The Programme With Three Truths
A government department is running a programme to replace a legacy case-management system, with a budget of ₤28m and a go-live date eighteen months away. The programme board receives a monthly report showing 'amber' status and 80% confidence of on-time delivery. The assurance reviewer, commissioned independently, finds that the critical path runs through a data migration that has not been scoped, that two of five projects have no named business owner, and that the reported 80% confidence is derived from a single planner's judgement with no basis recorded. The senior responsible owner is under pressure from the permanent secretary to maintain the date. The supplier's contract has a fixed price but a change-control clause that has already been used four times.
1. Assess the reliability of the programme's reported status. What would you tell the senior responsible owner, and what should happen to the 'amber' rating?
Read the worked answer
The reported status is not reliable. Three findings undermine it. First, the critical path runs through unscoped data migration, which means the schedule cannot be valid: an activity that has not been scoped has no credible duration, and if it is on the critical path the end date is an assumption rather than a forecast. Second, two projects lack named business owners, so benefits and requirements have no accountable sponsor and decisions will stall. Third, the 80% confidence figure has no recorded basis; a confidence level derived from one person's judgement, with no method, assumptions, or sensitivity analysis, is not a confidence level at all - it is an opinion dressed as a statistic.
Tell the SRO plainly that the programme is reporting a status it cannot substantiate, and that continuing to report amber creates a false assurance trail that will be examined if the programme fails. The amber rating should be withdrawn and replaced with a red or 'unrated' status pending a proper re-baseline. That is not an attack on the team; it is the only honest position.
The SRO should commission a short, focused re-plan: scope the data migration, assign business owners with written accountability, and rebuild the schedule with recorded assumptions and a sensitivity analysis. The permanent secretary should be briefed on the re-baseline before the next board, with the reason framed as improved assurance rather than failure.
2. The permanent secretary wants the date held. How should the SRO handle the political pressure while maintaining professional integrity?
Read the worked answer
The SRO's duty is to give the permanent secretary an accurate picture and a set of real choices, not to absorb the pressure silently or to pass it downward. The conversation should be structured around consequences rather than dates.
First, present the evidence: unscoped migration, missing owners, unsupported confidence. Second, present the options with their consequences: hold the date and accept a high probability of a failed or partial go-live with manual workarounds; hold the date and reduce scope, deferring named modules; or move the date with a re-baselined plan. Each option should carry an explicit statement of what the department gets and what it risks. Third, ask the permanent secretary to choose in writing, so that the decision and its rationale are recorded. That protects both parties and ensures accountability sits where the decision is made.
On integrity: the SRO should not sign a report they believe to be misleading, and should say so. If instructed to report a date the evidence does not support, the SRO should seek advice from the finance director or audit committee and, if necessary, escalate through the departmental governance route. This is not insubordination; it is the function of the role.
Finally, the SRO should use the fixed-price contract's change-control history as evidence: four changes already used suggests the fixed price is not containing scope, and the commercial position should be reviewed alongside the schedule.