The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
28 April 2023
jerseyauditoffice.je
R.67/2023
Contents
Conclusions 5 Objectives and scope of the review 6 Detailed findings 7
Delivery variation and management 19 Appendix One – Audit Approach 23 Appendix Two – Summary of Recommendations and Area for Consideration 25
- The Integrated Technology Solution (ITS) programme was launched in early 2020 and is intended to enable the Government to use modern, cloud-based systems for finance, human resources (HR), procurement and asset management. Release One of the ITS programme went live on 1 January 2023, followed shortly afterwards by two modules of Release Two (Performance Management and Learning and Development).
- In October 2021, the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) issued a report ICT Cloud Implementation – Integrated Technology Solution that evaluated:
• the first phase of implementation of the new taxation revenue management system and considered the lessons that can be learned for future projects; and
• the design and delivery of the ITS programme up to the end of August 2021.
- The C&AG made 16 recommendations for the Government of Jersey to implement as the ITS programme progressed. All of the recommendations were accepted for implementation.
- This follow up review has considered whether the previous recommendations have been implemented and whether the ITS programme has followed best practice in the lead up to the go live' date for releases one and two.
- The review has considered the operation of the ITS programme to the end of November 2022 as well as the go live' decision at the end of December 2022. I have not reviewed the detailed functionality and operation of the ITS programme since releases one and two went live in January 2023. I have therefore not considered the operational problems that have been experienced in the live systems.
- The key findings from my review are as follows:
• the ITS programme remains an essential element to the future stability of the business operations of the States of Jersey. The previous applications used for finance were out of date and therefore unsupported and represented a strategic risk in relation to adopting modern business processes and reducing cyber security risks
• an area of particular strength in the operation of the ITS programme relates to delivery and variation management, specifically the monthly reporting to the programme's Strategic Oversight Board (SOB). The reporting model adopted for the SOB and the strong financial management and governance which it demonstrates are areas of strength in the programme and should be considered for future programmes
• the Government has de-coupled longer-term benefits realisation from the ITS programme, with the programme closing at the end of 2023. The result is that programme-level responsibility and monitoring for any benefits realisation beyond 2023 will cease. The formal arrangement for the oversight and governance of the realisation of benefits beyond 2023 is unclear. In addition, ITS-related benefits are not planned to be tracked beyond the end of 2026. Given the long-term investment in the new applications and the slower realisation of benefits than originally expected, I would expect the formal monitoring and reporting of benefits to be extended to 2030 if best practice is to be demonstrated
• project level risk management was working effectively at a detailed level at the time of my fieldwork. There was clear evidence of detailed project risks being recorded, escalated and mitigated. However the key strategic risks in relation to the programme were not evident in the documentation provided. The strategic risks of the programme that I would have expected to have been documented as the programme progressed include:
- the risks associated with the continued adoption of a big bang' approach to implementation for the whole of the States of Jersey rather than adopting a phased implementation by functional area or department. While a big bang' approach simplifies data migration to the new systems, a phased implementation would have allowed teething problems' to be identified and resolved without affecting the whole of the States of Jersey
- the risk of the lack of formal, tested, contingency plans should it be necessary to revert to previous systems; and
- the risks that were evident in the progress of the transition of the existing Supply Jersey users to the new SAP Ariba procurement system
• the full implications of releasing major functionality, in particular in relation to the impact on the end user community, should be more fully assessed. The risks and benefits of releasing major functionality should be set out to inform decision making. In practice, several problems have been experienced following go live'. These have been captured by the programme team in a Ministerial briefing dated 27 January 2023; and
• I found that 12 of the 16 recommendations made in the C&AG Report from October 2021 had been implemented with two not implemented, one partially implemented and one where further enhancements could be made.
- The ITS programme was launched in early 2020 and is intended to enable the Government to use modern, cloud-based systems for finance, human resources (HR), procurement and asset management. It forms one part of a significant investment being made by Government in digital modernisation.
- My review has identified some elements of good practice in the way in which the ITS programme has been managed. However, there is a need for Government to improve its management of strategic risks in major programmes, to ensure that sufficient specific business-unit level approval of functionality is gained prior to go live' and to enhance its processes to monitor the realisation of the benefits expected to be delivered over a sufficiently long time-span.
