While the Authority has improved transparency in its annual reports, there are still limitations

2.4  Our reviews of the Authority's annual reports to date have focused on progress in making major project data transparent. In February 2014 we concluded that the Authority should present more useful and comprehensive data including:

•  total project costs incurred;

•  progress against goals and benefits achieved;

•  disclosing reasons for the deliverability ratings;7 and

•  analysis of project data at a portfolio level.

2.5  The Authority published its third annual report in June 2015 reporting on data as at September 2014. In the 2015 annual report less data have been exempt, which gives a more complete picture. However, total project costs incurred and progress against milestones and benefits remain unpublished in line with the transparency policy. The report contains additional analysis on the types of project but does not include information on common issues across the Portfolio.

2.6  We analysed data from this third report and the most recent data reported by departments to the Authority to see if we could identify whether performance of project delivery in relation to cost, deliverability and benefits is improving. We could not conclude clearly from this analysis whether project performance is improving. The following paragraphs set out the trends that we could discern and the problems that prevent us from drawing firm conclusions. The main problems are that the data do not allow costs to be compared with a consistent baseline, or outturn costs and delivery dates to be compared with forecasts. There are also inconsistencies in how whole-life costs are reported by departments, for example whether costs are reported in real terms or nominal terms, or whether different index years are used.




________________________________________________________________

7  The delivery confidence ratings published in the Authority's third annual report are the Authority's assessment of projects in September 2014. These may differ from departments' own assessments or those awarded by review teams when carrying out assurance reviews.