Ambition vs Capacity: Why Every Council Must Do a Deliverability Check
- truthaboutlocalgov
- Dec 14, 2025
- 14 min read
Across the UK, councils are setting out bold ambitions regenerating town centres, delivering net‑zero, modernising waste and highways, and digitally transforming services. Political leaders are rightly pushing for change that improves outcomes for residents. But these ambitions are unfolding against a backdrop of financial pressure and structural reform. The Local Government Association’s modelling points to a £2.3bn funding gap in 2025/26, rising to £3.9bn in 2026/27, and a £6.2bn shortfall across the next two years, driven by cost and demand pressures in social care, homelessness and SEND. Simultaneously, local government employment stands at a record low (c. 1.99m in December 2024) even as central government headcount grows, indicating capacity stress precisely where place‑based delivery is anchored.
Demand trends reinforce the urgency. Adult social care requests rose to ~2.1 million in 2023/24 around 5,700 requests per day with CQC highlighting persistent delays and unmet need across systems. In planning, recruitment difficulties are widespread (91% in 2023) and skills gaps remain in 2025, despite targeted investment, affecting readiness to deliver reform and growth.
The unavoidable question: do councils and their individual departments have the resource and capacity to deliver the ambitions they’ve promised in the next 12 months?
Why This Matters
Ambition Without Diagnosis
Local authorities are under intense pressure to deliver transformative programmes regeneration, housing, digital inclusion while managing shrinking budgets and rising demand. Yet, too often, ambitions are approved without a structured capacity-and-resource check. This isn’t just a process gap; it’s a strategic risk.
The National Audit Office (NAO) repeatedly warns that major projects fail when feasibility, governance clarity, and affordability aren’t tested early. Their reviews of local government transformation and digital programmes highlight a common theme: optimism bias at the start leads to unrealistic timelines and underestimation of resource needs. Without a diagnostic, councils risk committing to plans that cannot be delivered within the promised timeframe.
Consequences of Overcommitment
When councils overcommit, the impact is severe:
Cost escalation: Projects that start without clear capacity planning often require emergency funding later, diverting resources from statutory services.
Schedule slippage: International infrastructure studies show around 70% of major projects experience delays or overruns when delivery risks aren’t interrogated upfront.
Reputational damage: Missed milestones erode trust with residents and elected members, making future investment harder to secure.
These failures aren’t about poor ambition they’re about misalignment between aspiration and capacity. Councils need to ask:
Do we have the people, systems, and partnerships to deliver this now?
Financial Sustainability Is Systemic
The financial backdrop makes this even more urgent. Reports from the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and NAO show:
Per-person funding is lagging behind demand, especially in adult social care and children’s services.
More councils are seeking Exceptional Financial Support from government.
A rising share of budgets is consumed by social care, leaving less flexibility for discretionary projects.
This isn’t a temporary squeeze it’s structural. Without realism checks, councils risk committing to programmes that destabilise core services.
The Imperative
Whether councils run this diagnostic internally or co-deliver with an external partner, it must become a standard, mandatory step before Cabinet or Corporate Leadership Team approval. This is not about slowing ambition it’s about making ambition deliverable, protecting statutory services, and maintaining public trust.
The Strategic Approach: An Integrated Diagnostic Framework
Local government ambitions are often complex, multi‑stakeholder, and resource‑intensive. Delivering them successfully requires more than optimism it demands a structured, evidence‑based approach that interrogates feasibility before commitments harden. That’s where an Integrated Diagnostic Framework comes in.
The goal is simple yet critical:
Can we deliver what we’ve promised and if not, what needs to change?
This framework combines seven proven techniques into one practical assessment, ensuring councils move from aspiration to action with confidence.
1. Resource Mapping & Gap Analysis
Start by mapping what you have against what you need:
People: Do you have the right skills and leadership capacity? Are critical roles filled or covered by interims?
Systems: Are enabling technologies in place and stable?
Partners: Are external suppliers contracted and ready to deliver? This step is vital in a market where recruitment challenges and supplier delays are common. It highlights immediate gaps and informs resourcing decisions early.
2. Capability Maturity Assessment
Assess the organisation’s ability to deliver:
Rate governance, leadership, and delivery discipline on a maturity scale (e.g., Initial → Managed → Optimised).
Look for evidence of structured programme management, decision cadence, and benefits tracking. This helps identify systemic weaknesses that could derail delivery even if resources exist.
