Benefits Ion

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits
The CJS IT Approach to Investment Appraisal, Portfolio Prioritisation & Value Management Stephen Jenner
Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits Version 1.0
Contents
Foreword & Introduction Context Investment Appraisal Portfolio Prioritisation Value Management 1 Ensuring benefits are robust and reliable Value Management 2 Capturing all aspects of value Conclusions References Contact Details
Pages
34 5 13 14 45 46 68 69 86 87 130 131 137 138 139 140
2
Foreword by John Suffolk, UK Government CIO Foreword & Introduction

Investment in e-Government and ICT initiatives has the potential to save tax payers money, release resources for the front line and transform the citizens experience. This however requires reliable project delivery based on robust and repeatable processes. The CIO Council have therefore agreed to introduce portfolio management of the governments overall investment in IT to: match supply with demand; anticipate generic challenges; identify duplication and other opportunities for standardisation and sharing; challenge relatively low value projects; and set priorities when competing for scarce capacity.
The processes developed in CJIT to manage the CJS IT portfolio are an example of these principles being applied in practice in a highly complex cross-departmental setting. They have been recognised by a number of independent bodies and reflect best practice derived from experience both in the UK and in other jurisdictions. I commend them to you.
Introduction by Stephen Jenner, Director CJIT Foreword & Introduction

Project Portfolio and Benefits Management are relatively immature disciplines but they offer huge potential in ensuring investments in major projects and programmes are aligned with business strategy, are effectively managed and ultimately deliver their full potential benefits. Whilst software tools can help, the answer lies in integrated, active, repeatable processes that: scrutinise benefits to ensure they are robust and realisable including regular benefits integrity checks and Gates with teeth; manage investments at an enterprise level from strategic intent through to benefits realisation; and capture all forms of value increased income and cost savings; more efficient services; more effective systems in terms of outcomes; and in the public sector, wider social value. Central to all of this is a professional Value Management Office undertaking the above actions and fulfilling an intelligent customer function. The approaches developed to manage the CJS IT portfolio have borrowed heavily from best practice both in the UK and abroad. It is our fervent hope that the solutions developed will be of use to others as we progress this agenda. We are delighted to share our learnings, tools and techniques please feel free to contact me or my team at the address shown on the contacts page at the end of this document.
The context...
The fundamental reason for beginning a programme is to realise the benefits through change. Context
Source: Office for Government Commerce (OGC), Managing Successful Programmes (MSP)
It is only possible to be sure that change has worked if we can measure the delivery of the benefits it is supposed to bring.
Source: UK Cabinet Office, Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action
But
for more than two decades, implementing IT systems successfully has proved difficult implementation of IT systems has resulted in delay, confusion and inconvenience to the citizen and, in many cases, poor value for money to the taxpayer.
Source: Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, Improving the Delivery of Government IT Projects
Context
And its not a UK specific issue
A recent assessment in the Presidents Management Agenda contends that the $45 billion federal investment in IT during FY01 has not produced measurable gains.
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton, Building a Methodology for Measuring the Value of E-Services
Context
And its not just IT projects and programmes
Deficiencies in benefits capture bedevils nearly 50% of government projects.

Source: OGC, Gateway News
Context
30-40% of systems to support business change deliver no benefits whatsoever.

Source: OGC, Successful Delivery Toolkit
Nor is it just a public sector issue You can see computers everywhere but in the productivity statistics.
Source: Robert Solow (Nobel prize winning economist)
Context
78% of Information Systems projects failed to realise even 50% of the originally identified benefits
Source: Management Today
project success appears to equate to achieving an acceptable level of failure or minimizing lost benefits
Source: KPMG Global IT Project Management Survey
And the tale of woe continues

According to a 2005 CFO Magazine survey, only 40 percent of CFOs find that their IT investments are producing the returns they expected
Source: Gartner, How to Optimize IT Investment Decisions
If you ask senior executives and managers as I do in my executive programs at IMD whether their companies are extracting the expected business value of their investments in IT, the overwhelming answer by a large margin is no!
Source: Donald A Marchand, Extracting the business value of IT: It is usage, not just deployment that counts!
Context
Business cases are also generally viewed only as documents for gaining funding. Once approved they are put away.few track the business benefits the projects actually achieve
Source: Gartner, Building Brilliant Business Cases
10
The answer an integrated, active, repeatable process

Portfolio Management Selection Criteria Investment Appraisal Portfolio Prioritisation
Doing Things Right Making Evidence Based Decisions that: Are determined by projects Attractiveness and Achievability Align IT investment with business priorities Adjust the composition of the portfolio when appropriate
Active Benefits Management
Building Confidence in Delivery

Performance Management Delivery Plan Portfolio Dashboard Performance Review
Doing Things Right Managing Delivery By: Transparent / clear line of sight reporting Continued funding linked to performance including realisation of forecast benefits
Benefits Realisation Planning Data Validation Transparent Reporting
Context
Doing Things Right Ensuring Investment Success Through: Validating the scale and quality of benefits Benefits realisation management at project and recipient agency level Capturing cross-system benefits and wider social value
11
Encompassing multi-variate analysis & transparent reporting
Financial & Economic Analysis
Investment Appraisal
Context
Strategic Alignment
Portfolio Prioritisation
Transparent Reporting - Clear Line of Sight
Value Management
12
And specifically the independent role of the CJS IT Portfolio Unit

Intelligent Customer Function ensuring that: Investment decisions are supported by robust evidence based analysis of economic and strategic impact The requirements set by the governing bodies and HM Treasury are addressed Funding allocations remain aligned with strategic priorities Value Management Office ensuring that: Benefits forecasts are robust and realisable with double counting removed All aspects of value are captured: driving up forecasts; undertaking Portfolio-level research into crosssystem benefits, social, political and foundation value The processes, tools and techniques adopted remain aligned with best practice including those used in other jurisdictions
Context
13
Deciding Whether to Invest
Booz Allen Hamilton International e-Gov Benchmarking Study 2005 sound investment practices...CJIT has adopted many best-practice investment toolsrecognised by the EC as a leader in this field in Europe
14
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Contents Gates Investment Criteria Financial Analysis Benefits Validation Proving Model Investment Appraisal Report
15
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Implementing Gates with Teeth

e1 Gat
Funding to progress to FBC
ppr ial A Init

Exchange Programme
IT Support for Statutory Charging Feasibility Study
Doc Ref : No Author: Owner: Version: Status: Issue Date: ITS4SC -005 Gar RJenkins y Robert Stevenson 1.00 Final Fri 30June day 2006 Restricted Management
l ova
Project joins Portfolio Funding confirmed for current year Indicative allocations for remaining years of planning period
e2 Gat
Concept Case/ Feasibility Study or Outline Business Case
ppr ull A F
Exchange Programme
IT Support for Statutory Charging Full Business Case
Doc Ref No : ITS4SC Gar y R - 007 Jenkins Au thor: Owner:
l ova
Robert Stevenson
Version:
1.00
Status: Issue Dat e:
Final
e Gat
Fri day
30
Sept
2006
Restricted
Management
Statutor y Charging Project
Full Business Case
view view reRe ul a tR Reg Con

Performance subject to review on a 6 monthly basis
16
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
So funding allocations are Incremental Guaranteed only to the next Gate Review Increased as confidence in outcome grows Linked to performance Enforced by Gates with Teeth
17
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial analysis
Benefits validation
Proving
Investment Report
Gate Reviews and the Project Life Cycle

