Getting 'IT' Right
A Thematic Inspection

3. Programme and Project Management

Programme Management

3.1 HM Inspector expected to find in each police force a programme management team (probably a group chaired by a chief officer) to oversee progress on all current IS/IT projects and allocate resources to these projects. In practice, he found little evidence that projects were being managed within a formal structure. There was evidence of major decisions being taken without consideration of the detailed options, risks and implications of these decisions. Decisions tended to be taken following informal discussion which seldom codified the reasons for decisions and therefore rarely allowed a judgement to be taken on whether the decisions were correct, or indeed whether they were implemented in the intended way.

Project Initiation

3.2 HM Inspector found few examples of thorough evaluation of proposals to develop new IS/IT systems or make changes to existing systems. Typically, forces gave approval to projects on the basis of preparation of a report on each individual project, which was submitted through the chain of command for approval by senior management. But these approvals were often given in isolation, with the result that the IT Department was presented with work in the form of a series of unprioritised bids. Understandably, they tended to proceed with the projects whose users were most vociferous in pressing their cases - which might or might not be those which were most important to the force.

3.3 Moreover, HM Inspector was disturbed to discover that projects were initiated without a proper option appraisal. Good practice did exist. For instance, HM Inspector commends the investment appraisal for a SCRO project, carried out with the assistance of the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency. It is good practice to follow the advice of the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA), since they have wide experience of managing public sector computer projects. The publications listed in paragraph 1.13 are readily available and are based on principles which are straightforward to apply. They can be supplemented if necessary by assistance from CCTA themselves or by consultants approved by them.

3.4 HM Inspector concludes that each new computer project, or significant amendment of an existing computer system, should be approved only on the basis of an appraisal carried out in line with the CCTA guidance. In particular, that appraisal should:

• be based on the business needs of the organisation;
• consider viable options (including the status quo) for meeting these business needs - not necessarily by the use of a computer system;
• cost each option over its total life span, discounting these costs to present-day values;
• assess the benefits of each option, in meeting the organisation’s business needs - against costs calculated over the life span of the project and discounted to present-day values;
• identify the technical and financial resources necessary to deliver the option, paying particular attention to the need for skilled staff;
• take account of all costs and benefits - financial and non financial, measurable and non-quantifiable;
• identify all the risks associated with the project, and assess their effects on the project.

3.5 The resulting investment appraisal document, containing a clear recommendation, should be submitted to the Programme Management Team (see Recommendation 5) for a decision. The recommendation should state clearly what the recommended option will deliver, when - and at what cost (in financial, staffing and other terms).

Standards of Business Analysis

3.6 Once a project has been given the go-ahead, it is necessary to analyse the business need in detail in order to translate the business proposal into a workable system.

3.7 HM Inspector found that the absence of standards in many of the IS/IT strategies was accompanied by an absence of standards in systems analysis and documentation and shortcomings in many technical and resource plans.

3.8 In many of the organisations inspected, there was no evidence whatever of business analysis taking place. HM Inspector was encouraged to see a few organisations adopting a structured approach (typically SSADM) but had some doubts about whether it was used comprehensively (because it proved difficult to identify option papers produced for consideration and approval by the client - which is a function of level 3 of SSADM).

3.9 The quality of technical and resource plans was similarly varied. In some organisations, they did not exist. Organisations relied instead on technical plans provided by their suppliers. These plans were, however, not comprehensive, because they did not cover the activities which were carried out by the organisations themselves - and HM Inspector would expect to find the equivalent technical and resource plans being produced by organisations for these activities.

Project Management

3.10 All forces use some form of project management but in some cases it was apparent that essential elements were not being implemented and in particular progress reports to Project Boards left much to be desired.

3.11 The standard of project documentation was generally disappointing. In many cases, critical project documents, including project initiation documents, highlight reports to project boards, minutes of meetings, simply could not be produced. Of those documents which were produced the quality varied, many were undated and few included any kind of version control, making project control and review impossible.

Post Implementation Reviews

3.12 Few forces and other policing organisations were making use of post implementation reviews - to check, once the project had been completed, that it had met the aims which were specified at the outset, within the allocated time and budget. The review allows lessons to be learned from completed projects, which can be applied to current and future projects.

3.13 HM Inspector found a general lack of awareness that a post implementation review, undertaken or at least overseen independently of the project implementation, can contribute to the success of future project. But HM Inspector saw one high-quality post implementation review following the successful implementation of a multi-million pound project. The review had been carried out by consultants and was a substantial document - appropriate to an investment of that scale. But lessons can also be learned from smaller projects by a simpler review, carried out in-house. At present, post implementation reviews would be hindered by the absence of a statement of expected costs, benefits and timescales specified before the project is started. But as, in line with previous recommendations, such information becomes more widely available, it is good practice for an independent post implementation review to be carried out to check that each project achieves its aims, within budget and timescale, and that lessons are learned and applied to other projects.

Conclusion

3.14 HM Inspector found scope for considerable improvement in programme and project management. That does not necessarily mean more bureaucratic procedures: the principles of the PRINCE methodology recommended by CCTA are straightforward to apply. But HM Inspector considers that much firmer discipline should be applied throughout the Scottish police service to the whole process of planning, project initiatives and project management. The recommendations, with those in the previous Section, will ensure that resources diverted from front-line policing to install computer systems yields the maximum benefits for users, freeing police officers and support staff from tasks which can be carried out by computers - and thus maximising the resources which can be devoted to front-line policing and ensuring that police officers are provided with the information which is necessary for them to tackle demands effectively and efficiently.