New Zealand Disability Strategy Implementation Review 2001-2007
Review risks
| Methodological risks | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Outcomes to be measured are unlikely to emerge within the timeframe of the review | Clearly define outcomes to be reported on and/ or change the timing of the review |
| Method-specific risk (i.e. various risks to each evaluation method used) | Use of advisory group to peer review methodologies |
| Resource risks | Mitigation |
| Inadequate resources are available to conduct the review as planned | Identify likely level of resource availability and align review plan accordingly Ongoing planning to secure necessary resources for the 10-year review As a contingency, undertake a prioritisation exercise to agree essential and possible deliverables from the 10-year review if resources become limited |
| Data risks | Mitigation |
| Key indicator data not collected or not collected in a consistent and usable way (e.g. limited collection of key statistics on outcomes for disabled people) | Review outcomes framework and associated indicators to agree critical data sources for 10-year review Consult with key agencies to identify current data collection on disabled people Agree ongoing data collection and release for annual reporting and 10-year review Negotiate with key agencies to systematically collect and release key indicator data for the review Ongoing review of data availability, quality and comparability over time |
| Post-census Disability Survey is not conducted in 2011 | Advocate to ensure it continues |
| Delayed release of post-census Disability Survey data | 10-year review conducted in mid 2012 to align with the release of the 2011 post-census Disability Survey data, estimated to be mid-2012 |
| Stakeholder risks | Mitigation |
| Disabled people disengage and feel they are not partners in the 10-year review | Disseminate the suggested review plan, undertake prioritisation exercise and negotiate desired changes in consultation with disabled people Ongoing consultation with disabled people on the design, implementation, appraisal and dissemination of findings of the 10-year review. (see section 7.8.1) |
| Stakeholders have unrealistic expectations of what the review will tell them or lose interest | Agree the scope of the review Develop a communications strategy with clear messages to stakeholders through all stages of the review process |
| Stakeholders seek to influence the findings of the review | Commission a neutral and independent contractor to undertake the 10-year review |
| Project management risks | Mitigation |
| Staff transitions over the five year period | Put knowledge management strategy in place to ensure staff knowledge retained and transferred |
| Inadequate timeframe for conducting the review | Suggested that the 10-year review is conducted over a period of no less than 10 months |