3 Candour in reporting
23. With around £12-14 billion being spent each
year on new and existing information technology, there is considerable
risk to service performance and to public funds should major IT-enabled
programmes or projects fail to deliver.[52]
Leadership from the top is essential for success and for the New
York City 3-1-1 Citizen Service Center, for example, political
leadership was key to driving through complex change.[53]
In departments, Ministers have the power to halt major IT-enabled
programmes likely to fail and to discontinue those that no longer
meet policy objectives.[54]
To ensure they are fully aware of risk, they need regular opportunities
to meet with Senior Responsible Owners and also with those who
have operational responsibility for the programme, including suppliers
and contractors, who are often best-placed to set out the practical
challenges.[55] Ministers
are not always fully briefed, however, with only a half (52%)
of Senior Responsible Owners having quarterly meetings with the
nominated Minister and a fifth (21%) having had no meetings.[56]
24. Accounting Officers have a responsibility to
keep themselves fully informed of progress and of any risks to
delivery. Senior Responsible Owners have a responsibility to ensure
that Accounting Officers are kept informed and three quarters
(76%) of Senior Responsible Owners of mission critical and high
risk programmes met with their Accounting Officer at least once
a month.[57] To ensure
Accounting Officers receive timely notification of risks to delivery,
however, the Office of Government Commerce is planning in future
to write to them when a programme or project under their command
receives a red status in a Gateway Review.[58]
25. Involving suppliers in Gateway Reviews provides
an opportunity for them to express concerns about the progress
or management of programmes and projects. 80% of Senior Responsible
Owners of mission critical and high risk programmes and projects
had involved their main supplier in their most recent Review.[59]
26. In line with the Intellect Supplier Code of Practice,
suppliers also have a responsibility to offer constructive challenge
to their clients to keep programmes and projects on track and
to prevent unnecessary delays and increased costs. In the case
of Pension Credit, the open relationship established between client
and supplier enabled the supplier and project team to work together
to challenge fifty requests from different business units for
requirements changes.[60]
27. Boards can help keep programmes and projects
on track and address risks by ensuring they are fully consulted
where major changes are proposed to the specification, timetable
or budget.[61] For its
"Really Big" transformation programme, Britannia Building
Society's board authorised a low (3%) budget contingency to ensure
it was informed and could keep a grip on any major changes.[62]
28. The Audit Committee of an organisation offers
support and advice to the Accounting Officer on issues concerning
risk, control and governance.[63]
Failure to brief Audit Committees on the results of Gateway Reviews
impairs a key means of independent scrutiny.[64]
The Office of Government Commerce wishes to strengthen the role
of Audit Committees in monitoring the risks to delivery of programmes
and projects. Half of Audit Committees are already receiving Gateway
briefings and it would be natural for all to do so.[65]
29. Departments are required to report regularly
to the Prime Minister through the Office of Government Commerce
on the progress and status of their mission critical programmes
and projects,[66] a list
of which the Office of Government Commerce has now made public
for the first time.[67]
In the United States, transparency is greater in that the Office
of Management and Budget makes public the status of all major
programmes in a document updated quarterly.[68]
30. The Delivery and Transformation Group's first
Annual Report published in January 2007 offers the first attempt
at a high level commentary on expenditure on IT by departments
and other bodies represented on the Chief Information Officer
Council. The Annual Report provides a vehicle through which transparency
and hence scrutiny of major IT-enabled business change can be
developed further by departments reporting regularly on the progress
of their major IT-enabled change programmes and projects, along
the lines of their United States' counterparts.[69]
52 C&AG's Report, para 1.1 Back
53
Qq 1, 25-35; C&AG's Report, Preface, page 5, paras
2.8-2.10 Back
54
Qq 8, 12, 25-35 Back
55
Qq 10-12, 25, 95-96 Back
56
Qq 27-33; C&AG's Report, paras 2.5-2.7, 2.8-2.9, 2.11 Back
57
C&AG's Report, Figure 3, page 23, para 2.11 Back
58
Q 12 Back
59
Qq 40-41; C&AG's Report, para 3.22 Back
60
C&AG's Report, Case Study Volume, paras 8-10 Back
61
Ibid, para 2.7 Back
62
Ibid, Case Study Volume, page 73, para 4 Back
63
Ibid, Terms used in this Report, page 6 Back
64
Ibid, para 2.19 Back
65
Q 6 Back
66
Qq 32, 34 Back
67
Qq 86-88, 94, 105-107 Back
68
Q 107; details of the President's Management Agenda are at
www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/scorecard.html
Back
69
Qq 36-39, 100, 102, 105, 112 Back
| 
