30 Major programmes are composed of multiple, smaller inter-related projects, which can themselves be significant undertakings. They may also be dependent on the progress of other programmes. Therefore, successful programme delivery often depends on integrating programmes and projects. While arrangements to deliver individual elements may be clear, we have often seen bodies fail to establish how an entire programme will be delivered, what wider Government activity might be needed for its success, and who is responsible for carrying this out. This leads to additional resources being needed to reintegrate the programme, or instances where one element of the programme being late prevents the entire programme from achieving its objectives.
31 For example in Carrier Strike - preparing for deployment, we found that the Ministry of Defence had made considerable progress in having built two new carriers, receiving jets to schedule, and completing berthing infrastructure and most of the facilities for the jets. In doing so, the programme team had tracked progress, monitored risks and identified interdependencies, engaging continually with the various commands. However, the new Crowsnest radar system will be 18 months late, which will affect Carrier Strike's capabilities in its first two years.9 This was because the Department did not oversee its contract with Lockheed Martin effectively and, despite earlier problems on the project, neither was aware of the sub-contractor's lack of progress until it was too late to meet the target delivery date.
32 We also often see cases where it is unclear who is accountable for integrating the various elements of a programme. Delivery bodies often expect that integration will emerge from collaboration between delivery partners (be they from other parts of government or industry) but, in practice, collaboration is weakly incentivised. Even when a body identifies a programme partner as being responsible for integrating elements of the programme, their role might not carry the authority needed to execute this. Encouraging collaboration is not enough: someone with sufficient authority needs to specify its end goal. Otherwise delivery partners will feel unable to take the necessary actions for integration, particularly when conflicts or trade-offs emerge. When integration fails to occur, the costs of this ultimately fall back on the government.
33 For example, in the new generation electronic monitoring programme, we found that the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) had added responsibility for integrating the different elements of the programme into its contract with the supplier Capita. The Ministry saw Capita's role as taking on some of the risk that would traditionally fall to a prime contractor and managing the other three suppliers proactively. However, Capita was contractually not responsible for the work and performance of the other suppliers, and considered it lacked leverage to perform the integrator role. This difference in opinion grew into a dispute and, as delays worsened, the Ministry became concerned about Capita's incentives as the integrator. The Ministry and Capita mutually agreed to resolve their contractual differences in June 2016. As part of this agreement, the Ministry decided to bring the integrator role in-house, although it acknowledged that it needed to build capability to manage this.10
34 Government also often expects major programmes to deliver wider social and economic benefits such as job creation and access to housing, which may depend on the actions of bodies outside the control of those delivering the programme. However, it is often the case that government does not make any organisation responsible for delivering these wider benefits, assuming that completing the programme will act as an impetus for them in and of itself.
_____________________________________________________________________
9 Comptroller and Auditor General, Carrier Strike - preparing for deployment, National Audit Office, HC 374, Session 2019-2021, June 2020
10 Comptroller and Auditor General, The new generation electronic monitoring programme, National Audit Office, HC 242, Session 2017-2019, July 2017