Bad omens: signs your transformation programme will struggle and how to avoid it

IPA analysis highlights a number of factors in transformation programme behaviours that significantly magnify the potential for serious delivery issues. It has termed these the fundamental challenges. These challenges are often what result in things going wrong on transformation programmes and require focus and careful management as early as possible.

Major transformation programmes are always complicated, and they are each special in their own way. However, our research shows that over the last decade there are common problems and behaviours that if not dealt with over time lead to significant delivery issues. IPA believes 8 of these, termed the fundamental challenges, are the most significant. Critically these fundamental challenges are things that are internal to the programme and, however difficult, can be dealt with – as opposed to overarching environmental factors such as change in political direction and ministerial priorities, shifts in departmental strategy, or wider socio-economic shifts or crises such as COVID-19 that are often out of a programme’s control.

This document details these fundamental challenges to support programme leaders in identifying and managing them before they manifest as significant issues. This is critical – there is often a significant lag, even years, between these challenges becoming part of a programme and resulting issues like lack of user take up arising.

The fundamental challenges we have identified for transformation programmes were endemic across all IPA assurance of transformation programmes, representing the majority of Departments and a wide range of programmes. The reviews spanned a decade and the fundamental challenges remained consistent throughout. Every Fundamental Challenge, except for Commercial complexity, appeared in 75% of Departments and in at least 62% of the assurance reports analysed.

IPA is working to tackle these with departments, through development of good practice material such as the Project Delivery Functional Standard, Project Routemap and the Government Project Delivery Framework (GPDF) as well as through training such as MPLA and PLP. Understanding the Fundamental Challenges can help programmes avoid them, meaning they will become less prevalent over time. Ensuring your project aligns with the GPDF core requirements and makes use of tools such as Project Routemap will help to meet many challenges. This document looks at programmes in their early stages.

IPA has built a diagnostic tool to identify very specific areas where the Fundamental Challenges are manifesting. By rating themselves against success statements drawn from IPA’s analysis, programmes can pinpoint areas they need to focus on to avoid the fundamental challenges and avoid the related future issues. Further detail is available in the annex.

The 7 Lenses emerged from discussions with transformation leaders across government. They are a way to think about delivery of transformation programmes specifically. If applied alongside good fundamental programme delivery, the 7 Lenses significantly increase the chances of successful transformation. The Lenses can be viewed as a path to success and using them will give you confidence that you are focussing on the right priorities and will help you to identify which areas need more attention.

The Fundamental Challenges are obstacles to good delivery. The 7 Lenses can help illuminate the path through those obstacles. In describing the obstacles, this document is not a replacement of the Lenses, but rather a complementary tool that should be used alongside them and points out which lenses are of most use to deal with specific fundamental challenges. Below is an outline of each Lens:

Lens 1: Vision

The vision gives clarity around the social outcomes of the transformation and sets out the key themes of how the organisation will operate.

Lens 2: Design

The design sets out how the different organisations and their component parts will be configured and integrated to deliver the vision.

Lens 3: Plan

The plan needs to retain sufficient flexibility to be adapted as the transformation progresses while providing confidence of delivery.

Lens 4: Transformation leadership

Delivering a transformation often means motivating into action a large network of people who are not under the direct management of the transformation leader.

Lens 5: Collaboration

Collaboration is key to transformation in a multidimensional environment that increasingly cuts across organisational boundaries.

Lens 6: Accountability

Having clear accountability for transformation within an organisation enables productivity and improved decision making, and leads to better outcomes.

Lens 7: People

Transformation will require people in your organisation to be engaged and to change their ways of working – you need to communicate effectively with them at every stage of the transformation.

What follows is a detailed description of the Fundamental Challenges, indicating what programmes need to watch out for. The box outlines which of the 7 Lenses of Transformation can help deal with the particular Fundamental Challenge, and questions the programme should ask itself.

It can be difficult for teams to effectively navigate the commercial environment. Often because teams do not have sufficient specialist commercial resources, or more fundamentally because they do not recognise the commercial implications of what they are designing, they are unclear where commercial focus is needed or where commercial risk is being built up. Commercial expertise should be brought in as early as possible to ensure the vision and design are commercially viable. The IPA’s Project Routemap Procurement module can help project teams to navigate the complexities of their commercial environment, including engaging the market, selecting the contracting model, designing the tender process and managing the performance of commercial partners.

