Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 10
10
Acknowledged
Poor programme planning and deep-rooted issues contribute to the need for resets.
Conclusion
Various factors, both internal and external to a programme, can contribute to the need for a reset.28 We heard how this can include the programme going off track, the need to improve confidence in supplier delivery, or to resolve technical problems and set a realistic schedule.29 Factors can result from deep-rooted issues caused by poor programme planning, the importance of which we have been stressing for some time.30 The IPA told us it is trying to encourage practitioners to set up projects well given they are much harder to fix in-flight. It described how it has a several tools to help with project set-ups, and therefore reduce resets, and that it was working to equip SROs and project directors to have the right skills and knowledge at the start of a programme.31 The SRO for Ajax commented favourably on the IPAs range of products.32
Government Response Summary
The government agrees with the committee's observations, outlining existing IPA tools and processes for project planning and assurance. By June 2024, the IPA and HM Treasury will review and update relevant guidance and bring all existing guidance together for easier access.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
2.1 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Recommendation implemented 2.2 The IPA has developed a range of tools to help programmes and projects with upfront planning and scoping, including opportunity framing, project set up tools and a benchmarking hub. This is available to programmes and projects in the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP) from project initiation. 2.3 Each year, the IPA also publishes an annual report on the performance of programmes and projects in the GMPP. Alongside the report, each department publishes transparency data that includes a narrative from each programme on the schedule, including any deviation from what was originally agreed, approved by the relevant SRO. 2.4 The IPA has also recently updated its gate review and assurance mechanisms and is working to strengthen the ‘response to red’ process in conjunction with HM Treasury. This enables more timely and targeted interventions and support to be provided to projects and programmes. During the ‘response to red process’ it is expected that some activity will pause to allow greater focus on remedial actions, which will improve deliverability. 2.5 The IPA provided further information in a letter to the Committee, issued alongside the publication of this Treasury Minute. 2.6 The government agrees with the Committee’s recommendation. Target implementation date: June 2024 2.7 The IPA published its Cost Estimating Guidance in 2021. It sets out a best practice approach for developing cost estimates, ensuring that those estimates properly account for the risk and uncertainty inherent in a project. HM Treasury also has long-standing guidance on accounting for optimism bias in projects and programmes. This ultimately aims to ensure risk and uncertainty are properly reflected in business cases for government initiatives from their inception and that this is properly managed throughout the programme or project’s lifecycle. 2.8 By June 2024 the IPA and HM Treasury will review this existing guidance to determine what gaps there are, if any, and make plans to update it as required to ensure it remains fit for purpose. As part of the IPA’s Body of Knowledge, the IPA will also bring all existing guidance together to ensure project and programme leaders can easily access the IPA’s suite of tools, guidance and best practice to set projects and programmes up for success.