3. Workload & Capacity Modelling
Quantify the real workload:
Calculate FTE demand vs. supply for each ambition.
Identify headroom and flag critical posts that need interim or permanent backfill. Given local government’s record-low headcount and persistent recruitment gaps, this modelling prevents overloading teams and sets realistic timelines.
4. Financial Sustainability Review
Test financial realism:
Are budgets approved and profiled correctly?
Do they align with the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP)?
Is contingency built in for cost shocks? This step ensures ambitions don’t destabilise statutory services or trigger emergency funding requests later.
5. Governance Audit
Strong governance is non-negotiable:
Confirm SRO ownership, RACI clarity, decision rights, and PMO standards.
Check whether boards meet regularly and have escalation routes. Without governance discipline, even well-resourced projects can fail.
6. Risk & Dependency Analysis (RAIDD)
Capture and prioritise:
Risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies, and decisions.
Rate impact and likelihood; assign owners and mitigation actions. This creates transparency and prevents surprises especially for ambitions reliant on third-party approvals or funding streams.
7. Scenario-Based Stress Testing
Pressure-test resilience:
Apply best/base/worst-case scenarios (e.g., 10% cost shock, key role vacancy, supplier delay, policy change).
Adjust RAG ratings and actions based on stress-test results. This step moves the framework beyond static scoring to dynamic risk management, ensuring councils can pivot when conditions change.
Why These Seven Steps Matter
Individually, each technique adds value. Combined, they provide a 360° view of deliverability covering people, money, systems, governance, and risk. Councils that adopt this integrated approach can:
Avoid optimism bias and overcommitment.
Sequence portfolios intelligently based on capacity.
Protect statutory services while delivering transformation.
Build trust with members and residents through realistic promises.
Scoring & RAG: Turning Evidence into Action
Once the evidence is gathered, councils need a clear, objective way to translate findings into decisions. That’s where the scoring model comes in. It provides a structured approach to assess each ambition against seven critical dimensions, ensuring that optimism doesn’t override realism.
How It Works
Each ambition is scored 1–5 for every dimension:
1 = Significant concern (major gaps, unclear ownership, no contingency)
5 = Fully assured (clear KPIs, strong governance, capacity secured)
Apply weights to reflect local priorities:
Clarity & KPIs (10%) – Are goals SMART, measurable, and time-bound?
Leadership & Governance (15%) – Is there a named SRO, RACI, and decision cadence?
Skills & Capacity (20%) – Do teams have the right skills and bandwidth?
Financial Readiness (15%) – Is funding approved, profiled, and resilient?
Systems & Processes (10%) – Are enabling systems stable and integrated?
Partnerships & Dependencies (10%) – Are external partners secured and risks mitigated?
Risk & Delivery Discipline (20%) – Is there a live RAIDD log and stage-gate governance?
Calculating the Score
Multiply each dimension score by its weight.
Sum the weighted scores and convert to a percentage out of 100.
This gives a single deliverability score for each ambition.
Interpreting Results
Green (≥75) – Fully resourced and realistic; proceed with confidence.
Amber (55–74) – Partial gaps; delivery at risk without intervention.
Red (<55) – Significant gaps; ambition unlikely to succeed without major changes.
Councils can adjust thresholds to reflect their risk appetite. For example, a council facing severe financial pressure may set Green at 80+ to ensure only the most robust projects proceed.
Why This Matters
This scoring approach aligns with NAO guidance on major projects: don’t underestimate early work, skills needs, and affordability. It forces a balanced view across people, money, systems, and governance, rather than relying on headline budgets or political urgency.
Outputs
Portfolio dashboard: RAG status for all ambitions.
Radar charts: Show dimension-level strengths and weaknesses.
Action plan: For Amber and Red ambitions, specify interventions reprioritise, resource, or re-scope.
How Councils Can Apply This (2–3 Week Sprint)
The diagnostic isn’t a theoretical exercise it’s a structured, time-boxed process that councils can embed into their planning cycle. Here’s how to run it effectively:
Phase 1 Evidence & Interviews (Week 1)
This is the foundation stage. The goal is to capture reality, not assumptions.
Catalogue the 12-month ambitions: Create concise one-pagers for each ambition, detailing scope, benefits, milestones, and critical dependencies. This ensures clarity and avoids vague objectives.
Run mini-assessments:
Resource Map: Identify current staff, skills, and interim coverage.