The main characteristics of Commercial complexity are insufficient commercial experience, outside of normal procurement, and unrealistic scheduling.

Lack of commercial expertise, limited engagement with government commercial partners and often lack of recognition that such expertise needs to be brought in early, can mean that commercial dependencies are not recognised, and the criteria by which commercial partners are measured are not clearly defined. It may mean that the delivery partner costs have not been benchmarked against rates elsewhere in government, which can lead to poor value for money (vfm). All of these outcomes can have significant delivery implications further down the line.

The symptom of unrealistic scheduling may come from failing to sight the Government Commercial Function (GCF) early to advise on commercial strategy and market engagement.

To overcome Commercial complexity:

Look at the People and Collaboration Lenses from the 7 Lenses of Transformation.

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Does the programme have people in place with sufficient commercial expertise?
• Is the programme collaborating across organisational boundaries?
• Are the criteria by which commercial partners are measured clearly defined?
• Are commercial dependencies recognised?

Often initiatives struggle to take their strategic intent and turn it into a realistic design. This can result in operating models that are not fit for purpose or service design being misaligned with real world requirements. There is pressure on programmes to get on and deliver. However, transformation programmes are often working to deliver a paradigm shift in the way people interact and the technology they use, or trying to influence and change ways of working that are deeply embedded. To do this well and to deliver maximum benefit they need time to test, trial and refine designs to ensure that what they are delivering will work.

The main symptoms of Insufficient design are unsatisfactory operating model design, poor scoping and poor internal stakeholder engagement.
The Target Operating Model (TOM) has not continued to evolve throughout the course of design work, or as a response to feedback and learning in agile programmes, which prevents the strategy from being translated into operational reality at granular levels of detail. End customer needs and a digital focus do not inform the TOM and service designs from the beginning.

Having a vision that does not present a clear picture of the operational change or real world use of services leads to poor scoping. This means that the scope doesn’t cover all aspects of the transformation – including people as well as technology and physical or digital infrastructure. Furthermore, it creates potential issues with scheduling and costing given the risk of scope change. The design needs to cover the entirety of what the programme is delivering from start to end.

Insufficient focus on design often leads to a serious lack of common understanding or agreement about how the strategy translates into more detailed design amongst stakeholders leading to delay and operational confusion or inefficiency later on. Similar issues arise from lack of time and focus limiting expert input and challenge from a diverse range of voices.

To overcome Insufficient design:

Look at the Design and Vision Lenses.

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Does the scope cover all aspects of the transformation? Does it include people, technology and physical or digital infrastructure and service design?
• Does the design cover the end-to-end operational and design picture and reflect reality, instead of focusing primarily at a strategic policy level?
• Is expertise being drawn from a range of stakeholders and users in informing the design?
• Is design being tested and iterated to improve it?
• Is it clear how organisational vision, strategy and objectives translate into practical business change?
• Are business needs captured evenly across relevant organisations or key external stakeholders?

The IPA’s Project Routemap Requirements module can help project teams to establish and prioritise stakeholder requirements and to align these with wider policies and aims. The Systems Integration module reinforces the need for project leadership to maintain a clear focus on the target operating model and to communicate this to everyone involved in the project. Furthermore, undertaking Outcome Profile and Opportunity Framing, and responding to the GPDF strategic core requirements will help to ensure the right things are done in the right way

Governance is too often overcomplicated and does not empower delivery teams to make the right decisions. This is common with transformation programmes, particularly as there are often a wide group of stakeholders within the department or indeed across departments. It is essential that the SRO focuses on getting the right people to the Programme Board to make informed decisions and sets decision making responsibility at the right levels.

Clarity of direction, pace and stakeholder buy-in are critical to successful delivery , so a Lack of effective decision making is a serious concern for transformation programmes.
The main symptoms of this Fundamental Challenge are lack of clarity on who the main decision makers are and the extent to which leaders at different levels are empowered. This sits alongside poor internal stakeholder engagement.

A wide range of stakeholders can make it difficult to build strong controls and bring together embedded high level governance structures. The result is a risk that governance boards are not effective decision-making bodies providing robust challenges and maintaining momentum. This can severely impact the schedule and quality of outcomes.
Poor internal stakeholder engagement often leads to decision making forums that do not have the benefit of a broad range of views leading to programme visions that are not robust, shared or deliverable.