Objectives and scope of the review
- This review has evaluated:
• the arrangements established to manage and monitor the implementation of the recommendations contained in the C&AG's 2021 report
• the progress the Government of Jersey has made in implementing the agreed recommendations
• the progress being made in implementation of releases one and two against recognised good practice. This will include assessment of the readiness for service of the two phases including:
- the preparations for monitoring benefits realisation against the business case; and
- the effectiveness of planned and implemented testing strategies; and
• whether lessons are being learned from releases one and two in the planned programmes for subsequent releases.
- The review has considered the operation of the ITS programme to the end of November 2022 as well as the go live' decision at the end of December 2022. I have not reviewed the detailed functionality and operation of the ITS programme since releases one and two went live in January 2023.
- Major ICT programmes are high cost, high profile and carry great uncertainties and risks. Experience from the public sector in many jurisdictions is that often such programmes fail to deliver their objectives in terms of cost and/or outcomes.
- My Report ICT Cloud Implementation – Integrated Technology Solution (October 2021) considered the ITS programme up to the end of August 2021 against a framework developed by the UK National Audit Office, as shown in Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 1: Framework to review programmes
Delivery Programme variation and
Purpose Value set up management
Purpose: Is there a strategic need for the programme and is this the right programme to meet the business need?
Value: Programme Does the set-up: Is the programme programme provide set up in value for accordance money? with good
practice
and are risks being well managed?
Delivery and variation management: Are mechanisms in place to deliver the intended outcomes and respond to change, and is the programme progressing according to plan?
Source: National Audit Office: Framework to review programmes Update April 2021
- This review has followed up on my October 2021 Report and has considered the ITS programme up to the end of December 2022 against the same framework.
- As noted in my 2021 Report, the quality of project initiation is highly predictive of project success. At the outset, it is essential to be clear on what objective the programme is intended to achieve and how the programme links to strategic priorities. In 2021 I considered the purpose of the ITS programme against three criteria:
• need for the programme – is it clear what objective the programme is intended to achieve?
• portfolio management and dependencies – does the programme make sense in relation to the Government's strategic priorities?
• stakeholder engagement – have the right people bought into the need for the programme?
- I made three recommendations in this area. Progress in implementing these recommendations is summarised in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2: Progress in implementing 2021 recommendations relating to purpose Recommendation Current Position Evaluation
R1 Document an A draft Technology Strategy has Not yet implemented overall IT strategy for been prepared. Further work is
the States of Jersey. being undertaken on this draft
Strategy. A final Strategy is yet to
be agreed and published.
R2 Provide clearer The standing agenda for the twice- Implemented reporting to the ITS monthly ITS Programme Board
Programme Board on now includes a review of actions
the links between from the last meeting, items for
project risks, Board attention and the top risks interdependencies and issues. The risk analysis is
and the overall based on a heat map' which rates
project plan. risks in relation to probability and
impact.
Recommendation Current Position Evaluation R3 Ensure the The stakeholder Communications Implemented
Communication Plan Strategy has identified and
for the ITS segmented specific groups and
programme teams to enable targeted
documents more fully communications.
the communication
needs of the States
Assembly and
Scrutiny Panels and
how these needs will
be met.
Source: Jersey Audit Office analysis
- The ITS programme remains an essential element to the future stability of business operations of the States of Jersey. The previous applications used for finance were out of date and therefore unsupported and represented a strategic risk in relation to adopting modern business processes and reducing cyber security risks.
- However, as noted in my 2021 Report, neither the Outline Business Case (OBC) nor the Full Business Case (FBC) for ITS articulate clearly the link between the ITS programme and other active programmes aimed at modernising Government services.
- I noted in my Report in 2021 that it is essential that all elements of digital modernisation are considered as a portfolio and that dependencies between the programmes are identified formally and managed effectively. I therefore recommended that an overall IT Strategy is documented for the States of Jersey.
- Following the publication of my Report in 2021, a Technology Strategy was drafted during 2022. This draft is being considered currently with further work being undertaken by officers working alongside the Assistant Chief Minister responsible for Digital.
- The draft Technology Strategy sets out the current position of ICT in the States as shown in Exhibit 3, in relation to what is expected of a modern government and where Jersey is today.
Exhibit 3: Extract from the draft Technology Strategy
Source: Government of Jersey draft Technology Strategy
- The draft Technology Strategy sets out a long-term plan for how the Government intends to manage its technology portfolio.
Recommendations
R1 Finalise and publish the Technology Strategy.
R2 Prepare and publish six-monthly update reports on progress in implementing the
Technology Strategy.
- My 2021 Report considered whether the ITS programme has been established to deliver value using the following criteria:
• option appraisal – does the option chosen meet the programme's objective and provide long-term value?
