Sub-questions

How does the programme address the highest priority strategic needs of the organisation?

What other programmes are active at the same time to address these strategic needs?

Is there good understanding of other organisations' programmes that may impact on the operating environment of the programme?

Is there an approach in place to manage the interdependencies between different policies, teams and organisations?

Is there evidence of timely and consistent communication between those with an interest in the outcome being sought?

Does the programme make sense in relation to the resources available to the organisation? (see also Question 10)

Essential evidence

Statement that programme fits with organisational strategy - likely to be in Single Departmental Plan.

Portfolio management and dependencies - examples from our studies

Our November 2018 report found that the Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) Equipment Plan 2018 to 2028 remained unaffordable and there are risks to longer-term value for money. The MoD's forecast costs for the Plan exceeded its budget by £7.0 billion over the 10 years. It forecast £193.3 billion equipment and support costs, against a £186.4 billion budget, including a £6.2 billion contingency. Should all the identified risks occur, this gap could grow to £14.8 billion. However, the MoD's approach to forecasting costs was more realistic than in previous years. It had a fuller assessment of nuclear project costs, had used more accurate US dollar exchange rates, and included costs for the Type 31e frigates, which were omitted from the previous year's Plan. The MoD had also improved its understanding of affordability risks. However, we still lacked full confidence in the robustness of some the MoD's underlying assumptions, particularly around efficiencies.

In Developing new care models through NHS vanguards we reviewed NHS England's programme to create 50 sites as 'vanguards' to design new care models that could be quickly replicated across England. This might entail, for example, joining up GP, hospital and community and mental health services in an integrated network or single organisation in one area to improve healthcare for patients. Our 2018 report found that the programme had not delivered the originally-intended depth and scale of transformed services. Instead, money originally intended for this programme was spent on helping to relieve short-term financial pressures in the NHS, weakening the programme's chances of success. NHS England planned for £2.2 billion of funding for new care models between 2016-17 and 2020-21, but it used much of the funding to reduce deficits faced by hospitals. Actual direct funding of vanguards was £329 million over three years from 2015-16, with another £60 million spent by NHS England on central support for vanguards. Consequently, with less funding for transformation, the original intention to expand the programme was not realised.

Other relevant reports

Low carbon heating of homes and businesses and the Renewable Heat Incentive (paragraph 10)

Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals (paragraphs 8 and 17)

The Defence Nuclear Enterprise: a landscape review (paragraphs 9 and 14)

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: progress with reducing risk at Sellafield (paragraph 19)