To overcome Lack of effective decision making:

Be familiar with the Accountability and Transformation leadership Lenses.

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Does the vision allow clarification of what is not in scope for delivery as much as what is?
• Is the scope based on a clear assessment of need in the wider stakeholder environment?
• Is there an engaged Sponsor Group, and experienced SRO and Programme Director in place with a track record of success in transformation programmes?
• Is there a clear definition of roles, relationships, responsibilities and accountabilities?
• Is there shared accountability for the programme’s governance?

The IPA’s Project Routemap Governance module supports project teams in designing good governance arrangements that will empower decision-making.

Insufficient engagement with the user, internal or external to the organisation, or focus on user requirements at best can lead to delivering solutions that are not optimal for users. This will impact pick-up rate and engagement and therefore ultimately limit realisation of benefits. Engaging users (co-designing, piloting, testing and trialling of services or products) as well as conducting and using user and behavioural research can avoid falling into this trap.

Lack of user focus manifests where programmes not primarily designing around the end user who will engage with their services or the public servants who will provide them.

The main characteristics of lack of user focus are poor internal and external stakeholder engagement and often a lack of confidence around quantified benefits.

Poor internal and external stakeholder engagement risks limiting benefits as most benefits cases normally have core assumptions about user engagement, adoption or capability to work in new ways. The design work must show that these assumptions can be met – without working with and communicating to users, transformation programmes are at significant risk of not delivering their policy intent.

Furthermore, benefits need to be tested with the wider stakeholder community to ensure they are fit for purpose.

To overcome Lack of user focus:

Use the Collaboration and People Lenses.

Ask yourself:

• Is the end user the focus of the vision?
• Are the user journeys and end user experience a core part of shaping the programme?
• Is there clear communication about the importance of the programme, change or initiative from senior leadership inside and outside the programme?
• Have the key stakeholders in the transformation been proactively identified and brought together?
• Are multiple cross-organisational partners brought together early and regularly to ensure delivery plans, assumptions, costings etc are integrated and aligned?
• Are users clear about when key milestones are coming into effect? Do they have visibility of the high-level forward plan and understand key decisions?

Programmes underestimate/don’t acknowledge time, cost, and external factors and the impact these may have. Often they don’t account for the time it will take for people to understand and become familiar with a new way of doing things or cost in sufficient change management. There is also often significant pressure to provide the shortest possible time frames. In the long run, however, this will lead to significant disappointment as expectations set early are rarely met.

Out of all the Fundamental Challenges, Over-optimism is most likely to be resolved over time as the programme progresses and estimates become more realistic. However, the negative impacts of Over-optimism are extensive. The three main symptoms of Over-optimism are unrealistic scheduling, lack of a long-term plan, and poor business case development and clarity.

Unrealistic scheduling comes from having a vision with insufficient detail for realistic and accurate costing and scheduling, and over-optimism about how quickly people and an organisation can absorb change. Approvals and assurance processes have not been included in the scheduling and long-term plans for the programme.

Lack of a long-term plan means the delivery plan has not been stress-tested thoroughly and feedback on deliverability is not incorporated by the team. The programme does not actively work to avoid creating unrealistic expectations and it does not take into account real-world timescales.

Business case development and clarity indicates that significant time has not been spent on understanding the scope and scale of the programme, costing and funding, scheduling and risk. Often there is too little attention paid to the operational and people elements of the transformation.

Good practice – for example as articulated in the GPDF – requires scope to be set and estimates to be developed to greater accuracy and finalised by FBC approval. It is possible for a project to use the governance process to its benefit and, from its stakeholders, force agreement and / or accept uncertainty. A project should strive not to accept uncertain outcomes with fixed constraints or the opposite.

To overcome Over-optimism:

Look at the Plan and Design Lenses.

Ask yourself the following:

• Are the benefits linked to the vision realistic and have they been tested with wider stakeholders and independently assessed as achievable?
• Has the scope and scale of the final organisation or service been tested and agreed, and is the level of risk around sizing understood?
• Have approvals and assurance processes been included in the scheduling and long term planning for the programme?
• Has the plan been stress tested thoroughly including through benchmarking and independent assessment to ensure it is deliverable?
• Has the programme spent significant time understanding the costing and the funding needed and levels of risk and contingency against key areas?
• Is it clear who owns benefits not just within the programme but in the wider department and government eco-system?
• Is there clarity about the scale of the business and people change elements of delivery, are they properly accounted for in terms of time and cost?