• business case – does the business case demonstrate value for money over the lifetime of the programme?
• cost and schedule – has the programme built up robust estimates of cost and schedule, including all programme components?
• benefits – does the programme: have a baseline; know what measurable change it is going to make; and measure it? Are benefits being achieved?
- I made two recommendations, one of which was applicable across Government and one of which was specific to the ITS programme. Progress in implementing these recommendations is shown in Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 4: Progress in implementing 2021 recommendations relating to value Recommendation Current Position Evaluation
R4 Provide clearer The 2022 version of the Outline Implemented partially guidance and Business Case template requires but further work is templates to capture the anticipated costs and benefits required to make the all expected costs of to be identified for a five-year Outline Business Case major projects at the period. Depending on the project template fit-for-purpose Outline Business Case and the time taken for benefits to for long-term
stage. be capable of realisation, this time programmes.
period may be inappropriate.
In addition, the template asks for revenue and capital costs to be identified separately but does not provide a pro-forma for these two categories of cost to be separated.
Recommendation Current Position Evaluation R5 Document and There is an ITS benefits register Implemented
implement a clearly which has identified 92 benefits,
defined strategy to along with their categorisation
measure, monitor and (including financial, non-financial
report on whether the and risk reduction) and nominated
ITS programme is benefits owner. Many of these
delivering the benefits will be delivered in the
intended financial and future and this provides a
non-financial benefits framework for tracking the benefit
and outcomes. realisation.
Source: Jersey Audit Office analysis
- I have not considered options appraisal or the OBC and FBC as part of this follow up review as these aspects were considered fully in my 2021 Report.
Cost and schedule
- At the time of my initial fieldwork in November 2022, the expected programme cost was £62.52 million, of which £42.36 million had been consumed. At that time, the overall programme cost was aligned to the cost predicted in the FBC of £62 million.
- The FBC cost covers the period 2020-2026 (seven years), but the programme will close in 2023 when the system is fully live. It is however important that the Government continues to monitor benefits realisation beyond the programme closure.
- One area of particular strength in the operation of the ITS programme relates to delivery and variation management, specifically the monthly reporting to the programme's SOB.
- The role of the SOB is to ensure that:
• the overall design principles, operating model and scope are maintained throughout the programme
• the impact of any changes to or exceptions to design principles, operating model and scope is fully understood and justifiable; and
• the programme remains financially viable.
- The SOB provides feedback to the Programme Board and approves the relevant change requests, prior to ratification at the Partnership Board.
- The reporting to the SOB demonstrates strong management of consumed and predicted financial resources including detailed scrutiny of the delivery partner.
- The reporting model adopted for the SOB and the strong financial management and governance which it demonstrates should be considered for future programmes.
- Notwithstanding the reporting model adopted, there remain cost pressures within the programme driven by post go-live issues identified.
Benefits
- In relation to value, the programme's objectives are principally to provide a modern and supported business platform rather than to deliver financial benefits. The FBC projected financial benefits of £1.8 million per year from 2024 onwards.
- The initial approach to benefits management adopted by the ITS programme meant that there was an insufficient central focus on the quantification and realisation of expected benefits. The approach adopted did not enable the measurement and quantification of benefits at a whole of Government level.
- Since my 2021 Report, the ITS programme has developed a more robust approach to benefits identification and monitoring. A total of 92 specific benefits are being tracked with a detailed Benefits Owners Guide detailing the characteristics of the benefit. Responsibility for the realisation of benefits is allocated to specific officers with the nature of the benefit (including financial, non-financial, and risk reduction) being identified.
- It is apparent however that many of the financial benefits which were identified in the FBC will either not be realised or their realisation will be delayed. For example, the £3 million total attributable savings relating to benefits that would be facilitated within the Commercial Services Transformation aligned to business process efficiencies are now not expected to begin to be realised until 2026. In addition, some of the expected savings from the decommissioning of the previous system may be lost if the system has to be retained as read-only or in any other form. The ITS programme should ensure that the Government is updated annually with details of how benefits realisation is predicted to vary from the expectations set at programme commencement.
- The Government has de-coupled longer-term benefits realisation from the ITS programme, with the programme closing at the end of 2023. The result is that programme-level responsibility and monitoring for any benefits realisation beyond 2023 will cease. The formal arrangement for the oversight and governance of the realisation of benefits beyond 2023 is unclear. In addition, ITS-related benefits are not planned to be tracked beyond the end of 2026. Given the long-term
investment in the new applications and the slower realisation of benefits than originally expected, I would expect the formal monitoring and reporting of benefits to be extended to 2030 if best practice is to be demonstrated.
