21 A programme's schedule is a tool to manage its delivery, as well as a means of communicating when it will be completed and its benefits delivered. Contractors' incentives might also be tied to achieving schedule dates, to encourage productivity. These political and commercial uses can drive a reluctance to reconsider schedule targets, to avoid unnecessarily disappointing constituents or releasing the pressure on contractors to deliver efficiently. While it is understandable that a government wants to be ambitious in meeting its goals, this too often overrides a frank assessment of the mounting risks and potential negative consequences of overreaching for a deadline, such as service failure and unnecessary costs.
22 We have seen certain behaviours indicating that a programme's schedule and deadline are becoming increasingly unrealistic. These include:
• persistent re-planning of the schedule to meet the same deadline, often accompanied by ever more ambitious assumptions and proposals to reach it;
• organisations removing scope and/or benefits from the programme;
• shortening the time allotted for operations and systems testing at the end of the programme schedule;
• attempts at the last minute to bring the programme into use in stages. Whilst using stages, rather than everything happening at once, can be a useful way of reducing risk (see paragraphs 40 and 41 below), it can be complex to introduce if not planned carefully;
• organisations focusing on resolving individual project risks, rather than stepping back to understand and assess the totality of risks facing the programme.
23 Being too focused on meeting a deadline means that bodies miss opportunities to properly plan and execute other contingency options. It can also lead to sponsor and delivery organisations taking potentially damaging actions in the hope that unrealistic targets can be met.
24 In our report, Completing Crossrail, we found that decision-making in the latter stages of the project was dominated by achieving a fixed completion date, and some of these decisions drove unnecessary cost into the programme.6 These included an attempt to meet the schedule by carrying out construction and systems testing in parallel when few meaningful test results could be acquired, taking time and space from construction workers on site. Crossrail Ltd reduced the number of people in its risk management team in anticipation of completing the programme and then had to re-hire personnel when it became clear that significant work remained. It also persistently re-planned the programme schedule based on what contractors needed to achieve to meet the deadline, rather than on historical performance.
25 It is important for sponsor and delivery bodies to consider early in a programme's lifecycle all the elements required to be in place to complete the programme by the deadline. Examples could include staff training, regulatory approvals or other related projects. We see cases where there is no clear understanding about what is required, meaning that it becomes difficult for bodies to assess whether a deadline remains feasible once pressures emerge or to consider whether the benefits of proceeding outweigh any potential risks.
_____________________________________________________________________
6 Comptroller and Auditor General, Completing Crossrail, National Audit Office, HC 2106, Session 2017-2019, May 2019.