2 The performance of projects in the
portfolio
15. The MPA provides a delivery confidence assessment
that shows how likely it rates the successful delivery of each
project. In part because of the changes in the composition of
the portfolio (such as large numbers of mature projects leaving
and new projects joining), the deliverability of the portfolio
has worsened considerably over the previous year. In September
2013 the MPA gave an increased proportion of government major
projects an amber-red delivery confidence rating (19% of portfolio
projects in 2013-14 compared to 12% in 2012-13), and gave significantly
fewer projects green ratings (9% in 2013-14 compared to 17% in
2012-13).[31]
16. We have seen numerous examples of poor planning
on government projects over many years. Government needs to do
more "front-loading", namely focusing more attention
on the concept, design and business case stages, of projects to
allow for smoother implementation.[32]
The MPA acknowledged that government still does not do enough
planning for its major projects. It told us that government needs
to "work the front end harder" and that "the majority
[of projects] would have benefited from more front-loading at
almost every stage".[33]
The long-standing shortcomings of project planning continue to
affect projects that are currently being implemented. The MPA
cited the red rated IT projects at the Department of Health as
examples.[34] The MPA
told us that it had introduced project validation reviews 12 months
ago to strengthen project initiation, but that the process "is
still not where it needs to be".[35]
17. The data published by the MPA shows that it has
the most serious doubts over the deliverability of projects at
the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence. The Department
of Health has 9 amber-red rated projects and 2 red rated projects,
and eight have no rating at all as they are projects in NHS Trusts
and the MPA "cannot get to everything all at once".[36]
The Ministry of Defence has 6 amber-red rated projects and 1 red
rated project, and withheld the ratings for 7 projects from publication.[37]
We are concerned that these ratings suggest a lack of sufficient
control over projects in these departments.[38]
18. The MPA and departments publish information on
major projects in line with the Government's transparency policy.
The transparency policy mandates the MPA to publish major project
data once a year and stipulates that major project delivery confidence
ratings can only be published after a six month time lag. The
MPA's May 2014 Annual Report includes project data as at September
2013, and this will be the latest public data available until
the next Annual Report in 2015.[39]
The policy instructs departments to withhold data from publication
if it is considered to be commercially sensitive or has implications
for national security, in line with the Freedom of Information
Act (2000).[40] The NAO
recommended in February 2014 that departments and the MPA should
publish a broader range of project data.[41]
The MPA made some efforts to address these recommendations in
its second annual report by altering the guidance issued to departments,
but it did not include any data sets, such as project spend to
date, that were not specified in the transparency policy.[42]
19. The NAO reported that the MPA's second annual
report and the departmental project data accompanying it were
a marked improvement on the previous year's report. Departments
withheld 30% less data from publication, from 80 pieces of data
in the 2012-13 report to 56 items in 2013-14. In 2012-13 there
were 48 projects (25% of the portfolio) with data missing, and
this fell to 35 projects (18% of the portfolio) in 2013-14. The
most commonly withheld category of data in both years was whole-life
costs, followed by delivery confidence assessments.[43]
20. The Department for Work & Pensions, in consultation
with the MPA, published the delivery confidence assessment of
the Universal Credit project as 'reset' at the reporting date
of September 2013. The 'reset' category was introduced for the
2013-14 report and was only applied to this one project.[44]
The MPA confirmed that the decision to give Universal Credit a
reset rating was ultimately made by ministers.[45]
However, the MPA also told us that the decision to give this rating
"was a good thing for the project" as it allowed the
project team a "bit of breathing space to get themselves
back on the front foot".[46]
The MPA confirmed that Universal Credit would still be subject
to its assurance reviews and that, in line with the transparency
policy, a normal delivery confidence assessment would be published
in May 2015. This is a long time to wait for an update on a project
as important as Universal Credit.[47]
31 C&AG's Report, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2013-14, para 2.1. Back
32
Q 42 Back
33
Q 39 Back
34
Q 41 Back
35
Q 48 Back
36
Q 81 Back
37
Cabinet Office, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2013-14, figure 9. Back
38
Q 79 Back
39
Cabinet Office, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2013-14;
and Qq 25-6 Back
40
Cabinet Office, Transparency policy on the Government's Major Projects Portfolio, May 2013. Back
41
C&AG's Report, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2012-13 and government project assurance, para 10. Back
42
C&AG's Report, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2013-14, para 1.7. Back
43
C&AG's Report, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2013-14, para 1.5. Back
44
Cabinet Office, Major Projects Authority Annual Report 2013-14, page 12. Back
45
Q 7 Back
46
Qq 7-8 Back
47
Qq 25-8 Back
| 