- In my view, business cases should take account of long-term benefit realisation beyond the closure of the implementation programme and should adopt a seven or 10-year benefit measurement horizon, which is then reported-on formally. For major programmes with long-term implementations, a 10-year horizon should be the standard.
Recommendations
R3 Ensure that the monitoring and communication of benefits realisation is a
centralised responsibility that endures beyond the closure of the ITS programme and continues to 2030.
R4 Produce annual reports on benefits realisation from closed programmes to allow
transparent reporting on long-term benefit realisation.
R5 Include a 10-year cost and benefit horizon in all business cases for major
programmes with long implementation timescales.
Area for Consideration
A1 Use the reporting model adopted for the Strategic Oversight Board and the strong
financial management and governance which it demonstrates, for future programmes.
Programme set up
- As noted in my 2021 Report, a pre-condition for successfully starting a project and running an effective competition for commercial partners is that everyone involved in delivering the project clearly understands what must be delivered, and when. Immature or incomplete specifications lead to scope creep and confusion across the supply chain and make it difficult to incentivise commercial partners to deliver effectively and to hold them to account for any subsequent shortcomings.
- My 2021 Report evaluated the following elements of programme set up:
• governance and assurance – are there structures (internal and external) which provide strong and effective oversight, challenge and direction?
• leadership and culture – does the programme have strong leadership with the necessary authority and influence?
• resources – has the organisation allocated the resources (staffing, skills, equipment and so on) required to deliver the programme?
• putting the programme into practice – are scope and business requirements realistic, understood, clearly articulated and capable of being put into practice?
• risk management – are key risks identified, understood and addressed?
- I made six recommendations in respect of programme set up in my 2021 Report. Progress in implementing these recommendations is shown in Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 5: Progress in implementing recommendations in respect of programme set up
Recommendation Current Position Evaluation R6 Document clearly Changes have been made to the Implemented
the roles and terms of reference of various
responsibilities of boards in line with the
individual members of recommendation.
groups in the
governance structure
together with the
accountability and
decision making
responsibilities for all
project activities and
deliverables.
R7 Improve the The governance forums record the Not implemented minutes of the key actions, decisions and
meetings of boards escalations within the governance
within the governance forums. There is though no
structure and ensure requirement to provide detailed
that they include a minutes.
record of all agenda
items.
R8 Enhance the level The SOB receives information Implemented and detail of financial relating to programme financial
information reported information and supplier
to the ITS Partnership performance. The information
Board. provided is detailed and
independent of suppliers. I
consider this to be a satisfactory
forum for receiving such
information.
R9 Document more The notes recorded in governance Implemented formally the matters forums now describe actions,
that have been decisions and escalations. Any
escalated between escalation acknowledges to which
groups within the ITS forum it is escalated.
governance structure.
R10 Reassess the This is now covered by the monthly Implemented level of internal SOB which determines what
resources dedicated change controls are required to
to the ITS programme the internal and external resources
and ensure that the devoted to the programme. In
programme addition, the Programme Board
timescales set are reports identify the key risks and
realistic in light of the how they will be mitigated.
resources actually
available.
R11 Ensure the ITS The ITS Programme Board twice- Implemented but Programme Board monthly report provides strong enhancements could be and the ITS evidence that this made
Partnership Board recommendation has been
reporting clarifies the implemented.
relationship between The ITS programme has stated that
the overall
programme status it aProdgrahemmres to te Mh ane C agemorporenatt e O ffice
and the status of key
component parts of (RedCPM/AOm) bguer/idGanreceen on ( RA as Gse ) statssin ug t s onhe
the programme. This
should include any pevalurograatmmed thie ps guerfoidrmanancec e. I have
assumptions being good practice from the against
made regarding Infrastructure and Projects UK's
future activities that
lead to the overall Arevuthoritiew my'es prtho ogdolramogyme . I conassur sidan erce
programme status
being reported more that enhanthcee gud toid anproce vi coude a ld wbideer
favourably than a key assessment of programme
component part of the performance.
programme.
Source: Jersey Audit Office analysis
- My fieldwork for this follow up review confirmed that the overall programme management is strong. The expected elements of good practice were in place, with an experienced and effective programme manager and strong programme communications. An example of this was the user experience venue in a dedicated facility. This facility allowed end-users to be walked through the new systems and business processes.
- Additionally a business change network of around 350 officers across the States of Jersey was put in place with demonstration roadshows organised. A 'just-in-time' approach was adopted in respect of training requirements which is not unusual for a programme of this nature.