Maturity Check: Assess governance discipline and delivery capability.
Capacity Model: Quantify FTE demand vs. supply for each ambition.
Finance Check: Validate budget approvals and contingency against the Medium-Term Financial Plan.
Governance Audit: Confirm SRO ownership, RACI clarity, and decision cadence.
RAIDD Workshop: Capture risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies, and decisions.
Document dependencies: Planning determinations, grant awards, supplier lead times. For example, planning departments report persistent recruitment and skills challenges these must be baked into timelines to avoid unrealistic delivery dates.
Phase 2 Scoring, Stress Tests, Prioritisation (Week 2)
This is where evidence becomes actionable insight.
Score each ambition across seven dimensions using the weighted model. Adjust weights for local priorities (e.g., net-zero, housing, digital transformation).
Apply stress tests:
Simulate shocks such as a 10% budget cut, loss of a critical FTE, supplier delay, or policy change.
Adjust RAG ratings where resilience is weak. This step is crucial because delays and cost risks are the norm without proactive mitigation.
Draft actions:
Reprioritise: Limit work-in-progress and resequence projects based on capacity.
Resource: Secure permanent hires or time-boxed interims for critical gaps.
Re-scope: Define a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) for ambitions that cannot be fully delivered within 12 months.
Governance upgrades: Introduce stage gates, cadence improvements, and PMO standards.
Phase 3 Playback & Decision (Week 3)
This is the decision-making stage where insight drives action.
Present a portfolio dashboard:
RAG status for each ambition.
Radar profiles showing dimension-level strengths and weaknesses.
Capacity gap bars by team or role.
Top 10 risks with owners and due dates.
Secure decisions:
Confirm start/stop/continue for each ambition.
Approve recruitment and procurement actions.
Reset timelines and phase benefits realistically.
Follow-through:
Embed monthly health checks and quarterly stress tests.
Integrate with budget and performance cycles. DLUHC’s Future Councils and LGA digital guidance stress that transformation requires whole-organisation, sustained change not one-off interventions.
How to Run the Check Internally
Running the deliverability diagnostic internally is entirely possible for councils, provided it is embedded into governance and planning cycles and supported by the right teams. Here’s how to make it work:
1. Embed in the Planning Cycle
Make the diagnostic a mandatory step before Cabinet or Board approval of major programmes.
Tie it to budget setting and performance planning, so ambitions and resources are aligned from the start.
Position it as part of the corporate assurance framework, alongside financial and risk checks.
2. Use Existing Teams
PMO or Transformation Office: Lead the process, coordinate evidence gathering, and manage scoring.
Finance: Validate affordability against the Medium-Term Financial Plan and confirm contingency.
HR/Workforce Planning: Model FTE demand vs. supply and identify critical gaps.
Service Leads: Provide realistic timelines, dependency mapping, and operational constraints.
This approach leverages internal expertise while building organisational capability for future cycles.
3. Apply the Framework
Score each ambition across the seven dimensions using the weighted model.
Apply traffic-light thresholds (Green ≥75, Amber 55–74, Red <55) and adjust for local risk appetite.
Document actions for Amber and Red ambitions:
Reprioritise: Limit work-in-progress and resequence projects.
Resource: Secure permanent hires or interim support for critical gaps.
Re-scope: Define MVPs for ambitions that cannot be fully delivered within 12 months.
4. Governance
Present findings to the Corporate Leadership Team and Members in a clear dashboard format.
Agree start/stop/continue decisions and resource moves before commitments harden.
This echoes NAO’s call for robust oversight and early feasibility checks a proven way to reduce risk and avoid costly overruns.
How to Work Effectively with a Private Sector Partner
Engaging a private sector partner can accelerate the diagnostic process and bring valuable external perspective but only if the relationship is structured correctly. Councils must retain ownership of decisions while leveraging the partner’s expertise for challenge and insight.
1. Define the Role
The partner’s role is to provide independent challenge, benchmarking, and specialist tools, not to take over decision-making.
Councils should remain the decision authority, ensuring democratic accountability and alignment with local priorities.
Think of the partner as a critical friend, not a programme owner.
2. Set Clear Expectations
Agree scope and outputs upfront:
Scoring matrix and weighted model.
Dashboards summarising ambitions and RAG status.
RAIDD log (Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies, Decisions).
Action plan with prioritisation and resource recommendations.