Develop Business Case OGC Gateway 0 Strategic Assessment Concept Business Case Strategic Concept Seed Case Funding Outline Case Develop Procurement Strategy 1 Business Justification Requirements Outline Business Case Competitive Procurement Award & Implement Contract Manage Contract Closure 2 Procurement Strategy Procurement Full Business Case 3 4 Investment Strategic Decision Assessment Build Run 5 Benefits Realisation Benefits Realisation
Updates
Updates
Updates
CJS IT Portfolio Management Investment Appraisal (inc. Proving Review)
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA Gate X: Continuing Review

IA
Gate 1: Initial Approval

IA IA
IA
Gate 2: Full Gate 2: Full Approval Approval

IA IA
IA
6 Monthly Review (Delivery Plan) Spending Reviews (Comprehensive Portfolio Re-prioritisation)
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA IA
IA
IA IA
IA
IA
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
18
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Investment Criteria 3 A analysis

Just as assessments of Risk and Return underpin Portfolio Management in modern finance theory, so assessments of Attractiveness and Achievability underpin investment appraisals in Project Portfolio Management. Attractiveness i.e. Return on Investment (RoI) and the contribution the project will make to strategic priorities Achievability i.e. degree of innovation and complexity; whether there is sufficient capability and capacity to deliver the project; adequacy of risk assessment and contingency; and stakeholder commitment. Additionally, because funding is constrained, we also need to consider: Affordability i.e. in the context of available funds, what allocation of resources to projects will have the greatest impact in terms of strategic contribution and return on investment.
19
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Investment Selection Criteria Investment Principles

1. All projects funded by the CJS IT Budget are subject to HM Treasurys Settlement Conditions and CJS IT governance arrangements 2. Projects must contribute to the CJS Vision and/or add value to multiple Organisations 3. What has been started should be finished - funding should continue for those projects that are on time and to budget, otherwise previous investment would be wasted 4. No new projects should be funded unless they can demonstrate a positive NPV with benefits agreed in principle by all parties 5. Options selected should represent: shortest implementation time, lowest cost and deliver a reasonable amount of benefit 6. Overspends should be borne by the relevant organisation rather than the ring-fence 7. Continued funding will be contingent on project performance and will be reviewed periodically 8. Projects will not be funded if critical issues are unresolved 9. Projects should meet best-practice thresholds for Attractiveness and Achievability.
20
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
But the process depends on robust data

The best project selection system in the world is worthless unless the data is sound.
Source: Bob Cooper and Scott Edgett, Ten ways to make better project portfolio and project selection decisions
21
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Unfortunately
Business cases contain untested assumptions masquerading as facts
Source: Bob Mornan, Benefits Realisation: Government of Canada Experience. Presentation to the OECD
22
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
23
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
But its hardly surprising when

In a survey of 60 companies conducted by Cranfield School of Management, 47% of respondents openly admitted to overstating the benefits in order to gain project approval. In other words, they claimed benefits that could never be realised in practice because no one expected to be held accountable for those benefits.
Source: Wentworth Research, Benefits RealisationMany Happy Returns
24
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
And
83% of IT directors admit that the cost/ benefit analysis supporting proposals to invest in IT are a fiction. A conspiracy of lies
Source: Kit Grindley, Managing IT at Board Level
25
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Optimism Bias is therefore an empirical reality

is a demonstrated, systemic, tendency for project appraisers to be overly optimistic. This is a worldwide phenomenon that affects both the private and public sectorsappraisers tend to overstate benefits, and underestimate timings and costs
Source: HM Treasury, The Green Book
There
26
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
So robust validation of Business Case claims are required

But
all methods are somewhat unreliable; so consider using multiple selection methods in combination
Source: Bob Cooper and Scott Edgett, Ten ways to make better project portfolio and project selection decisions
27
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
CJS IT Portfolio Unit Validates and Triangulates investment decisions

1. NPV/IRR criterion as measured against: The HMT Green Book Spending Review hurdle rates The Benefits Eligibility Framework
2. Validation of: Benefits claims with recipients Efficiency benefits with efficiency planners Strategic alignment with strategic planners
3. Assessment of Attractiveness and Achievability against research benchmarks using the Proving Model
28
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
And adjusts the investment criteria to suit the type of project

Projects are justified on three grounds: 1. Mandated (regulatory or legislative) - to satisfy a requirement that is not currently being satisfied 2. Financial - cost savings, productivity improvements or new revenues 3. Organisational - enabling a strategic objective
29
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
SoCJS IT adopts the following classification

Category of Projects
Business Applications New Infrastructure Replacement Infrastructure
Investment Decision Criteria
Cost-benefit appraisal using the direct benefits of the application under consideration. Investments are required to meet a minimum return on investment Cost-benefit appraisal taking into consideration the enabled benefits from applications that will run on that infrastructure. Investments are required to meet a minimum return on investment Cost-effectiveness appraisal i.e. on a like-for-like basis (and subject to confirmation that the infrastructure meets a continuing business need) does the replacement infrastructure release funds for use in front-line services? Such investments are not discretionary and hence are not required to demonstrate a positive return on investment although their costs and benefits are managed using the normal CJS IT practices. To the extent that costs exceed the quantified benefits there is an implicit assumption that the deficit represents the value of legal / regulatory compliance or reduced risk of policy failure. This gap is usually implicit the CJS IT approach is to make the gap explicit i.e. to make the governance bodies aware that in approving the project they are accepting that the cost represents the price (political value) they are willing to pay to receive the benefits.
Benefits validated with the recipients & Project meets minimum standards of Attractiveness and Achievability
Politically Mandated and Legally / Regulatory Required Projects
30
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 1 Financial/Economic Analysis

Guidance in the HM Treasury Green Book is mandatory - The ability to judge how effectively government resources have been expended is essential to their strategic long-term management. So ALL costs and benefits of a proposal should be valued wherever feasible this includes: efficiency savings, and the economic value of improved performance (effectiveness benefits) Programmes are expected to show a positive NPV Adjustments should be made to costs and benefits for Optimism Bias
31
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 1 Financial/Economic Analysis

Exchange Program e m
Green Book
A uthor: O ner: w Status:
ITSupport for StatutoryCharging

Feasibility S tudy
Doc R No: ef ITS4SC -005 G RJenkins ary Robert Stevenson 1.00 Final Friday 30 June 2006 Restricted M anagem ent For distribution to the CJSIT Portfolio Unit Proving ServicesT and theITSupport for eam S tatutory C harging Project Board
Version:
Benefits Eligibility Framework
Issue D ate:
Optimism Bias Adjustments
32
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 2 Benefits Validation

A completed project represents potential business benefits, not bankable benefitsBut identifying and quantifying benefits are not enough. Unless business unit executives commit to achieving them and have the tools to measure them realizing the benefits is unlikely.
Source: Gartner, Building Brilliant Business Cases
33
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 2 Benefits Validation

Project View of Benefits
Benefits Contributor
Business Case Development

Measuring & Tracking: Initial Baselining
If funding approved Benefits Eligibility Framework Check alignment with BEF e.g. double counting, cost avoidance
1-Page Summary Benefits Report
Project Live Service
CJIT VMO
Benefits Evidence & Revised Forecast
Project Benefits Lead and Benefits Realisation Lead agree Efficiency & Effectiveness benefits
Benefit Realisation Plan: Police Benefit Realisation Plan: CPS Benefit Realisation Plan: Courts Benefit Realisation Plan: Corrections
Benefits Recipients
Benefits Validation with Recipients Benefits Validation with Efficiency Planners Benefits Validation with Strategic Planners
Measuring & Tracking: Benefits Realisation
CPS Efficiency Plan
Efficiency Planners
DCA Efficiency Plan HO Efficiency Plan Confidence
Strategic Planners
Strategic Planners agree Efficiency & Effectiveness Benefits that contribute to Strategic Targets & priorities
Victims & Witnesses Offences Brought To Justice (OBTJ) Enforcement Reduced Re-offending
Benefit Realisation Leads and Efficiency Planners agree Efficiency Benefits that contribute to Departmental Efficiency Plans
34
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 3 - The Proving Model