- Project level risk management was working effectively at a detailed level at the time of my fieldwork. There was clear evidence of detailed project risks being recorded, escalated and mitigated. However the key strategic risks in relation to the programme were not evident in the documentation provided. The strategic risks of the programme that I would have expected to have been documented as the programme progressed include:
• the risks associated with the continued adoption of a big bang' approach to implementation for the whole of the States of Jersey rather than adopting a phased implementation by functional area or department. While a big bang'
approach simplifies data migration to the new systems, a phased implementation would have allowed teething problems' to be identified and resolved without affecting the whole of the States of Jersey. I understand that the decision to adopt a big bang' approach was taken as part of the procurement stage of the project, after discussion of the relevant benefits and risks of various implementation strategies with the prospective delivery partners. However I would have expected the risks associated with this approach to have continued to have been considered as the programme progressed
• the risk of the lack of formal, tested, contingency plans should it be necessary to revert to previous systems; and
• the risks that were evident in the progress of the transition of the existing Supply Jersey users to the new SAP Ariba procurement system.
- In November 2022, Internal Audit conducted a review of user access roles in the test system and made a number of observations and recommendations. The management response to these recommendations appears to treat the observations and recommendations seriously.
Recommendations
R6 Ensure that the key strategic risks associated with programmes are identified,
recorded and managed.
R7 Enhance the CPMO guidance on programme performance to have greater
alignment with wider best practice such as the UK's Infrastructure and Project Authority's programme review methodology.
Delivery variation and management
- I have considered the arrangements within the ITS programme for delivery variation and management. In doing so, I have considered specifically:
• delivery strategy – are there appropriate incentives for all parties to deliver (contractual, performance management or other)?
• change control – is there an effective mechanism to control programme alterations?
• responding to external change – is the programme sufficiently flexible to deal with setbacks and changes in the operating context?
• performance management – is progress being measured and assessed, including consideration that the programme is still the right thing to do?
• lessons learned – is the programme learning from experience on the current programme and previous relevant programmes?
• transition to business as usual – does the programme have a clear plan for transfer to operations/business as usual?
- I made five recommendations in respect of delivery variation and management in my 2021 Report. Progress in implementing these recommendations is shown in Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 6: Progress in implementing recommendations in respect of delivery variation and management
Recommendation Current Position Evaluation R12 Develop the The SOB has now been Implemented
reporting of overall established as the most senior
progress to the ITS governance forum for the ITS
Programme Board programme. Key members of the
and the ITS other boards are on the SOB.
Partnership Board to Reporting to the SOB has
align cost and delivery addressed this recommendation.
indicators in assessing
overall programme
performance.
Recommendation Current Position Evaluation
R13 Report formally The SOB is presented with a Implemented the performance of monthly review of supplier
third-party partners performance and this complies
against agreed Key with expected good practice. This
Performance information is not shared with the
Indicators (KPIs) to the Partnership Board but there is
ITS Partnership Board. representation from key members
of this board on the SOB.
R14 Develop the The SOB is presented with a Implemented change request monthly review of change control
reporting to include requests and this complies with
clear cost implications expected good practice.
associated with each
individual change
request.
R15 Revisit the The recommendations in the Implemented lessons learned log lessons learned log have been
from the Revenue considered by the ITS programme.
Jersey Transformation
Programme and
ensure all actions in
the log have been
considered and
mitigating actions are
in place for the ITS
programme.
R16 Ensure that The responsibility for benefits Implemented responsibility for realisation has been allocated and
benefits realisation is there is clear evidence that the
identified and expected benefits have been
allocated to specific categorised and that a framework
business units within for benefits realisation tracking is
departments. in place.
Source: Jersey Audit Office analysis
- At the time of my 2022 fieldwork, Release One (Connect Finance, Connect Inventory and Connect Suppliers) and Release Two (Connect People) of the ITS programme were planned to go live' at the beginning of January 2023. This is nine months later than had been forecast in the original programme plan. A decision was however made during 2022 to de-couple releases one and two, with the majority of Release Two subsequently planned to go live' at the end of January 2023.
- In my view, the imperatives of achieving planned simultaneous release dates for both releases were prioritised over lower-risk phased deployments which have a lower capacity impact on the end-user community.
- The full implications of releasing major functionality, in particular in relation to the impact on the end-user community, should be more fully assessed and the risks and benefits of doing so clearly set out for governance-level decision making.
