Sub-questions

Does the option appraisal explore a sufficiently broad range of options to determine what the programme should look like?

Does it include sufficient evidence from a variety of sources?

What assumptions have been made?

Is the programme brief consistent with the chosen option?

Has a pilot scheme/feasibility study been considered?

Has there been learning from previous/similar programmes?

Has consideration been given to the need to demonstrate good practice?

Essential evidence

Option appraisal - should be included in business case (for investment programmes) or impact assessment (for regulatory programmes).

Option appraisal - examples from our studies

Our Investigation into the Department for Transport's decision to cancel three rail electrification projects found that at the point of this decision it was too early to determine whether the benefits of rail electrification, such as increased capacity and reduced journey times, could be delivered without these three projects in place. The Department for Transport identified rail electrification as a strategic priority in 2012, with the announcement of a £3 billion investment in England and Wales. In July 2017 the Secretary of State for Transport cancelled three of these projects on the basis that the majority of the intended passenger benefits could be delivered instead through bi-mode trains, which can transfer from diesel to electric power. However, at the time of the decision, bi-mode trains with the speed and acceleration required to meet the timetable for one of the lines that was due to be electrified did not exist. It was also uncertain whether existing bi-modes could be modified to meet the needs, and it was uncertain how much the new trains would cost.

Our 2017 report on The new generation electronic monitoring programme found that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) pursued an overly ambitious strategy that was not grounded in evidence. The MoJ failed to establish a case for the programme, with its very ambitious requirements to develop a new 'world-leading' ankle tag that combined radio frequency and GPS technology. It then selected the highest-risk approach to the procurement, the new 'tower' delivery model, as it was promoted at the time by the centre of government. In adopting this risky and unfamiliar approach the MoJ failed to anticipate and resolve the implications of its delivery model, which led to disputes with suppliers and two failed procurements. However, following internal and external reviews of the programme in 2015 and 2016, the MoJ concluded that abandoning the original plan to develop new tags and improving its existing procurement approach was the least bad option, taken to avoid further delay and costs. At the time of the report, it was expected that the total delay to the programme would be five years, with planned completion in summer 2019.

Other relevant reports

Hinkley Point C (paragraph 9)

E20: renewing the Eastenders set (paragraph 8)

Investigation into the British Army's Recruiting Partnering Project (paragraph 4)