Based on research by Cranfield University in 2001 of 178 Projects. Since augmented by studies of a further 630 projects into the factors underlying project and programme failure to realise forecast benefits: In the overwhelming majority of cases, these factors were manifest prior to business case authorisation.
Source: Management Today
i.e. failing projects and programmes dont have brilliant business cases and strong stakeholder commitment.
Key: Independent, research-based and OGC accredited Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits
35
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
The Proving Model

Project Assessment
Project Attractiveness factor analysis Strategic contribution Scale and confidence in benefits analysis & realisation Clarity of investment objectives Belief of stakeholders in Attractiveness
Attractiveness Summary
Weighting Strategic Alignment & Contribution 100.0 Benefits Analysis 100.0 100.0 Objectives Definition Analysis 80.0 Stakeholders Analysis Attractiveness Total Score 58.2 69.0 65.0 63.2 61.3
Achievability Summary
Weighting 80.0 Complexity Analysis 100.0 Processes & Capability Ownership & Accountability 100.0 Clarity & Perception 80.0 100.0 Benefits Realisation Management 60.0 Stakeholders Analysis Achievability Total Score 75.0 69.0 51.0 61.7 63.8 54.5 64.6
Project Achievability factor analysis Complexity analysis Processes & Capability Ownership & Accountability Clarity & Perception Planning for Benefits Realisation Commitment of stakeholders
Source: Investment Analyser
36
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 3 - Proving Reviews: Attractiveness factor analysis

Strategic Alignment & Contribution
Relative driver importance Direct versus indirect benefits Scale of contribution & confidence in impact
Benefits Analysis
Confidence in benefits - targets and measures Verification with benefit recipients and benefit owners Confirmation of realistic timescales for benefits realisation Organisations track record in realisation of benefits
Attractiveness
Objectives Definition Analysis

Identification of objectives (technology, training, implementation, business/process change) Assessment of cost, resource, timescales, critical actions, business changes for each objective
Stakeholder Attractiveness Analysis

Confirmation of stakeholder commitment
37
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 3 Proving Reviews: Achievability factor analysis

Complexity Analysis
Scale size of proposed project Volatility likelihood that key project elements may change Interdependence critical dependencies both within the project and also with other activities and projects Diversity implications of variety or differences in expectations or requirements Novelty the uniqueness or originality of the proposed activities or solution
Processes & Capability
Achievability
Evidence of ability to deliver within known constraints
Ownership & Accountability

For the claims and analyses made within the project documentation
Clarity & Perception

Common view of project objectives on the part of key stakeholders
Benefits Realisation Management

Adequacy of planning for benefits realisation
Stakeholder Achievability Analysis

Confirmation of stakeholder commitment
38
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Triangulation and Validation 3 - The Proving Model advantages

Applied to new projects (Gates 1 & 2) and those in flight (Gate X) The only OGC Gold accredited Investment Appraisal tool Removes many of the arguments research-based Augments financial/economic analyses it provides a different mirror
39
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Bringing it all together The output a summary Investment Appraisal report for the Governance Bodies with the salient facts covering:
Attractiveness 1. Financial & Economic Analysis 2. Benefits Validation with the recipients and assessment of Strategic Alignment 3. Proving Model Score Achievability Affordability
1. Proving Model Score 1. Resource & Capital Requirements 2. SRO Assessment based on the PMDU* PSA 2. Resource & Capital appraisal framework Gaps 3. Cost / Benefit 3. Any Funding Issues Reliability and and recycling of Cost Completeness Savings
* Prime Ministers Delivery Unit
40
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Investment Appraisal Report Attractiveness Analysis

ATTRACTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS*
NPV (M) EXCLUDING OPTIMISM BIAS
N/A
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT & CONTRIBUTION
IRR (%)
PAY BACK PERIOD (YEARS)
SROS ASSESSMENT
DESIRABLE HIGHLY DESIRABLE
STRATEGIC PLANNERS ASSESSMENT [NAME]

DESIRABLE HIGHLY DESIRABLE
MISSION CRITICAL
INCLUDING OPTIMISM BIAS CONFIRMATION THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE COMPLIANT WITH BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY FRAMEWORK (BEF) CONFIRMED BY: COMMENTS:
STRAND 1: CONFIDENCE
Yes No
STRAND 2: VICTIMS & WITNESSES
MISSION CRITICAL
MINIMAL
MINIMAL
N/A
Economic Analysis
BENEFITS ANALYSIS OVER 10 YEAR PROJECT LIFE CYCLE (M)

STATE 10 YEAR PERIOD COVERED OR PROJECT LIFE SPAN IF LESS THEN 10 YEARS:
STRAND 3: OFFENCES BROUGHT TO JUSTICE
RECIPIENT
EFFICIENCY CASHABLE
EFFICIENCY OPPORTUNITY VALUE
EFFECTIVENESS CASHABLE
EFFECTIVENESS OPPORTUNITY VALUE
STRAND 4: ENFORCEMENT
Strategic Alignment
PUBLIC PROTECTION
CJO: Police CJO: CPS CJO: DCA CJO: NOMS CJO: YJB CROSS CJS: BEYOND THE CJS(SPECIFY): TOTALS:
REDUCING RE-OFFENDING
BENEFIT INCLUDED IN DEPARTMENTAL EFFICIENCY PLANS
Yes In Full Yes In Part No
Yes In Full Yes In Part No
SOURCE OF CONFIRMATION OR PROPOSED ACTIONS & TIMESCALES TO ENSURE BENEFITS ARE INCLUDED IN BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN
PROVING MODEL ASSESSMENT

DATE OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT: ATTRACTIVENESS SCORE: PROGRESS SINCE LAST
ATTRACTIVENESS ASSESSMENT:
PROVING SERVICES ATTRACTIVENESS SCORE BREAKDOWN
CONCEPT CASE (COMPLETE AS APPROPRIATE)
INCLUDED IN BRP
AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE POLICE BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN (BRP)

OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE POLICE BENEFITS REALISATION LEAD(BRL) BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE CPS BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE CPS BRL BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE DCA BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE DCA BRL BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE NOMS BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE NOMS BRL BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE YJB BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE YJB BRL
Benefits Validation
NOT YET AGREED
Score Stakeholder Analysis (Attractiveness) Objectives Analysis Benefits Analysis Strategic Alignment & Contribution Attractiveness Total
BUSINESS CASE (COMPLETE AS APPROPRIATE)
Research Based
Score
Strategic Alignment & Contribution Benefits Analysis Objectives Definition Analysis Stakeholders Analysis Attractiveness Total
41
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Investment Appraisal Report Achievability Analysis

ACHIEVABILITY ANALYSIS
DATE OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT: ACHIEVABILITY SCORE: PROGRESS SINCE LAST
ACHIEVABILITY ASSESSMENT:
COSTS SUFFICIENT CONTINGENCIES INCLUDED?