- One of the key imperatives of the ITS programme was to minimise bespoke configuration of the applications being implemented. Achieving this imperative has critical implications for the scope and complexity of the testing and user acceptance processes. The introduction of bespoke functionality means that additional testing is required to determine whether other elements of functionality have been affected by the change.
- One of the things that was produced to inform the decision to go live' was a Business Readiness Checklist. This Checklist identified the critical activities which must be completed before the go live' decision was made. I have a number of reservations however about the effectiveness of this document in relation to business-unit acceptance and sign-off of specific functionality. In particular, the Business Readiness Checklist did not focus sufficiently on specific business areas such as health and police, but instead presented a global view of functionality (for example finance and HR) as a whole. The meant that some of the nuances of differences in how specific business areas operate was not assessed adequately.
- In addition, in the version of the Business Readiness Checklist dated 22 December 2022, 21 out of 100 sub-categories in relation to the RAG status were rated as Amber'. Given the quantity and potential impact of these sub-categories, it is not clear in the documentation provided to us how these were assessed further prior to the decision to go live'.
- In October 2021 a document was produced that captured the lessons learned in relation to testing releases one and two at that time. This contained an impact analysis of these lessons for release three. The document we were provided with as evidence has not been updated since October 2021, although post go live' lessons learned have been captured.
- In practice, several problems have been experienced following go live'. These have been captured by the programme team in a Ministerial briefing dated 27 January 2023.
R8 Ensure business readiness checklists for future releases include a service-related
dimension which provides evidence that each significant service area across the States of Jersey is satisfied that the functionality has been tested and signed off as meeting business needs.
R9 Review the lessons learned documents to ensure they have captured all lessons
learned in a single consolidated document.
R10 Develop a clearly documented plan to prevent the issues and problems from
releases one and two being repeated for future ITS releases and in future Government programmes.
Audit Approach
The review included the following key elements:
• review of relevant documentation provided by the Government of Jersey; and
• interviews with key officers within the Government of Jersey.
The documentation reviewed included the:
• Business Readiness Checklist and Connect Go-Live Decision supporting information
• C&AG Recommendations Tracker
• Connect Get Started Guide
• draft Technology Strategy
• Governance Boards Proposed Changes to Terms of Reference
• ITS Benefit Owners Guide and ITS Benefits Register
• ITS Communications Strategy and Delivery Plans
• ITS Full Business Case
• ITS Lessons Learned Log
• ITS Ministerial Briefing of 27 January 2023
• ITS Programme Received Assurance Inputs Log
• ITS RAG Guidance and Calculator
• ITS Risks and Issues Dashboard
• Outline Business Case 2022 template
• Presentations to the ITS Programme Board
• Presentations to the ITS SOB
The following people contributed information through interviews or by correspondence:
• Chief Internal Auditor
• Chief Operating Officer
• Group Director for People and Corporate Services
• Group Director, Integrated Services, Commissioning and Social Care
• Head of Business Support
• Head of ITS Commercial and Financial Management
• Head of the Intelligent Client Function
• ITS Programme Manager
• Treasurer of the States
The fieldwork was carried out by an affiliate working for the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Summary of Recommendations and Area for Consideration
Recommendations
R1 Finalise and publish the Technology Strategy.
R2 Prepare and publish six-monthly update reports on progress in implementing the
Technology Strategy.
R3 Ensure that the monitoring and communication of benefits realisation is a
centralised responsibility that endures beyond the closure of the ITS programme and continues to 2030.
R4 Produce annual reports on benefits realisation from closed programmes to allow
transparent reporting on long-term benefit realisation.
R5 Include a 10-year cost and benefit horizon in all business cases for major
programmes with long implementation timescales.
R6 Ensure that the key strategic risks associated with programmes are identified,
recorded and managed.
R7 Enhance the CPMO guidance on programme performance to have greater
alignment with wider best practice such as the UK's Infrastructure and Project Authority's programme review methodology.
R8 Ensure business readiness checklists for future releases include a service-related
dimension which provides evidence that each significant service area across the States of Jersey is satisfied that the functionality has been tested and signed off as meeting business needs.
R9 Review the lessons learned documents to ensure they have captured all lessons
learned in a single consolidated document.
R10 Develop a clearly documented plan to prevent the issues and problems from
releases one and two being repeated for future releases and in future Government programmes.
Area for Consideration
A1 Use the reporting model adopted for the Strategic Oversight Board and the strong
financial management and governance which it demonstrates for future programmes.
26 | Integrated Technology Solution – Follow Up