Programme delivery expertise, methodology and approaches are not embedded or mature as needed. This highlights the difficulty of pivoting from a policy-led initiative to a delivery programme. This often happens late with initial planning, costing and benefits calculations alongside the programme set-up lacking experienced input. The IPA’s Project Routemap Delivery Planning module provides support on confirming readiness to embark on the delivery phase of the project.

Three of the most prominent symptoms of Programme in name only are: underestimating risk and poor risk management, lack of quantified benefits, and lack of a quality Programme Management Office (PMO) and appropriate project based controls. There is also often not a clear picture of the overall outcome, intermediate and final benefit states and an ordered and interdependent set of projects. This will be defined in a delivery strategy that evolves into a delivery plan as required by GPDF. Transformation programmes often stay a long time in a policy-dominated environment rather than bringing in programme skills early to programmes that are deliverable and pragmatic.

Underestimating risk and poor risk management mean that the most pressing risks and evolving issues have not been prioritised and examined to the extent required. Risks need to be prioritised, assigned to owners and then actively tackled. Without discipline around risk, quality delivery is impossible.

To overcome Programme in name only:

Familiarise yourself with the Planning and Collaboration Lenses.

Ask yourself the following questions:

• Are risks recorded and where appropriate identified as issues?
• Do senior leaders have the time they need to dedicate to the programme vs business as usual and other responsibilities?
• Is the programme management approach clear and understood with leadership supporting it?
• Are different projects and workstreams within the programme using shared assumptions supporting collaboration and working together to consider dependencies in their planning and delivery work?
• Does programme delivery expertise exist throughout major workstreams/ projects and is there a sufficiently resourced client team to manage delivery?

Programmes have capacity and capability gaps as well as challenges with retention and wellbeing. Often, they do not recognise the importance of bringing in team members with transformation experience and specific transformation skills (user engagement, behavioural insight, change management, agile management, etc) early. It is important for programmes to realise early that delivery of transformation is often very different from other programme types and to resource accordingly.

Resourcing is often challenging for reasons outside a programme’s control. However, transformation programmes often compound this by focusing too little on technical capability, leadership capability and capacity, and the development of a quality PMO.

Technical capability (suitably qualified and experienced personnel) is a serious issue, as key technical resources are not brought in when required, meaning the programme is lacking the right skills and experience to achieve success and shape delivery early. Often in early phases programmes struggle to know what resource they need. IPA can advise on this. An even bigger problem comes from the inability to actively recruit professionals with the right technical skills and the lack of development of skills internally to mitigate this – planning recruitment early is critical.

Another major issue with resourcing is that the programme does not have continuity of senior leadership (SRO and PD) and when leadership changes it is unable to adapt quickly.

Lack of a quality PMO means that there are not sufficient people resources, particularly critical change and portfolio management expertise and a commitment to the longer term, which affects the programme’s ability to function effectively.

To overcome Resourcing:

Resourcing issues can be avoided by using the People Lens.

Ask yourself:

• Are there resources or plans to get resources with critical change management, digital/agile, PMO, commercial and general transformation expertise across all levels and a commitment to them longer term?
• Is there clarity in the responsibilities and accountabilities of team members and are people suited to the role they are appointed to or adequately supported in taking up their new roles?
• Is there understanding and managing of the market for key technical resources to improve chances of bringing them in when required with the right skills and experience?
• Are delivery plans matched by resourcing plans? Are resource planning and recruitment planning in place?

The IPA’s Project Routemap handbook provides a structured methodology for understanding and building the capabilities required to deliver your project successfully. The Project Routemap Organisation Design and Development module provides specific support on establishing an appropriate organisational design.

Focus on short term priorities rather than on long term goals. This is often driven by a desire to demonstrate progress either within a parliamentary cycle, SR cycle or due to shorter term political considerations. Transformation programmes are particularly vulnerable due to their iterative nature.