GAP BETWEEN OPTIMISM BIAS ADJUSTED COSTS AND REQUESTED FUNDING: [XM] CONFIRM WHETHER COSTINGS INCLUDE THE COSTS OF OPTIMISM BIAS MITIGATION:
Yes No
PROVIDE EXPLANATORY COMMENTS IF MITIGATION COSTS NOT INCLUDED:
PROVING SERVICES ACHIEVABILITY SCORE BREAKDOWN

Score
MITIGATION OF OPTIMISM BIAS IS REASONABLE Reviewed by: Yes
Comments
Cost/ Benefits Reliability
Research Based
Stakeholder Analysis (Achievability) Indication Achievability Complexity Analysis Achievability Total

BUSINESS CASE (COMPLETE AS APPROPRIATE)
No n/a
SROS SELF ASSESSMENT SROS NAME: ASSESSMENT RATING

DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY QUALITY OF PLANNING, PERFORMANCE & BENEFITS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY TO DRIVE PROGRESS
DATE: SUMMARY RATIONALE FOR ASSESSMENT
Score Complexity Analysis Processes & Capability Ownership & Accountability Clarity & Perception Benefits Realisation Management Stakeholders Analysis Achievability Total
CONFIDENCE OF DELIVERY
LOW RED HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC
REQUIRES URGENT AND DECISIVE ACTION
LOW/MEDIUM RED/AMBER PROBLEMATIC REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION,

SOME ASPECTS NEED URGENT ACTION
MEDIUM AMBER MIXED SOME ASPECT(S) REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION, OTHERS GOOD
MEDIUM/HIGH AMBER/GREEN GOOD REQUIRES SOME

REFINEMENT AND SYSTEMATIC IMPLEMENTATION
HIGH GREEN GOOD NO ATTENTION

NEEDED
ASSESSMENT OF DEGREE OF BUSINESS CHANGE REQUIRED TO REALISE BENEFITS RECIPIENT BRL ASSESSMENT COMMENTS
MEDIUM
LIKELIHOOD OF BENEFITS REALISATION:

LOW N/A
SROs Self AssessMent
Cost/ Benefits Complete ness
Police CPS DCA NOMS YJB Others [specify]
HIGH
STAGE OF DELIVERY:
PROJECT SCOPING DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION & DEPLOYMENT BENEFITS REALISATION
42
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
SROs Self Assessment of Achievability

1. Degree of Complexity
DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY: Select
RED HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC
2. Quality of Planning, Performance 3. Capacity to Drive Progress & Benefits Management

GREEN GOOD NO ATTENTION NEEDED.
RED/AMBER PROBLEMATIC REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION, SOME ASPECTS NEED URGENT ACTION
AMBER
MIXED SOME ASPECT(S) REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION, OTHERS GOOD
AMBER/GREEN GOOD REQUIRES SOME REFIINEMENT AND SYSTEMATIC IMPLEMENTATION
QUALITY OF PLANNING, PERFORMANCE & BENEFITS MANAGEMENT: Select

RED/AMBER PROBLEMATIC REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION,

AMBER
MIXED SOME ASPECT (S) REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION, OTHERS GOOD
AMBER/GREEN GOOD REQUIRES SOME

REFIINEMENT AND SYSTEMATIC IMPLEMENTATION
CAPACITY TO DRIVE PROGRESS: Select

RED/AMBER PROBLEMATIC REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION,

AMBER
AMBER/GREEN GOOD REQUIRES SOME

REFIINEMENT AND SYSTEMATIC IMPLEMENTATION
ASSESSMENT: QUALITY OF PLANNING, PERFORMANCE & BENEFITS MANAGEMENT AREAS TO ASSESS EXAMPLE QUESTIONS BEST CASE
WORST CASE
Business objectives, business benefits and project success criteria are not clearly specified. Contribution of the project and benefits to strategic priorities is not clearly articulated. Project plans are incomplete or are not well understood by key stakeholders. Significant shortfalls or uncertainties around required funding remain. Staff in key project positions either lack relevant experience or have insufficient time or resources to devote to the project. Definition of risk too narrowly focused, key risks to implementation/realisation overlooked. SROs/Boards are not clearly accountable for outcomes; Boards act as discussion fora, with little decision-making. A BRP has not been agreed and benefits have not been agreed with the recipients. No measures or indicators identified or those that have been will be difficult to collect. No measures or indicators identified or those that have been will be difficult to collect. Performance reporting is infrequent, incomplete or the information is not reliable.
ASSESSMENT: DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY AREAS TO ASSESS EXAMPLE QUESTIONS

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
Is this a bespoke solution? Is there a requirement to interface to multiple legacy systems? Does the solution require innovative technology? How close is the date for project or programme completion? Has recent performance been on track? Are there any constraints that make the project or programme particularly difficult to deliver? Is major organisational change required along the delivery chain in order to realise the planned benefits? How complex is the delivery chain? What mix of departmental, other public body, private sector, and other agency action will be needed to ensure successful delivery? How dependent is this project or programme on the delivery of other projects or change programmes? What additional risks are associated with delivering this project or programme? How great an impact could they have?
BEST CASE
Off the shelf solution using proven technology. No or low level of integration required. Data standards and security issues addressed. Project close to completion; Continuation of trend will deliver the project on time with relatively few changes required. No constraints, or only a few constraints, that can be managed. No major organisational change required and business change restricted to the home organisation. Relatively uncomplicated / manageable delivery chain involving relatively few suppliers and end users. Interdependencies well understood and manageable.
WORST CASE
Bespoke solution using innovative technology requiring integration with multiple systems. Agreement on security and data standards required. Long time span (>3 years) to project completion; A major reversal in performance trend is required. Major constraints exist that will be difficult to manage and which will significantly impact on ability to deliver. Major organisational change required across organisational boundaries to realise the planned benefits. Wide ranging and multi-organisational delivery chain that is very difficult to manage with multiple suppliers and a diverse universe of end users. Several major and critical interdependencies. A number of organisations must work together to achieve planned benefits realisation. Many high-impact and high-probability risks that are difficult to manage.
CLARITY OF OBJECTIVES
AND BENEFITS
Are desired business objectives, business benefits and project success criteria clearly specified and understood? Are the business benefits clearly aligned with strategic priorities? Is there a clear agreed project plan? Is funding in place for all key project stages? Are key positions (e.g. Project Manager and SRO) filled by qualified staff with sufficient time to ensure successful project delivery? Are the major risks to project delivery and benefits realisation understood? Is there an SRO/board managing risks, resolving issues, tracking milestones, costs benefits & monitoring delivery? Has a Benefits Realisation Plan (BRP) been completed and agreed? Have effective measures to assess take up been identified? Have effective measures to assess impact been identified? Are project highlight reports prepared frequently covering progress against key milestones, costs, risks and identify material variances? Is effective action taken to address material variances?
Business objectives, business benefits and project success criteria are clearly specified, understood and are SMART. Business benefits are clearly defined and are mapped to strategic priorities. Project plan has been compiled, is well understood and is achievable. Funding sources identified and agreed. Key positions are filled by individuals with a track record of successful delivery and they have sufficient time and resources to ensure successful delivery. Key risks are identified and have responsible owners. SRO and/or Board members are clearly accountable for outcomes and actively tackle variances as they arise. A BRP has been documented and agreed with benefits recipients. Measures of take up identified and are easily collected. Measures of impact identified and are easily collected. Good quality performance reports are produced on a regular basis.
ASSESSMENT: CAPACITY TO DRIVE PROGRESS AREAS TO ASSESS EXAMPLE QUESTIONS

