The Government's management of major projects inquiry

The decision to hold an early General Election has curtailed our inquiry into this important topic whilst we were still gathering evidence and before we have been able to consider our conclusions and recommendations. By necessity, this report can only highlight a few of the main issues that have emerged in the evidence we have received to date and some of our initial impressions. We recommend that our successor Committee returns to this important matter at the earliest opportunity.

When the IPA was established through the merger of the IUK and the MPA, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) expressed concern that the MPA’s assurance role could be compromised in a merger with IUK, a delivery body the work of which the MPA had been charged with evaluating. We found no evidence to suggest that this has been the case. Should our successor Committee return to this area, an aspect it could usefully consider in more detail is the way in which the IPA interacts with the individual Government departments.

Improvements in the Civil Service’s project delivery capability have been a priority of government over the last decade and we welcome this investment in a greater skills base for the delivery of major projects. Due to the curtailment of this inquiry, it is difficult for the Committee to know whether this increased training has translated into better delivery of projects and suggest that any inquiry in this area by a successor Committee should look at this.

Major projects often last many years and it is inevitable that there will be a turnover of the staff involved. Indeed, in some instances, the expertise needed to progress a project will change as it develops, and it is important that this is reflected in the turnover of staff. However, this differs from the rapid rotation of staff between posts. It can be mitigated through ensuring a steady pipeline of replacements and good knowledge management but its impact will still be detrimental. The Government is evidently conscious of the issue of churn on its major projects and steps taken to reduce the turnover of project SROs are to be welcomed. However, churn is an issue throughout the Civil Service and not only at SRO level. There is also a need to consider what conflicts of interest can arise as a result of this churn. The Government is introducing measures to combat it. It is too early to tell whether these have been successful, and it is something our successor Committee could return to.

Robust pre-approval scrutiny of project business cases is essential. The Government has acknowledged that and there is a comprehensive system of pre-commencement scrutiny now in place. It seems, however, that political imperatives can subvert this 16 The Government’s Management of Major Projects: An Interim Report scrutiny. It is entirely appropriate for Ministers to initiate projects. But if political pressure is sufficient to override this early scrutiny process, this will significantly impact on the successful deliver of major projects.

We have been critical of the transactional approach the Government tends to adopt in its commercial relationships, at the expense of the quality of personal relationships and trust between contracting parties. An exclusive focus on minimising costs and aggressively attempting to offload risk has neither yielded value for money for taxpayers nor resulted in genuine risk mitigation. There are clearly benefits to a more collaborative approach. However, the circumstances under which this can take place and those where the benefits of a more conventional, transactional approach might be more appropriate are not yet clear to us. This is an issue that, should our successor Committee return to the subject of major projects, it could usefully inquire further.

The difficulty of accurately forecasting the benefits of a project is clear. It can also be difficult to assess whether they have actually achieved what they were designed to achieve. Nonetheless, whilst there is considerable attention paid to improving project management, major projects are not an end in themselves but exist to achieve public policy goals. Robust ex ante scrutiny of the link between projects and the needs that they are supposed to address, and proper post hoc evaluation of whether they have done so, cannot be overlooked in the focus on improving project delivery.