Sub-questions

Is the programme team aware of any changes in other policies and programmes that impact on the programme?

Has the programme responded to those changes?

Has scenario planning been used to check the programme's assumptions?

Which identified risks have materialised and with what effect?

Essential evidence

Strategies for managing risks and issues, plans and risk register.

Responding to external change - examples from our studies

Our 2018 Investigation into the British Army's Recruiting Partnering Project (see Q12) highlighted that Capita had missed the Army's recruitment targets each year since 2013, with the shortfall ranging from 21% to 45% of the Army's requirement. The environment for the Recruiting Partnering Project was, however, challenging. The Army and its contractor, Capita Business Services Ltd, believed that a range of external factors had impacted on their ability to meet recruitment targets. These included: a fall in applications due to the improving UK economy and low levels of unemployment; a shrinking recruitment target population that was less likely to commit to a long-term career in the Armed Forces; and reduced public understanding of the Army's role, with the perception that the Army was reducing in size and was non-operational, making it less attractive to join. However, the changes to the recruitment approach at the start of the contract also reduced face-to-face contact with applicants, meaning there was less chance to provide support. The Army and Capita have subsequently introduced significant changes to the recruitment approach although, at the time we reported, Capita had yet to meet the Army's requirements for recruiting new soldiers.

Our 2018 report on Rolling out smart meters (see Q7) looked at what steps the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) had taken to manage the risk that the chosen technology would become obsolete. BEIS recognised that, over that period, there was likely to be innovation in the range of smart household devices on offer to consumers. It therefore took steps to future-proof the smart metering system, for example by ensuring that smart meters would be able to send their data to other (newly invented) devices via a consumer access device. However, it assumed that smart meters would not be replaced for at least 15 years, over which time it was difficult to predict what innovation will happen. There was therefore a residual risk that the Department's smart metering system could be a factor that limited the range of 'smart home' benefits consumers could enjoy in future.

Other relevant reports

Investigation into the Department for Transport's decision to cancel three rail electrification projects (paragraph 3)

Investigation into land and property acquisition for Phase One (London - West Midlands) of the High Speed 2 programme (paragraph 2)