Establish data governance protocols to protect sensitive financial and workforce information.
3. Co-Deliver
Involve council teams in workshops and evidence gathering so knowledge stays in-house.
Use the partner for specialist insight (e.g., workforce market trends, supplier lead times) and independent validation of assumptions.
Build knowledge transfer into the engagement so the council can repeat the process annually without external dependency.
4. Prioritise Transferable Tools
Insist on templates and frameworks that can be reused internally.
Avoid lock-in to proprietary systems or software that limits future flexibility.
The goal is to build capability, not create reliance.
Option 1: Run Internally
Pros
Ownership and Control
Keeps accountability and knowledge in-house, embedding the process into governance cycles and building organisational capability for future planning rounds.
Cost-Effective
Uses existing PMO, Finance, HR, and Service Leads avoiding consultancy fees and freeing resources for frontline services.
Customisation
Allows councils to tailor scoring models, weights, and thresholds to reflect local priorities (e.g., housing, net-zero, digital transformation) without vendor constraints.
Cons
Capacity Strain
Already stretched teams may struggle to absorb diagnostic work without ring-fenced time.
Skills Gap
Limited expertise in capacity modelling, scenario stress testing, and market benchmarking can weaken analysis.
Risk of Bias
Internal politics and optimism bias can influence scoring and prioritisation projects may be rated “Green” because they are politically important, not because they are realistically deliverable.
How to Mitigate Internal Bias Risks
Independent Validation: Invite a neutral internal auditor or external peer review (e.g., another council or regional partnership) to challenge assumptions.
Transparent Criteria: Publish scoring definitions and thresholds upfront so all stakeholders understand how ratings are applied.
Cross-Functional Scoring Panels: Include representatives from Finance, HR, PMO, and Service Leads to balance perspectives.
Evidence-Based Scoring: Require documented proof for each score (e.g., budget approval letter, signed RACI, capacity model) to reduce subjective judgments.
Scenario Testing: Use stress tests to expose hidden weaknesses optimism bias often disappears when ambitions are tested against real-world shocks.
Option 2: Work with a Private Sector Partner
Pros
Independent Challenge
External partners reduce optimism bias and provide sharper feasibility testing, ensuring ambitions are grounded in reality rather than political urgency.
Specialist Tools and Benchmarks
Partners bring proven frameworks, diagnostic templates, and market intelligence such as workforce trends and supplier lead times accelerating analysis and adding depth.
Speed
Dedicated consultancy resource can compress timelines, producing dashboards, scoring outputs, and risk registers quickly ideal when planning windows are tight.
Cons
Cost
Consultancy fees can be significant, especially for multi-week engagements.
Dependency
If knowledge transfer isn’t embedded, councils risk becoming reliant on external support for future diagnostics.
Alignment Risk
Without strong scope and governance, there’s a danger of “outsourcing decisions” rather than using the partner for challenge and insight.
Best Practice
Co-Deliver
Involve internal teams in workshops and evidence gathering so knowledge stays in-house.
Insist on Transferable Tools
Require templates and frameworks that can be reused annually. Avoid proprietary systems that create lock-in.
Ring-Fence Time for Internal Oversight
Even when using a partner, councils should allocate time for internal validation and governance sign-off to maintain accountability.
How to Ensure Effective Knowledge Transfer
Make it a Contractual Requirement
Include knowledge transfer as a deliverable in the engagement agreement, with clear milestones and outputs (e.g., training sessions, handover packs).
Shadowing and Co-Delivery
Have internal staff actively participate in scoring, stress testing, and dashboard creation not just observe.
Document Everything
Ensure the partner provides detailed process documentation, scoring templates, and step-by-step guides for future use.
Capability Building Workshops
Schedule dedicated sessions where the partner trains internal teams on methodology, tools, and interpretation of results.
Post-Engagement Support
Agree on a short-term support period after the engagement ends for Q\&A and troubleshooting, without ongoing dependency.
What Leaders Will See
The diagnostic process doesn’t just produce a score it generates clear, visual insights that enable informed decisions. Here’s what senior leaders and members can expect:
1. Portfolio RAG Heatmap
A single-page view showing all ambitions rated Green, Amber, or Red based on weighted scoring. This heatmap answers the most important question:
Which ambitions are realistically deliverable within the next 12 months?
It allows leaders to spot patterns for example, multiple Reds in housing or digital transformation and prioritise interventions.
