About Us

The word “assurance” means different things to different people, depending on the field of interest. In the world of projects and programmes it certainly has a range of meanings. For some, it’s all about achieving quality, for others it’s about being sure that what they are told is correct, whilst for many it’s about being confident that ‘things are under control’.

The variety of meanings are reflected in the manifold ways of getting assurance over projects and programmes, including: quality assurance, safety audits, Gateway reviews, independent engineer reviews, internal audits, project audits, contract audits, external audits, peer reviews, Control Self Assurance, etc.

 The question is: are all of these types of assurance actually all trying to do the same thing, the only difference between them being the perspective of the practitioner?

 If they are all trying to do the same thing, how can we avoid inefficient overlap? Assuming that each type of assurance provides valuable insight and control from its own perspective:

 -           how can we realise the best combination on any particular project or programme;

 -           how can we mitigate the risks of them missing important aspects or of (heaven forbid!) contradicting each other;

 -           should the overall assurance picture change during the project/programme lifecycle?

 How can clients (both internal and external), SROs, project managers, etc. be confident that they will get the right assurance at the right time, and that the assurance will be clear and consistent, particularly in complex projects and programmes, and where there are significant supply chains?

 These questions are the subject matter for this SIG. We consider what each aspect of assurance is trying to achieve, how these interrelate, and how they can be linked to provide a more integrated whole.

 Our Vision

 For the SIG to become a source of best practice in the provision of effective and efficient project and programme assurance.

 Our Mission

 •   To provide a forum for exchanging ideas, sharing good practice, and developing new approaches to providing assurance;

 •   to develop standards and guidance on best practice assurance; and

 •   to promote use of best practice approaches to assurance.

Printer Friendly Page