Standard

Checklist: undertaking a major or periodic review of functional standards

Updated 15 April 2024

Step 1 – setting up a major or periodic review: before you start

Action for standard manager	Formal checkpoint with standards team
Review stakeholder feedback already gathered in your master review sheet about completeness and usability of the standard, consider any prior lessons learned, and implications for the focus of your review.
Ensure your standard owner is involved in setting the terms of the periodic review and its implications.
Agree timescale and approach for the review with the standards policy team, including whether you think this will be a major or minor review. [Note: book in sufficient review time with the team well in advance of the next stage.]	Agree draft scope and timetable for review.
Define the stakeholder community who will review your standard.
Create a working group to undertake detailed discussions.
Start a new master review sheet for this review, clearly marking version number at the top of the sheet. Carry over any ‘defer’ decisions from the previous version.
Prior to sending to stakeholders, make sure your standard is ‘clean’ of any tracking and comments. [Note: but do include highlighted drafting notes or questions if you want reviewers to consider particular aspects.]
Make sure version number and draft letter are clear and sequential (see Annex C) of this handbook); status should be set as ‘for review’. Include the date. Make sure versioning, status and date on the cover, headers and footers all match!
Turn on line numbering to help users provide precise comments.
Save the Word file as a pdf before you send to stakeholders. [Note: pdf conversion is necessary as formatting, line numbers and
pagination can change depending on whether people use MS word or Google versions. Do not use shared documents to conduct a stakeholder review – you will quickly lose version control!]
Use a new blank functional standard review sheet template [5] – not your ongoing master sheet – to capture stakeholder comments, views and suggestions for improvement. [Note: you will Input all stakeholder feedback gathered during your review into your master review sheet during the next step.]
Send both the pdf of the standard and the blank review sheet to your consultees, asking them to be specific about their comments when filling in the review sheet - what any perceived issue is and what they suggest as an amendment. Set a clear timeline for returns.

Step 2 - undertaking a major or periodic review: managing the comments you get back

Action for standard manager	Formal checkpoint with standards team
Add all comments received - including any of your own proposed changes - into your master review sheet as they come in and sort comments by line number or clause, for ease of referencing. Do not forget to include issues that you have deferred from previous reviews. [Note: avoid confusion – do not make amendments directly into your existing standard at this stage or rely on tracked changes.]
Discuss comments received with your working group. Do this as often as you need to. For each comment received, make an initial decision in the review sheet; you can: accept, accept with modifications, reject, note, or defer. Take a view on what you think any new wording or change should be. Then discuss with the standards policy team, who have an overview of how best to achieve what’s needed without compromising the integrity of the standard or the coherence of the wider suite. Tips: - where you uncover potentially missing content or where people found it hard to understand a clause in your existing standard, capture that in the review sheet as best you can for discussion - beware red herrings! People often make reasonable comments or suggestions, but the standard may not be the right place for them. Or they propose wording which is not compatible with a standard. Flag such suggestions for discussion - beware bloat! You may wish to accept a suggestion, but there are often ways to include the right sentiment with minimal tweaking to existing wording (when people might have	Review comments received with standards team.
suggested an entirely new section or clause)
Consult with HM Treasury Officer of Accounts on any new mandatory requirements proposed (the ‘shalls’) to ensure new requirements are fully aligned with Managing Public Money.	Agree approach on any new ‘shalls’ with the standards team before consulting with TOA.
Go through your master review sheet with the standards policy team, and finalise proposed changes. Do this as often as you need to.	Agree and finalise your response to stakeholders with the standards team.
Confirm with the standards policy team whether the revisions required are major or minor (see Annex C). They provide a final decision on new version number.	Confirm status of review as major or minor.

Step 3 - concluding a major or periodic review: updating your standard

Action for standard manager	Formal checkpoint with standards team
Re-save your standard in the Word template with the new version number as Draft A and re-set its status to ‘draft’ while you work through and make agreed changes. [Note: only make actual text changes to your standard once you have been through all comments, taken advice from the standards team, and made firm decisions.]
Update your master review sheet with final decisions made (including any decisions that have been deferred until the next major review) and agree final decisions with your working group.
Stakeholder management: formalise your responses to the comments provided by stakeholders during the review in your master review sheet, save as a pdf and use this to feed back to your wider consultees about changes you’ve made, or not made, for this review and the rationale for doing so.
Submit the updated standard to the standard owner for approval, copying in the standards team, as design authority. [Note: iterate as necessary until both standard owner and design authority are content with a revised version.]	Agree content of draft standard and advice to standard owner with standards team.
Once satisfied, the standard owner should formally approve the new version of the standard. For a major update, they should submit the updated standard to the Civil Service Operations Board for their information explaining any significant changes. In doing so, they should highlight to the board any new mandatory requirements being set (the ‘shalls’), and confirm that HM Treasury Officer of Accounts is content with these.
Summarise changes made from the previous version of your standard on your boilerplate page (inside cover) and publish your revised standard on GOV.UK (see section 5) and Annex F) of this handbook).
Retain the completed review master sheet as an audit trail of review.
Create a new master review sheet now, and start to capture any new issues or comments, so you have it to hand for your next major or periodic review. [Note: any decisions you have ‘deferred’ from this review should be an input to the next major or periodic review.]
Once published, your standard should be re-reviewed at a minimum of every two years. Factor the next periodic review into your planning.