2. Dimension Radar Charts
For each ambition, a radar chart breaks down performance across the seven dimensions:
Clarity & KPIs
Leadership & Governance
Skills & Capacity
Financial Readiness
Systems & Processes
Partnerships & Dependencies
Risk & Delivery Discipline
This visual explains why an ambition is Red or Amber. For example, a project may score high on finance but low on capacity and governance highlighting where action is needed.
3. Capacity Gap Model
A detailed table and bar chart showing FTE available vs. required by role. This identifies:
Critical gaps in specialist roles (e.g., planning officers, project managers).
Where interim backfill or supplier capacity is essential to keep delivery on track.
This aligns with sector-wide evidence of workforce shortages and helps councils make targeted recruitment decisions.
4. Risk/Dependency Register (RAIDD)
A ranked list of risks, assumptions, issues, dependencies, and decisions, complete with:
Impact and likelihood ratings.
Named owners.
Mitigation actions and due dates.
This gives leaders confidence that threats are understood and actively managed.
5. Actionable Plan
Not just analysis clear next steps, including:
Reprioritisation: Which projects to pause, sequence, or accelerate.
Resourcing asks: Permanent hires, interim support, or supplier engagement.
Procurement routes: Frameworks, call-offs, or partnerships.
Governance fixes: Stage gates, decision cadence, and PMO standards.
This ensures the diagnostic translates into real decisions and delivery improvements, not just a report.
Why This Matters Now
Financial realism: Evidence from the LGA and NAO confirms that councils remain under sustained financial pressure despite temporary relief measures. Aligning ambition with actual capacity is critical to prevent slippage, avoid unfunded commitments, and maintain credibility with stakeholders.
Workforce constraints: ONS and LGA workforce data, alongside recent planning surveys, highlight persistent gaps in senior and specialist roles. Diagnosing these constraints early enables realistic delivery plans and prevents over-promising, which can erode trust and delay outcomes.
Delivery risk: Lessons from major projects consistently show that early feasibility assessments, disciplined governance, and robust scenario planning significantly reduce cost overruns and timeline drift. Embedding these practices upfront is essential for resilience and accountability.
Digital enablement: Research from LGA and DLUHC reveals systemic fragmentation and inconsistent digital engagement across councils. The framework explicitly tests digital readiness to ensure technology supports not derails delivery, enabling integrated systems and better citizen experience.
Next Steps for Councils
Make the deliverability diagnostic mandatory in your planning and budget cycle
Embed the diagnostic as a non-negotiable step before sign-off on major plans or budgets. This ensures every initiative is stress-tested for realism, capacity, and risk before resources are committed, reducing the likelihood of costly mid-cycle course corrections.
Choose your route: internal run, partner co-delivery, or hybrid with external validation
Decide early how the diagnostic will be delivered.
Internal run: Ideal for councils with strong PMO and analytical capability.
Partner co-delivery: Brings external expertise and benchmarking to strengthen objectivity.
Hybrid: Internal ownership with external validation for assurance and credibility with Members and auditors.
Run the 2–3 week sprint: evidence, scoring, stress testing, actions
Conduct a focused sprint to gather evidence, apply scoring frameworks, and stress-test assumptions against financial, workforce, and digital readiness. The output should be a clear set of actions what to adjust, defer, or accelerate based on diagnostic findings.
Hold a decision workshop (CLT/Members) to confirm start/stop/continue and resource moves
Convene a structured workshop with Corporate Leadership Team and elected Members to review diagnostic results. Use this session to make informed decisions:
Start: Initiatives that are viable and aligned with capacity.
Stop: Projects that pose unacceptable risk or lack feasibility.
Continue: Existing priorities that remain deliverable with minor adjustments.
Agree on resource reallocation to support priority delivery.
Embed monthly health checks and quarterly re-stress tests aligned to finance/performance cycles
Make deliverability monitoring part of business-as-usual governance. Monthly health checks provide early warning signals, while quarterly stress tests aligned with financial and performance reviews ensure plans remain viable amid changing conditions.
Resources You Can Use Today
Client‑ready slide deck (overview, scoring, thresholds, example radar, workflow).
Excel workbook (scoring sheet with auto‑RAG, weights, RAIDD log, capacity model).
Truth About Local Government exists to amplify what works, share practical tools, and connect leaders delivering outcomes under pressure. This framework is designed so councils can own the realism check with or without external partners and turn aspiration into action.
