4 This Gateway Review was conducted after ICL had told the Department that it was no longer possible to deliver full functionality for a service trial to take place as planned in Suffolk in July 2001. The review confirmed the Department's view that Libra was not in a fit state to pass a Gateway 4 Review as the implementation of the service trial at Suffolk was unlikely to take place until 12 to 18 months after the previous target date.
5 The review team identified the major risks to successful delivery as being:
■ Major weaknesses in the development process. This problem was perceived by the Department as a failure by ICL to provide the quality of business analysis expected under the contract; and by ICL as a consequence of the awkward relationship between the Department and Magistrates' Courts Committees, which resulted in the Department being unable to act as a traditional user/customer, and the Committees being too fragmented to carry out such a role effectively. The review team thought that both perceptions had validity and needed to be addressed to ensure that the development process was being effectively managed. It noted that the absence of a formal life cycle had contributed to the absence of an end-to-end project plan, which on its own would have raised serious doubts about the ability of the project to deliver.
■ Business processes. The review team found it surprising that, after several years of effort, there was still no comprehensive map of business processes. It was dismayed to find that, on the technical side, code had been cut before the system design work had been completed and indeed before requirements had been documented and validated.
■ The contract. The review team found that the contract was widely (though not unanimously) regarded by the Department as unworkable, and was seen by the current ICL team as something it should never have signed up to.12 The contractual position had exposed, and continued to expose, ICL to considerable financial risk, without giving ICL sufficient control to manage that risk.
6 The review team recommended that ICL and the Department should continue to work urgently on a recovery plan which addressed issues of management, process and contract structure. The contract would need to be revisited to support these changes. At the extreme, it might be necessary to consider a fundamental unbundling of the contract. Failing to take the opportunity to put the contract onto a more practical and manageable footing would be highly prejudicial to the chances of success.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
12 ICL disagrees with this statement, and the current ICL team regards the contract as having been undeliverable.