UNDERSTANDING & STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMME DELIVERY CHAIN
Has the structure of the programmes delivery chain been identified? Are people throughout the project or programme working to a ranked set of priorities? Are there effective arrangements for transfer of best practice/learnings (vertically and laterally)? Do key stakeholders demonstrate strong commitment to the project or programme? Is there a Stakeholder communications strategy? Are end users fully aware of the implications of the project on their ways of working? Does the SRO dedicate significant time to supporting delivery? Are named individuals responsible for all key project deliverables?
BEST CASE
Key stakeholders have been identified. Key stakeholders are fully aware of the project/programmes priorities. Effective mechanisms for the transfer of best practice and learnings are in place. Key stakeholders demonstrate strong commitment to the project or programme. Stakeholder Communications Strategy is in place and is operating effectively. End users are enthusiastic supporters of the project and the new ways of working. The SRO exhjbits visible support for the project that is clear to key stakeholders throughout the delivery chain. All key aspects of the project plan have clearly defined owners. Strong accountability (and support) regime conducive to project success. The project team exhibit the full range of core PPM skills.
WORST CASE
Key aspects of the delivery chain are not clearly understood. People are working on numerous and conflicting priorities with no agreed ranking. No or ineffective mechanisms for sharing learnings and best practice. At least one group of key stakeholders appear unaware of, or hostile to, the project or programme. Absence of effective communications with key stakeholders. End users are hostile to the project or new ways of working. The SROs support is not clearly evident to all key stakeholders. Key aspects of the project or programme have no named individual with clear responsibility for delivery. Blame culture where failure is only identified in retrospect. Project team lack core PPM skills.
HISTORIC PERFORMANCE CONSTRAINTS ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE STAKEHOLDERS
GOVERNANCE, PROGRAMME & PROJECT MANAGEMENT
ENGAGING THE PROGRAMMES DELIVERY CHAIN
INTERDEPENDENCIES ADDITIONAL RISKS
PERFORMANCE & BENEFITS MANAGEMENT
LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE
Generally low impact and probability with any higher severity risks easily manageable.
Prompt and effective action is taken to address emerging variances.
Variances remain unaddressed or progressively worsen.
Are named individuals held accountable for performance? Does the project team have access to all required project and programme management (PPM) skills and competencies?
PROGRAMME/PROJECT NAME
CJO Select
CATEGORY Select
PROJECT SROS SELF ASSESSMENT
Derived from the Prime Ministers Delivery Unit Self Assessment
SROS NAME:
ASSESSMENT
RATING Amber Green Amber/Green

AMBER
DATE OF ASSESSMENT: SUMMARY RATIONALE FOR ASSESSMENT
DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY QUALITY OF PLANNING, PERFORMANCE & BENEFITS MANAGEMENT CAPACITY TO DRIVE PROGRESS
RED HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC REQUIRES
URGENT AND DECISIVE ACTION
SROs Overall Assessment

AMBER/GREEN GOOD REQUIRES SOME REFIINEMENT
AND SYSTEMATIC IMPLEMENTATION
RED/AMBER PROBLEMATIC REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL ATTENTION, SOME ASPECTS NEED URGENT ACTION
LIKELIHOOD OF BENEFITS REALISATION:
Select
STAGE OF DELIVERY:
Select
43
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
Investment Appraisal Report Affordability Analysis

(1) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS YEAR RESOURCE (M) CAPITAL (M) TOTAL (M)
TOTAL
(2) RESOURCE/CAPITAL CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FROM THE RING FENCE YEAR RESOURCE CAPITAL TOTAL (M) (M) (M)
(3) OTHER FUNDING SOURCES RESOURCE (M) CAPITAL (M) TOTAL (M)
TOTAL RESOURCE/CAPITAL GAP (1-(2+3)) YEAR RESOURCE (M) CAPITAL (M) TOTAL (M) RESOURCE/CAPITAL REQUIRED FROM
THE RING FENCE
RESOURCE (M)
CAPITAL (M)
TOTAL (M)
TOTAL FUNDING OTHER ISSUES

FUNDING AVAILABLE TO REALISE BUSINESS CHANGE? CONFIRMATION THAT OVERSPENDS WILL BE MET BY
DEPARTMENTAL BASELINES
AVAILABILITY CONFIRMED? Yes No Yes No

BY: BY: DATE DATE
RECYCLING OF COST SAVINGS YEAR LEGACY SYSTEM SAVINGS
SAVINGS RECYCLED?
AMOUNT BY WHICH THE RING FENCE REQUEST CAN BE REDUCED
TOTAL
44
Gates
Investment Criteria
Financial Analysis
Benefits Validation
Proving Model
Investment Report
The Result
An assessment of a project or programmes: Economic case Strategic contribution Attractiveness and Achievability against research-based criteria and industry benchmarks An Action Plan to be addressed by the time of the next Gate review A Recommendation to governance bodies regarding funding If approved: Initial appraisal funding is provided to complete the business case Full appraisal the project is formally brought within scope of the Portfolio and funding for the current year is agreed with indicative allocations for future years (confirmation subject to project performance and periodic Portfolio Reviews)
45
Periodic re-evaluation of Delivery, Benefits Realisation and ensuring the Portfolio remains aligned to Strategic Priorities
Gartner 2005 the facilitating role of the IT portfolio unit represent good practices. Government organizations that are seeking successful approaches to program and project portfolio management should study CJIT's actions.
46
Objectives / Requirements
Portfolio Segmentation
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Performance Reporting
Lessons Learnt
Contents
Objectives and Requirements Portfolio Segmentation Portfolio Reviews Portfolio Analysis Performance Reporting Lessons Learnt
47
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
A definition
Portfolio Management is a corporate, strategic level process for co-ordinating successful delivery across an organisations entire set of programmes and projects.
Source: OGC, Portfolio Management
48
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Management Objectives

1. To obtain the highest return (in financial and/or performance terms) for your available resources given an acceptable level of risk 2. To ensure balance in terms of investment types and organisational strategies 3. To ensure funding allocations reflect business priorities 4. To reallocate funds when performance deteriorates and/or priorities change 5. To manage dependencies, constraints and minimise double counting of benefits 6. To manage Portfolio-level risk and uncertainty 7. To provide transparent reporting on performance from strategic intent to benefits realisation
49
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Requirements
1. A cost/benefit framework to enable comparisons between projects and tracking of performance over time (the Benefits Eligibility Framework) 2. A method for assessing Strategic Alignment to enable comparisons between projects 3. Standardised reporting to provide a clear line of sight and transparent reporting 4. A consistent framework for categorising projects and programmes - all IT investments are not the same, and the investment justification criteria and the overall allocation of Portfolio funds needs to reflect this
50
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Segmentation models

OGC Portfolio Management Guide Gartner Segmentation Model
(Setting Accurate IT Investment Levels Demands an Appropriate Framework)
Mandatory Strategic Business Support Experimental Infrastructure Maintenance Cross organisational
Infrastructure Mandated by law Mandated by IT principles Non-strategic Strategic
51
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
The Cranfield Information Systems Investment Portfolio

Strategic
Investments in IS/IT applications which are critical to sustaining future business strategy
High Potential
Investments in IS/IT applications which may be important in achieving future success
Key Operational
Investments in IS/IT applications on which the organisation currently depends for success
Support
Investments in IS/IT applications which are valuable but not critical to success
52
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
The Portfolio Segmentation used by CJS IT

Business Applications
Justified on Cost-Benefit terms i.e. does the economic value of the benefits exceed the costs
Politically Mandated or Legal/Regulatory Investments

Justified on Cost-Benefit terms - any shortfall in benefits represents the implied Political Value of avoiding noncompliance with the law, regulation or policy (see pages 113-115)
Replacement Infrastructure
Justified on Cost-Effectiveness terms i.e. does the replacement enable resources to be re-directed to other value-adding activities
New Infrastructure
Justified on Cost-Benefit terms by taking into consideration both the infrastructure and the applications (both planned and potential) that will run on that infrastructure (see pages 116-130)
53
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Periodic Review of the CJS IT Portfolio

