The Government has issued the “Green Book Review 2025: Findings and actions”
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-book-review-2025-findings-and-actions/green-book-review-2025-findings-and-actions
It’s not very groundbreaking or hugely extensive.
That’s not a criticism – it’s a compliment.
The Government has recognised that the problem is not the content of the Green Book. The biggest problem is a lot of widespread misunderstanding and misinterpretation (in my view, sometimes wilfully so).
The Government also recognises that simplification, for certain audiences, to understand what the Green Book is trying to get across (not full detail) is a good idea. Although, I think great strides have already been made in recent editions and with support (e.g my training series – see the right hand side of this page) it’s a great resource if used for the right reasons and in the right spirit.
That spirit is also in this Review: something I emphasise repeatedly in my training and consultancy: “Green Book guidance should be applied proportionately.”
Some elements still need to be taken further. But this bald statement is a very good start: “HM Treasury is clear that a project may still be value for money even if it has a BCR of less than one.”
Understanding VfM and consequent decisions is a big thoughtful wrap around process. And it’s not just about “what can’t be monetised”. It’s not a technical challenge that we fail if we can’t monetise – we need to consider what it means to monetise and how that is often a restrictive philosophical viewpoint.
I will be writing more about this as I expand my model of ‘Resources to Results’ (R2R) that looks to pull VfM away from the (real but limiting) massive gravitational pull of money and to consider the point of it all: community, environment and values. Still within a decision making process that meshes with Green Book rigour and Government accountability needs.
Finally, in talking about transformational change this review starts to address what is often, for risk averse data-poor Governments, the elephant in the room: uncertainty and risk. In many of the fields I work in (notably innovation, security and governance) it is very hard to assume that you will always (ever?) achieve what you set out to do in full (or even in part?)
The approaches we use need to have risk and uncertainty as fundamental building blocks so we can make decisions well from the start and encourage decision makers to go with things that _may_ fail, but are still VfM if they succeed on average, over time, or start to push the likelihood of success further and further in our favour.
You can read more about that and other things you can do when VfM is difficult in my short-ish note downloadable from this website: https://www.strategyandevidence.com/considerations-for-difficult-vfm-assessments/ and also check out the OLCA method developed to tackle these issues at https://www.quantqual.net/