Sub-questions

Has the needs analysis for the programme established the current baseline performance?

Does the programme have clear objectives that relate to measurable change?

Are there identified programme benefits and ways of measuring achievement of those objectives?

Are the estimated benefits based on realistic and defensible assumptions?

Is there an appropriate plan to establish what information needs to be captured to measure future changes in performance?

Is there a commitment to monitoring the performance to support evaluation of the programme?

Is there a commitment to review performance against the plan and to determine whether the programme has delivered the intended benefits and outcomes?

Is the programme on track to deliver intended benefits?

Essential evidence

Estimates of benefits - how compiled. Likely to be in economic case.

Benefits realisation plan/strategy.

Gateway review 4 - readiness for service and 5 - benefits realisation.

Benefits - examples from our studies

For many Projects leaving the Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP; which includes the biggest and riskiest government projects) it is not possible to determine if they have achieved their intended outcomes. Our 2018 report found that monitoring of the projects on the GMPP had improved, but the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and government departments needed to do more to increase transparency about what benefits are delivered to ensure taxpayers secure maximum value. We reviewed 48 projects that had left the portfolio and found that 12 had achieved their intended outcomes. However, for 22 projects it was not possible to determine if this was the case. For some projects this was because they were still being rolled out, but in other cases projects did not have a business case with intended outcomes to measure against. For example, while the Household Energy Efficiency programme improved energy efficiency in one million homes, it did not have measurable targets for wider objectives such as saving energy.

Rolling out smart meters: The government sees smart meters as a way of reducing energy suppliers' costs and encouraging consumers to reduce energy consumption. However, important gaps in monitoring are impacting on the programme's ability to achieve the intended benefits. The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy is not systematically monitoring whether the intended energy savings are being achieved; and, even if industry costs are cut, it is not monitoring whether these savings are passed on to consumers. Our 2018 report also found the government's original ambition of installing smart meters in every home by 2020 will not be met; the cost of the rollout is likely to escalate beyond initial expectations; and the 12.5 million first-generation meters that have been installed (7.1 million more than planned) are losing the 'smart' functionality needed to provide the full range of functions for managing electricity networks more efficiently.

Other relevant reports

Hinkley Point C (paragraphs 17 and 23)

Transforming Rehabilitation (paragraph 7)

The new generation electronic monitoring programme (paragraph 9)

Crown Commercial Service (paragraph 12)

Low carbon heating of homes and businesses and the Renewable Heat Incentive (paragraphs 9 to 13)

Early progress in transforming courts and tribunals (paragraph 18)

Rolling out Universal Credit (paragraph 15)