The challenges ahead for major government projects

The Government’s Major Projects Portfolio – worth over £500 billion – contains 149 of the biggest and most risky projects. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) was set up to challenge and support departments in delivering these major projects. Today’s PAC report says the IPA must ‘maintain its focus on project assurance and support’.

The report rightly identifies a number of barriers to helping turn these projects into success:

• The merger of the Major Projects Authority (MPA) and Infrastructure UK (IUK) – the MPA and IUK were very different organisations before coming together as the IPA. IUK actively promoted infrastructure development, while the MPA provided independent assurance of major projects. There are clear benefits to their merger – bringing new expertise on costing major infrastructure projects into the assurance process, for instance. But there are also dangers – not least that the role of promoting government projects makes it more difficult to provide independent challenge on performance; and as IfG research has shown, mergers can take time and cost a lot.

• Over-ambitious timescales and budget – over-ambition, particularly on project timescales and budgets, is one of the main reasons projects are put at risk. In line with IfG research, the report recommends the IPA set out a clear approach to early intervention to ensure the right questions are asked upfront. We know the IPA is already investing in strengthened project initiation and early assurance processes (including encouraging higher take up of the Project Initiation Routemap and the use of Critical Friend Reviews) and we look forward to seeing more on this in due course.

• Insufficient links between project managers and policy makers – the components of effective project delivery are still not sufficiently understood outside of the project management profession – the excellent training programmes of the Major Projects Leadership Academy (MPLA) are targeted at those with accountability for project delivery, but there remain further opportunities for strengthening links between project managers and policymakers, including ministers. The PAC report recommends that relevant training is made available for Members of Parliament and policymakers likely to be involved in project delivery. We think there would also be benefit in further exploring how the Policy Profession can better integrate and connect to project delivery capability in the early stages of policy development.

• Capability gaps – the Civil Service has serious capability gaps, particularly on digital and commercial skills. There would be value in looking at how the MPLA can ensure the training provided speaks to the variety of project types now in the portfolio and whether more segmented training is required. The report also pointed to the challenge of retaining project directors and senior responsible owners (SROs). The churn rate has gone down amongst SROs but keeping hold of project directors remains a challenge, suggesting that this group needs to receive more attention and investment.

Prioritisation remains one of the most serious continuing barriers to project success. John Manzoni, Chief Executive of the Civil Service – who was previously head of the MPA – has said repeatedly that ‘we’re doing too much for the resources we have’. Despite this, a large number of new projects are due to move into the portfolio.

The IfG believes there are simply too many projects on the Government’s books. While the IPA can support the process of prioritisation, these are ultimately decisions for ministers. As we have argued, the existing portfolio of major projects to be reduced, particularly now as it is not clear existing commitments are being reduced to make way for new ones.  

See the PAC report, Delivering major projects in government