Activity Activity
Comprehensive Portfolio Prioritisation Comprehensive Portfolio Prioritisation Linked to the Spending Review Linked to the Spending Review Delivery Plan approved by Ministers Delivery Plan approved by Ministers Benefit claims validated by the Benefits Benefit claims validated by the Benefits Realisation Leads (BRLs), Strategic Realisation Leads (BRLs), Strategic Planners, & Efficiency Planners Planners, & Efficiency Planners
2003/04 2003/04 SR02
2004/05 2004/05
2005/06 2005/06 SR04
2006/07 2006/07
2007/08 2007/08
SR07
Annual & Mid Year Portfolio Reviews Annual & Mid Year Portfolio Reviews Delivery Plan approved by Ministers Delivery Plan approved by Ministers Benefit claims validated by BRLs, Benefit claims validated by BRLs, Strategic Planners & Efficiency Planners Strategic Planners & Efficiency Planners
New Project Appraisals New Project Appraisals Undertaken as required Undertaken as required Individual project appraisals approved by Individual project appraisals approved by OCJR Ops Board OCJR Ops Board Benefits claims validated by BRLs, Benefits claims validated by BRLs, Strategic Planners & Efficiency Planners Strategic Planners & Efficiency Planners
Monthly Performance Report Monthly Performance Report Clear line of sight performance against Clear line of sight - -performance against Delivery Plan Delivery Plan
54
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Bi-annual Comprehensive Portfolio Prioritisation

Portfolio Prioritisation linked to the Governments spending review cycle 3 year planning horizon, repeated every 2 years Appraisal of existing and proposed projects to: assess past progress and forecasts ensure continued Strategic Alignment ensure the Portfolio meets the minimum required rates of return ensure emerging risks and issues are addressed Portfolio Prioritisation
55
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Annual and Mid Year Portfolio Reviews

Mid year review Purpose - to ensure performance is on track and funding allocations remain aligned to strategic priorities Timing - mid-point of the financial year Output - an updated CJS IT Delivery Plan Result - approval by Ministers to continue Annual review Purpose - to ensure performance is on track and funding allocations remain aligned to strategic priorities Timing - quarters 3 and 4 of the financial year Output - an updated Delivery Plan for the remainder of the Spending Review period Result - approval by Ministers releases funding for the forthcoming year
56
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
New Project Appraisals

Portfolio Prioritisation New projects can be appraised throughout the year. Funding can come from: Any unallocated funds Funds returned to the ring fence budget via the Change Request process Re-sequencing existing projects De-prioritising existing projects Appraisals follow the process outlined in the Investment Appraisal section
57
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Analysis Attractiveness & Achievability Matrix

58
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Other considerations
Besides absolute and relative Attractiveness and Achievability scores, we also need to consider: 1. Whether each project individually, or as part of a wider programme, meets the required rates of return 2. Politically mandated or legal/regulatory required projects 3. Dependencies infrastructure projects in particular may struggle to demonstrate a positive direct return on investment. The returns of other projects that are dependent on such infrastructure therefore also need to be taken into account 4. Balance between investment types (using both the CJS IT and Cranfield segmentations) and strategic contribution Portfolio Prioritisation
59
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Balance - Considering Infrastructure Dependencies

Distraction Commit
Project B
Project E is in the Drop category but enables Projects B, C and D that are positive
Project A
Fil ter Th re s ld ho
Project C Project D
Achievability
Project E Project F
Drop Prove
Source: Portfolio Analyser
Attractiveness
Bubble Size = Cost 60
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Balance Considering Strategic Contribution

Strategic Drivers
Projects
Source: Portfolio Analyser
61
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Balance Considering Investment Types

High Potential
35
30 25 20 15 10 5
Classical Portfolio Analysis: Cost By Project Type
Support
Key Operational
Strategic
62
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Analysis - making the hard decisions cancelling a project unlikely to deliver expected benefits should not be seen as a failure - failing to cancel such a project should be.
Source: KPMG Global IT Project Management Survey
a correct kill is a success

Source: Bob Cooper and Scott Edgett Ten ways to make better portfolio selection decisions
But kill early - dont shoot the dogs, neuter the bitches! - cut off the supply line of poor projects at source.
63
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Comprehensive Portfolio Prioritisation the Result

Prioritisation of projects based on: Return on Investment Proving Model scores Portfolio balance - type of projects and strategic contribution Available funds Portfolio Prioritisation
Categorisation of projects into the following groupings: Commit/Invest Hold/Re-sequence - invest when funds become available Cull or Reject- projects not meeting minimum standards for Attractiveness & Achievability including the minimum hurdle rates of return
64
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Comprehensive Portfolio Prioritisation the Output

Annex D 2006-07 Proposed Funding Allocations

The CJS IT Delivery Plan for the forthcoming SR period including: Portfolio scope Milestones Costs Benefits
In accordance with Investment Principle 6, the OMNI, OASys, eQuip, Shared Access, Libra and LINK projects have been allocated their baseline funding amounts as detailed in the SR2004 CJS IT Delivery Plan. ViSOR and SOCA costs were re-profiled in 05-06; the subsequent increase in 06-07 has not led to an increase in overall project costs across SR2004. The PROGRESS project has been allocated an additional amount in 06-07 (equal to that returned to the ring fence in 05-06). The NSPIS Custody and Case Preparation project has been allocated 39.08m in 06-07 in accordance with the 190m funding cap agreed by Ministers in July 2005. The amount agreed by the TDB in December 2005 was 32.58m, however the programme has since returned 6.50m of their 05-06 Capital allocation to the ring-fence; subsequently their 06-07 Capital allocation has increased by this amount. CJIT has been allocated SR2004 Delivery Plan baseline funding to develop and deploy approved releases of the CJS Exchange and Bichard 7. PROPOSED ALLOCATION Resource Capital Total 33.30 0.00 33.30 0.59 0.00 0.59 0.94 0.00 0.94 69.85 25.91 0.13 5.50 14.07 0.00 46.00 36.00 4.00 6.31 54.95 6.81 306.00 1.64 -20.00 -18.36 1.00 36.48 0.00 0.00 25.01 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.50 7.29 106.00 16.61 -30.00 -13.39 70.85 62.39 0.13 5.50 39.08 2.11 46.00 36.00 4.00 6.31 72.45 14.10 412.00 18.25 -50.00 -31.75 VARIANCE Resource Capital 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6.80 0.00 -0.41 0.00 -16.26 0.00 -10.10 -0.24 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.00 -0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 -14.89 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.00 -3.20 0.00 0.00
FUNDING REQUEST PROJECT (All figures m) Resource Capital COMPASS Case Management System (CMS) 33.30 0.00 Witness Management System (WMS) 0.59 0.00 Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) 0.94 0.00 Offender Assessment System (OASys) 5.50 0.00 HMPS infrastructure (eQuip) 41.28 0.00 NPS infrastructure (OMNI) 29.87 1.45 National Offender Management Information System (NOMIS) 25.91 36.48 NOMS Shared Access 0.54 0.00 Violent & Sex Offender Register (ViSOR) 5.50 0.00 NSPIS Custody & Case Preparation 30.33 39.90 Penalty Notice Processing Project (PentiP) 0.00 2.11 Magistrates Courts Libra programme 56.10 0.00 Crown Court Infrastructure (LINK) 36.24 0.20 eXchanging Hearing Information By Internet Technology (XHIBIT) 4.00 0.00 PROGRESS (formerly ETMP Case Progression Tool) 6.66 3.20 CJIT (Secure eMail & CJS Exchange) 54.95 17.50 CJIT (Bichard 7) 6.81 7.29 CJS IT PROGRAMME TOTAL 331.71 100.84 CJS IT Programme under-allocation / over-allocation (-) -25.71 5.16 HM Treasury baseline reduction (2nd February 2006) CJS IT Programme over-allocation as at 2nd February 2006 -
Annex B 2005-06 Delivery Progress

