What we do‎ > ‎


Roamef provides a bridge between public policy and private sector delivery. The private sector operates in a space described by the political, economic, social, technical, legal and environmental factors of the public realm. 

Policies, programmes and projects, whether revenue, capital or regulatory, are comprehensively assessed and managed through the ROAMEF Cycle. The Rationale, Objectives, Appraisal, Monitoring, Evaluation, Feedback cycle is promoted by the UK Government to ensure policy makers receive evidence of whether change programmes are achieving their aims and objectives. It is a proven, sequential, robust evaluation process. It is systematic and follows a logical process.

The policy maker will be sensitive to constituent pressure from feedback sessions including consultations, surgeries, polls and petitions. The policy maker may also observe an opportunity for competitive advantage resulting from changes to PESTLE drivers - international trade agreements, regional blocs and disruptive technologies often provide opportunity.

SMART objectives should be designed for the short, medium and long term. An objective, iterative approach is taken, following guidance in The Magenta Book.
Solution options are generated and initial feasibility studies conducted. Programme options are appraised for effectiveness and efficiency. Each option is appraised by establishing a Base Case. This is the best estimate of its costs and benefits.
These estimates can be adjusted by considering different scenarios, or the option’s sensitivity to changes can be modelled by changing key variables. 

Appraisals are developed as follows:

  • Identify and value the costs of each option
  • Identify and value the benefits of each option
  • If required, adjust the valued costs and benefits for:
    • Distributional impacts (the effects of proposals on different sections of society)
    • Relative price movements
  • Adjust for the timing of the incidence of costs and benefits by discounting them, to obtain their present values
  • If necessary, adjust for material differences in tax between options
  • Adjust for risk and optimism to provide the Base Case, and consider the impacts of changes in key
  • variables and of different future scenarios on the Base Case
  • Consider  unvalued  impacts  (both  costs  and  benefits), using  weighting  and  scoring  techniques  if appropriate

This helps to set the parameters of an appropriate solution. The ‘do minimum’ option should always be included to act as a check against more interventionist action.

Implementation involves setting up the projects working under a programme. The programmes monitoring system must be in place. They must also establish appropriate baseline data at a project level, before implementation begins. The projects then begin to provide the activities they set out to deliver. While delivering their activities, projects capture monitoring data to see if they are achieving what they set out to do and that they are on course to deliver all their intended outputs, as well as being on track with spending. 

Formative evaluation (partway through the activities) can demonstrate early findings from, and the extent to which, the projects are achieving the objectives of the programme of activity as a whole. Where they are not, corrective action can be taken.

Once the delivery phase is complete, a final, summative evaluation of the projects takes place. The individual project evaluations and the aggregated final monitoring data are supplemented with more extensive qualitative data from strategic stakeholders and built into a final picture of outcomes. 

Completing the cycle: the findings of a final programme evaluation can then feed back to the original overarching rationale for the programme and provide evidence of what works, why it works, for whom and under what conditions.

An overall review of the projects’ value to the aims and objectives of the programme can then be made.