Recommendation 2

Resets could have been avoided with more realistic upfront planning and scoping, including to better reflect the backdrop against which government programmes operate. This is a critically important part of the inception of any project. We heard that there has been a tendency across Government to re-baseline major projects1, particularly in the Ministry of Defence. The baseline should be agreed at Full Business Case and any scope change should be negotiated with the Treasury. We continually see poor planning as a deep-rooted problem across programmes, which can lead to resets. We would hope to see fewer programmes needing to be reset in the future as the IPA strengthens its assurance regime and its focus on setting up programmes for success. Although some resets are avoidable, for example through investing in up-front planning, other resets will be harder to avoid given the long delivery horizon and complex nature of major programmes. Resets may be a natural consequence for long-term programmes because of macro changes in the economy, technology sector or across society. Political factors, such as changes in ministers or the government composition, may also impact programmes. We heard how Universal Credit had been overseen by around nine secretaries of state since the current Senior Responsible Owner started his role in 2014. 1 Q140 6 Resetting government programmes Recommendation 2: a) Alongside the Treasury Minute response to this report, the IPA should share with us how it is embedding its good practice guidance on upfront planning and scoping, and the changes (with timeframes) it expects to see as a result. This should include providing the Committee with confirmation on how it is using its assurance regime to ensure that programmes do not pass major milestones without having followed planning good practice. The Senior Responsible Owner should produce a reconciliation statement comparing the milestones to what has actually happened on the project. b) By June 2024