INITIATIVE COMPASS Case Management System (CMS) Witness Management System (WMS) Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) MILESTONE Release 1 of CMS-2005 implemented nationally OGC Gateway 5 Release 2 of CMS-2005 implemented nationally Release 1 of WMS delivered. Finalise Release 2 spec. Complete dev of Release 2; Start Release 2 testing Release 2 of WMS delivered Complete rollout & training of WMS Infrastructure in place to manage secure working Identify modifications to CAMS; complete remedial training Implement modifications to case tracking systems Implement video conferencing requirements Migrate forces using earlier versions to version 4 (v4) Complete development of version 5 (v5) Complete end-to-end testing of v5 Full rollout of v4 in 12 forces not using earlier version Commence force testing & upgrade of forces to v5 Commence implementation of v5 in 6 forces not taking v4 Undertake options analysis / update Business Case OGC Gateway 1 Commence User Acceptance Testing (Phase 1) Commence Live Trial Pilot in Kingston (Phase 1) Integrated System accepted for deployment (for pilots) Live running in Warwickshire (pilot site) Live running in Suffolk & South Wales pilot sites Pilots completed OGC Gateway 4 Implementation complete in 32 CJS areas Implementation complete in 35 CJS areas Implementation complete in 38 CJS areas Implementation complete in 42 CJS areas Implementation complete in 39 Crown Court sites Implementation complete in 56 Crown Court sites Baseline Date Jun-05 Aug-05 Nov-05 Jun-05 Aug-05 Nov-05 Mar-06 Sep-05 Nov-05 Mar-06 Mar-06 Oct-05 Oct-05 Oct-05 Mar-06 Dec-05 Feb-06 Jul-05 Oct-05 Apr-05 May-05 Oct-05 Nov-05 Feb-06 Mar-06 Dec-05 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-05 Sep-05 Actual/ Forecast Jun-05 Aug-05 Nov-05 Jun-05 Aug-05 Nov-05 May-06 Feb-06 Nov-05 Mar-06 Oct-06 Nov-05 Oct-05 Apr-06 Cancelled Dec-05 Feb-06 Jan-06 Apr-06 Apr-05 May-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Mar-06 Mar-06 Mar-06 Jun-05 Sep-05 Dec-05 Mar-06 Jun-05 Sep-05
Approval by Ministers releases funding for the forthcoming year
NSPIS Custody & Case Preparation
Penalty Notices Project (PentiP)
Libra Case Management application
Crown Court infrastructure (LINK) eXchanging Hearing
65
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Monthly Performance Reporting Against the Delivery Plan

CJS IT Joining Up Progress
Police Case Preparation to Libra
NSPIS Case Preparation Related Issues
None for TDB consideration. None for TDB consideration. No further deployment of NSPIS Case Prep to Libra can be undertaken until SAT has been completed. This requires funding for the DCA test environment which is yet to be resolved. Any delays in resolving this issue will have a direct impact on restarting the deployment schedule. Any further deployment of NSPIS Case Prep Libra is dependent on successful resolution of post go live issues that have been identified in Warwickshire. None for TDB consideration.
Status B
CJS IT Programme Delivery Plan Progress

Initiative Milestone
Complete development of Release 1 of CMS 2006 Launch Release 1 of CMS 2006 Complete development of Release 2 of CMS 2006 Launch Release 2 of CMS 2006 Launch Release 1 of CMS 2007 Launch Release 2 of CMS 2007 Infrastructure in place to manage secure working - drop Implement modifications to case tracking systems - drop Video conferencing implemented in three locations - drop Infrastructure in place to manage secure working including access to a confidential-rated X-GSI network and confidential-rated laptops - new COMPASS CMS being available within the X-GSI network - new Complete rollout and training of Witness Management System V5.1 SAT Completed Custody live in 22 forces; Case Preparation live in 26 forces - drop Custody live in 16 forces; Case Preparation live in 19 forces - new Custody live in 23 forces; Case Preparation live in 26 forces; UAT Completed in Newham borough (MPS) - drop Custody live in 19 forces; Case Preparation live in 23 forces; UAT Completed in Newham borough (MPS) - new Second MPS borough live with Custody and Case Preparation Custody live in 25 forces; Case Preparation live in 27 forces - drop Custody live in 23 forces; Case Preparation live in 25 forces - new Case Preparation live in 29 forces; 8 MPS boroughs live with Custody and Case Preparation - drop Custody live in 25 forces; Case Preparation live in 27 forces; 8 MPS boroughs live with Custody and Case Preparation - new 21 MPS boroughs live with Custody and Case Preparation All MPS boroughs live with Custody and Case Preparation OGC Gateway 1 OJEU notice issued Development supplier contract awarded Development commences Development complete Rollout commences Rollout complete Implementation complete in 101 Crown Court sites Legislative changes to orders; enhancements to support BR7 and the Strategic Portal Framework drop Project closure OGC Gateway 5 Post Project Review Live running in Warwickshire (Equis pilot site) Live running in Durham - new Live running in Lowestoft (MCS Pilot Site) Live running of LCIS Pilot Pilots completed Completion of UAT of Gold Build (Libra application accepted by DCA) - drop Completion of User Acceptance Testing excl. Fine Enforcement (Libra application accepted by DCA) reword of previous milestone Completion of System Integration Testing (Libra Service accepted by DCA) OGC Gateway 4 Complete (Libra application approved for National Roll Out) - drop OGC Gateway 4 Complete (Libra application approved for predominantly EQUIS Accounting Divisions) - split of previous milestone OGC Gateway 4a Complete (Libra application approved for National Roll Out) - new National Roll Out starts National Roll Out Complete (Last Accounting Division cuts over) All Post Migration Reports Complete Complete Release 1 functional testing Begin User Acceptance Testing Commence Early Adopters Release 1.1 Unit test Complete Release 1 (legacy replacement) Begin Release 2 (functional enhancement) Start pilot in NPS Conclude NPS pilot Commence training to NPS Commence rollout to NPS Commence Prison Service rollout Complete NPS rollout Complete HMPS rollout Build Release 4.2 (includes support for OM model) Testing of Release 4.2 complete Deploy Release 4.2 Application development roadmap delivered Implementation of service reporting tools Implement MPLS infrastructure Confidential ViSOR link proved Refresh of infrastructure completed Complete On schedule Milestone up to 4 weeks behind schedule Milestone more than 4 weeks behind schedule
(formerly: Release 1b)

Baseline F'cast/Actual Var' (Days)
Programme Highlight Report Milestones (From Detailed Milestones section below) Area 2 North Yorkshire Initial Live Operations (Police to Libra)
Narrative
The Case Prep link is now live Yorkshire (Our 1st Niche force) this link is now on hold because Cancellation of Libra go October means that de proceed until new Libra The Libra deployment s the next update to be p result there is a risk in when the deployment s But most critically, the totally dependent on su resolution of Warwicks issue is still unresolved the required funding. T issues are being worke CJIT. With respect to the Consortium to agree how CJIT and PITO w link.
05-May-06
31-May-06
Completed
Niche Case Preparation Related Issues Libra Related Issues

