that the principles of the business case approach have been applied, relevant to the phase of the business case.
The outcome of the assessment of individual questions will inform and influence the overall pass, rework or fail of the investment proposal, but there is no specific number of passes required at the individual question level to determine the overall outcome of the assessment of the business case.
Assessment of the investment proposal overall:
| Assessment outcome | Improvement activities | Continuous programmes |
| Pass | The investment partner has provided a proposal that is robust and demonstrates that the principles of the Business Case Approach have been applied, relevant to the phase of the business case. | |
| Rework | Waka Kotahi considers that the investment partner needs to complete further work to robustly answer a question. | |
| Investment partners will need to complete all rework required to achieve a pass assessment, or a combination of pass and rework assessment by negotiation, before a proposal progresses to assessment under the Investment Assessment Framework. | Proposals may proceed so long as an agreed time-bound action plan is established by the investment partner (in this context, either an approved organisation or the Waka Kotahi) to address the question requirements that will ultimately lead to achieving a pass assessment. | |
| Fail | The investment partner has not provided the necessary evidence in its business case supporting the investment proposal, and has signalled that no further work is currently planned to complete the required evidence. | |
| Waka Kotahi determines that the business case is not sufficiently robust to support the investment proposal and is assessed as a fail. | ||
| The proposal does not proceed to assessment under the Investment Assessment Framework until the investment partner agrees to address the business case deficiencies, and the business case is then reassessed as a rework or pass. | Waka Kotahi may decide to progress the proposal for funding, and will define conditions and the potential funding level, if any. | |
Close