Short-termism leads to unrealistic scheduling, poor planning or slippages against plans, and diminution of benefits. It can lead to uncontrolled delivery that has a negative impact on VfM.
Unrealistic scheduling and not considering the optimum way to utilise available resources for subsequent phases makes it hard to keep in line with the longer-term delivery timescales of the programme.

Lack of a long-term plan makes it easy for day-to-day work to become misaligned with the overall outcomes a programme is seeking. It impacts the efficiency with which those outcomes are achieved, both from a time and cost perspective. It potentially also limits the benefits to be realised.

Lack of quantified benefits often manifests as a lack of clear commitment to update both the Business Plan and Benefits Strategy as the transformation progresses. It can also lead to issues in creating realistic benefits realisation plans in place that clearly identify accountability for delivery of each benefit. It is not clear how all benefits will be realised or measured.

To overcome Short-termism:

Use the Vision and Plan Lenses.

Ask yourself:

• Is there a benefits realisation plan in place that clearly identifies accountability for delivery of each benefit? Is it clear how all benefits will be realised or measured?
• Is there a clear commitment to update both the Business Plan and Benefits Strategy as the transformation progresses?
• Does the programme reconfrm goals with new ministers and is there buy in within the Department?
• Have internal and external changes, including new structures, new people and new Ministers, been considered in the light of longer term delivery?
• Has the programme engaged with key suppliers and stakeholders from the beginning of set up and throughout the lifecycle?
• Is there a longer term approach, based on best practice, which provides the stability, discipline, continuity and control to lead transformation into delivery with increased confidence
• Have outcomes beyond the programme delivery date been considered and any issues that may occur identified?

The IPA’s Project Routemap Requirements module supports project teams with realising and measuring project benefits. Furthermore, an integrated project delivery plan, as recommended by GPDF, helps to control delivery and ensure any changes are controlled and approved.

From the c.100 assurance reports that were analysed to make up this Fundamental Challenge guidance, the Transformation Team in IPA have also created a diagnostic tool that allows programmes to assess the level of risk they are mitigating against each Fundamental Challenge and each of the 7 Lenses.

The tool asks programmes to rate themselves against success statements drawn from an evidence base created from 10 years of nearly 100 assurance reviews to highlight areas for improvement. The tool includes statements against all Fundamental Challenges and aligns them to the 7 Lenses of Transformation and making up the HMT Green Book guidance – it builds on and compliments the 7 lenses Maturity Matrix. The tool is relevant throughout the life cycle of a programme and will allow programmes to track progress and ensure the correct focus at each stage of the life cycle.

The Maturity Matrix remains a useful tool to shape high level strategic conversations about how a programme should be set up or how it is doing, particularly with an audience that has less delivery experience or is very new to transformation. However, the Diagnostic Tool builds significantly on the Matrix, bringing a considerable weight of evidence and depth that will be of an overall greater benefit for most programmes. The tool is currently being used by transformation programmes across government.

The tool is relevant throughout the lifecycle and adapts to the programme’s lifecycle stage. Programme teams should use it before moving into new phases (e.g. prior to releasing a new business case) or simply as part of a regular annual test of the programme to help avoid building up delivery risk. IPA can provide guidance on using the tool for Departmental portfolio bodies or for any of our Tier A Active programmes. All programmes will benefit from asking a range of representative stakeholders to complete the tool to identify potential disparities. In some cases programmes may benefit from facilitated conversations or workshops to either agree data going into the tool, to moderate it or indeed to plan actions based on findings. IPA can support Tier A active programmes in doing this. Please contact the IPA at the address below or speak to your Project Delivery Adviser.
[email protected].

The IPA has worked collaboratively with Departments and their Agencies through our assurance to understand the key issues that negatively impact programme delivery. Through in-depth analysis of c.100 Gateway Review assurance reports for transformation programmes for the period 2011 to 2020 during the set-up phase and engagement with the wider delivery community.

This tool builds on the 7 Lenses Maturity Matrix and is not duplicative of existing reporting or tracking processes that form part of everyday programme governance.

There is evidence that Fundamental Challenges persist over time, therefore IPA is looking to do more work on subsequent programme delivery phases.

IPA is orchestrating government organisations working together to identify potential solutions for tackling these issues. Furthermore, IPA support can help programmes to identify where they risk falling into these or the Fundamental Challenges themselves. Please contact the IPA at the address below or speak to your Project Delivery Adviser. [email protected].