What it is, when you need it, how it compares with the alternatives, and what it costs.
Independent programme assurance is an evidence-based assessment of whether a technology or transformation programme is on track to deliver its intended outcomes, carried out by a party with no stake in its delivery.
It answers the questions a sponsor cannot answer from inside the programme: is the status we are shown the real status, will the programme deliver what the business case promised, where is risk building that nobody has escalated, and what should we fix first.
It is a form of delivery assurance, the wider discipline of checking that change is set up to deliver. Independent programme assurance applies that discipline to a single programme or a portfolio, from outside the delivery structure, at a point where the findings can still change the outcome.
Independent assurance is established practice. UK public bodies run Gateway reviews: independent peer reviews at key stages of a programme, designed to give an objective view of its ability to deliver on time and to budget (Department of Finance NI). The Institute of Internal Auditors' Three Lines Model separates management's own oversight from independent assurance for the same reason (Journal of Accountancy, 2020). Independent programme assurance brings that discipline to private-sector technology programmes, without a framework or a large team attached.
Commission it before a decision you will have to defend: a funding gate, a go-live, a transaction, or your first board update in a new role. The value is in the warning, so the right moment is while there is still time to act on it.
| Who | Typical moment | The question they need answered |
|---|---|---|
| A newly appointed CIO or CTO (First 90 Days) | First 90 days in role | What have I inherited, and can I trust the plans and numbers? |
| CIOs running a major programme (SAP S/4HANA) | Before a gate, cutover or go-live | Is this programme going to land, and what do we fix first? |
| CFOs | Before releasing the next tranche of funding | Is this investment still on course to deliver the business case? |
| PE operating partners (Private Equity) | After acquisition, or ahead of exit | Will portfolio technology programmes deliver the EBITDA we underwrote? |
| Boards and audit committees | When a programme is material and reporting is all green | Is what we are being told what is actually happening? |
An evidence-based view of delivery health, scored across 13 delivery dimensions, and one decisive call: proceed, proceed with conditions, or fix the root cause first.
We review the artefacts you already have and run a short, targeted survey of the people doing the work.
We interview the people who know what is actually happening, including your systems integrator, who is told it is an independent review.
We score the programme, trace the root causes, and make an overall recommendation.
Prioritised actions, each with a named owner. Findings come to you before any wider distribution.
| Engagement | Deliverable | Team time (all interviewees) |
|---|---|---|
| Lite | Executive Brief | ~2–3 hours |
| Standard | Full report and heat map, with root cause analysis | ~10–15 hours |
| XL | As Standard, at double the coverage | ~20–30 hours |
| Portfolio | Portfolio heat map, plus one page per programme | Scales with the number of programmes |
Teams keep working normally throughout. There is no embedded team and no open-ended engagement. Request a sample report to see a redacted extract.
The difference is independence, not capability: every alternative below is either part of the delivery structure or has a commercial stake in what happens next.
| Independent programme assurance | Your PMO | Internal audit | Big 4 or large consultancy | Your SI's health check | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stake in the answer | None | Owns the plan it reports on | None, but outside its usual mandate | Often sells delivery to the same client | Reviewing its own work |
| When it looks | While the outcome can still change | Continuously, from inside | After the fact, on an annual cycle | When engaged | When asked |
| Makes a call on delivery | Yes: proceed, proceed with conditions, or fix first | Reports status | Tests controls and compliance | Varies | Rarely against itself |
| Typical duration | 1–8 weeks, fixed | Ongoing | Audit cycle | Typically two to three months | Varies |
| Typical cost | £20,000–£100,000, fixed | Internal cost | Internal cost | Typically £200,000–£400,000 | Varies |
Most clients use independent assurance alongside their PMO and internal audit, not instead of them. Audit tells you whether the controls held; assurance tells you whether the programme is going to land.
Independent programme assurance from Performance Radar costs £20,000 to £100,000 per programme and reports in 1 to 8 weeks, at a fixed price agreed on a one-page scope before work begins.
| Engagement | Best for | Price | Duration | Interviews |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lite — The Signal Check | “I think I have a problem but I'm not sure” | £20,000 | 1–2 weeks | 4 |
| Standard — The Full Assurance Report | “I know I have a problem: tell me the root causes and how to fix it.” Programmes spending up to £15m a year | £50,000 | 3–4 weeks | 8–13 |
| XL — Full Assurance at Scale | Programmes spending more than £15m a year, or multi-country and multi-integrator | £100,000 | 6–8 weeks | 16–26 |
| Portfolio — The Portfolio Screen | Four or more programmes, ranked on comparable evidence | 20% off any tier, from £16,000 per programme | Scales with the number of programmes | Per tier |
Fixed price on a one-page scope. We start within 5 working days of your call. Full detail and a side-by-side comparison are on Our Offerings. For private equity, a standing portfolio retainer is described on the Private Equity page.
Three real engagements, client names withheld under mutual NDA. All five are on Use Cases.
| Situation | Engagement | What changed |
|---|---|---|
| A global integrated business planning platform, three years late and $35m over budget, customised into seven divergent builds with the integrator on time-and-materials | XL, then monthly re-assessments | The programme went live across all seven operating businesses |
| A regulatory compliance programme: $25m over three years, with no documented requirements, no traceability and no audit trail | Standard, four weeks, all 13 dimensions scored | Paused, re-scoped to a minimum viable product, and restarted with new delivery partners |
| Five priority programmes all reporting green until last-minute escalations, ahead of a potential sale | Portfolio screen at Lite depth | Governance, reporting and KPIs changed before the transaction |
“Before the review, that programme was reporting green at board level.”Renato Callisto, VP Portfolio, Budgeting & Governance
An evidence-based assessment of whether a technology or transformation programme is on track to deliver its intended outcomes, carried out by a party with no stake in its delivery.
Delivery assurance is the wider discipline. Independent programme assurance applies it to a specific programme or portfolio, from outside the delivery structure.
At Performance Radar, £20,000 to £100,000 per programme at a fixed price, with 20% off any tier across four or more programmes. A comparable review from a large consultancy typically costs £200,000 to £400,000.
One to two weeks for Lite, three to four for Standard, and six to eight for XL.
Yes. The integrator is told it is an independent review and is interviewed like any other stakeholder.
No. There is no implementation, tool or follow-on engagement to sell, which is what keeps the findings independent.
Yes. We are based in London and work remotely, anywhere English is the business language.
No obligation, no sales pitch — just a conversation about whether it's the right moment to bring in an independent view.