Through both discussion with DE&S and of its own experience the Review team has noted that:
• the overall quality, comprehensiveness and timeliness of management information is poor; and
• information is often inconsistent or requires significant effort to "pull together" for useful analysis or decision-making.
General Concerns with DE&S MIS. There are very wide ranging and sometimes severe limitations when using current information systems (e.g.,
- no integration with Excel;
- limited periods of availability;
- lead times of weeks to "roll over" systems to reflect new information;
- further weeks for diagnostic tools / information to become available; and
- multiple data entry required across systems that are not integrated such as CMIS, PB&F/Powerplay, Excel and other IPT level systems.
As a result of these and other shortcomings, there is no single version of the "truth" visible at corporate level108 and an industry of active "information management" is needed to interpret/audit financial data between IPT, DE&S operating centre, DE&S corporate centre, MoD Centre and other interested parties (e.g., Ministers). The need for this industry is reinforced by what many consider to be relatively weak financial skills at IPT level within DE&S.
CMIS. Whilst the quality and usefulness of management information regarding project delivery is no doubt better since the commissioning of the CMIS database in 2004, it is also the case that significant further improvement could be achieved to improve the speed and robustness of corporate / management decision making. There are concerns about the quality of inputs to the CMIS system which are referred to elsewhere (including Chapter 7) and the system does not easily tie-up to the Planning Round data for various reasons.
Business Cases and Core Approvals Documentation. There are also issues around consistency / quality of business cases and similar core documents which extend beyond DE&S. The IAB, for instance, receives business cases at Initial Gate and Main Gate, and further information and review notes through the course of many projects. However, the Review team analysis found that the format for these communications is not standardised and where consistency does exist it is generally limited to the key headings of the business case. This is after the considerable effort expended in various assurance and scrutiny processes which have preceded submission to the IAB.
Furthermore, it is notable that there is currently no single repository of information submitted to the key equipment decision making body, the IAB (i.e., Initial Gate / Main Gate business cases, Information Notes, Review Notes submitted) which further illustrates the point that approvals are still highly project based, and disembodied from the planning process and the review of projects post-approval (other than by exception).
Issues with MIS beyond DE&S. The Review team also heard / experienced at first hand significant further concerns around the ability to draw together information that would allow improved decision-making or better performance monitoring of activities that were being delivered. These included:
• the use of different systems, accounting and data structures and conventions in different parts of the Department that cannot easily be linked to form a coherent view (e.g., CMIS with PB&F / Powerplay);
• lack of alignment between in-year management of expenditure and planning systems (i.e., definitive outturn spend against EPP and ESP is no longer possible since dissolution of DPA / DLO); and
• ability to tie changes in equipment plan to other key DLoDs for full financial impact analysis of scenarios or modifications (other than via the laborious Planning Round Options process).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
108 This is reinforced by the considerable effort required at IPT level to satisfy National Audit Office requirements