%of C A JS reas Live
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
A pr0 M 6 ay -0 6 Ju n-0 6 Ju l-0 A 6 ug -0 S 6 ep -0 6 O ct0 N 6 ov -0 D 6 ec -0 6 Ja n-0 7 Fe b-0 7 M ar07 A pr07 M ay -0 7 Ju n-0 7 Ju l-0 A 7 ug -0 S 7 ep -0 7 O ct0 N 7 ov -0 D 7 ec -0 7 Ja n-0 8 Fe b-0 8 M ar08 A pr0 M 8 ay -0 8 Ju n-0 8
Delivery Plan Targets
% B'Line Actual F'cast
10 30 50 70 90 100
Oct-06 Mar-07 May-07 Aug-07 Jan-08 Apr-08
Feb-07 May-07 Aug-07 Jan-08 Apr-08
Joining Up progress
CPS Case Management System

COMPASS
Serious Organised Crime Agency

SOCA
Baseline Forecast / Date Actual May-06 May-06 Jul-06 Jul-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Nov-06 Nov-06 Jun-07 Jun-07 Nov-07 Nov-07 Sep-05 n/a Mar-06 n/a Oct-06 n/a Sep-06 Oct-06 Jun-06 Apr-06 Jun-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Dec-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Mar-07 Oct-07 Mar-08 Oct-05 Oct-06 Sep-07 Oct-07 Oct-08 Nov-08 Jun-09 Mar-06 TBA Mar-06 Jul-06 Mar-07 Nov-05 Jul-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Jul-06 Jul-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 TBA Oct-06 Aug-07 Oct-07 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Oct-06 Nov-07 Nov-07 Dec-05 Jan-06 Dec-05 Jan-06 Jun-06 May-07 Oct-07 Jun-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Apr-06 Jul-06 Oct-07 Mar-08 May-06 Oct-06 Sep-07 Oct-07 Oct-08 Nov-08 Jun-09 Mar-06 n/a Mar-06 Jul-06 Mar-07 Apr-06 Jul-06 TBA TBA TBA n/a Aug-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Oct-06 Jan-08 Nov-07 Jul-06 Oct-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Dec-07 Dec-07 Sep-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Dec-06 Jun-06 Aug-06 Oct-06 n/a n/a TBA May-06 n/a n/a
Initiative
Milestone
Area 2 - Avon & Somerset Initial Live Operations (Police to CPS) Area 3 - North Wales Initial Live Operations (Police to CPS) CJS Exchange service deployed to 10% of police forces CJS Exchange service deployed to 30% of police forces CJS Exchange service deployed to 50% of police forces CJS Exchange service deployed to 70% of police forces CJS Exchange service deployed to 90% of police forces CJS Exchange service deployed to 50% of London Boroughs CJS Exchange service deployed to MPS CJS Exchange service deployed to all forces (except MPS) Application Development completed ready for deployment Warwickshire early adopter using live systems Area 2 - North Yorkshire Initial Live Operations (Police to Libra) Area 3 - Suffolk Initial Live Operations (Police to Libra) CJS Exchange service deployed to 10% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 30% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 50% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 70% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 90% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to all 42 CJS areas Work package order issued to application developer
CJS Exchange - Police Case Preparation to COMPASS CMS

CJSE Release 1a
(CR to be submitted to September TDB)
Baseline Forecast / Date Actual Apr-06 Mar-06 May-06 May-06 Aug-06 Aug-06 Dec-06 Apr-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Jul-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Dec-07 Jul-07 Jul-07 Jun-08 Jun-08 Mar-08 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Oct-06 Mar-07 May-07 Aug-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 Jul-05 Sep-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Oct-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Mar-06 Apr-06 TBA Nov-06 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Sep-06 Sep-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jun-06 Sep-06 Nov-06 Nov-06 Nov-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 May-07 Jun-07 Apr-06 Oct-06 Feb-07 Mar-07 Jun-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Jun-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Jun-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Aug-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 Mar-08 Apr-06 Jun-06 Apr-06 Jul-06 Mar-08 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 TBA Feb-07 Mar-07 May-07 Aug-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA TBA Mar-06 Apr-06 TBA Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-06 Dec-06 Dec-06 Dec-06 Feb-07 Mar-07 Jun-06 Sep-06 Nov-06 Nov-06 Nov-06 Jan-07 Mar-07 May-07 Jun-07 Apr-06 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
(CR Submitted)
Witness Management System
CJS Exchange - Police Case Prep to Magistrates' Courts Libra

CJSE Release 1b
Police Custody & Case Preparation

NSPIS
(CR Submitted)
Consortium Related Issues
CJS Exchange XHIBIT Portlet

CJSE Release 2B
System testing commences CJSE XHIBIT Portal development complete CJSE XHIBIT Portal deployed to 10% of CJS areas CJSE XHIBIT Portal deployed to 50% of CJS areas CJSE XHIBIT Portal deployed to 70% of CJS areas CJSE XHIBIT Portal deployed to all 42 CJS areas Application Development completed ready for deployment Deployment to Kingston & Warwickshire pilot sites Deployment to Suffolk & South Wales complete CJS Exchange service deployed to 10% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 30% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 50% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 70% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to 90% of CJS areas CJS Exchange service deployed to all 42 CJS areas Testing complete Start of deployment (early adopters) Application Development completed ready for deployment Start of national deployment Deployment complete in 50% of areas National deployment complete CJSE Portal/PROGRESS design & prototyping phase complete CJSE Portal/PROGRESS construction phase complete CJSE Portal/PROGRESS end-to-end & NFR testing complete
Penalty Notice Processing Project

PentiP
Recommendations
To ensure NSPIS Case Pre must be completed and the environment must be resolv
eXchanging Hearing Information
XHIBIT
DVLA links to Libra

CJSE Release 3A
Report as at: Jul-06

Last Updated: 12/07/2006 16:18:31
Delivery Plan %
Actual %
Forecast %
Projected %
DVLA and VP/FPO to Libra

DVLA Related Issues
None for TDB consideration. None for TDB consideration. None for TDB consideration.
Status B B
(formerly: Release 3a)
Narrative
Programme Highlight Report Milestones (From Detailed Milestones section below) DVLA Links r3a - Development Complete DVLA Links r3a - Deployment to Kingston and Warwickshire
Baseline F'cast/Actual Var' (Days)
Libra Related Issues VP/FPO Related Issues
01-May-05 01-Oct-05
04-Aug-05 10-Apr-06
Completed Completed
100 90 80 %of C A JS reas Live 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

A pr0 M 6 ay -0 6 Ju n-0 6 Ju l-0 A 6 ug -0 S 6 ep -0 6 O ct0 N 6 ov -0 D 6 ec -0 6 Ja n-0 7 Fe b-0 7 M ar07 A pr07 M ay -0 7 Ju n-0 7 Ju l-0 A 7 ug -0 S 7 ep -0 7 O ct0 N 7 ov -0 D 7 ec -0 7 Ja n-0 8 Fe b-0 8 M ar08 A pr0 M 8 ay -0 8 Ju n-0 8
Delivery Plan Targets
% B'Line Actual F'cast
10 30 50 70 90 100
Nov-06 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Oct-07
Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 Jul-07 Sep-07 Oct-07
Due to cancellation of Libra go VP/FPO-Libra link go live did n go live has been delayed until A and in North Yorkshire resolutio stopping the area from setting a The deployment plan for this lin deployment schedule which is c therefore no further area deploy until Libra have confirmed their
Programme Plan Milestones
CR Submitted
Crown Court Infrastructure
LINK
DVLA links to Police

CJSE Release 3B
(CR Submitted)
Magistrates' Court Case Management System LIBRA

(CR Submitted)
PROGRESS/Portal Framework
CJSE Portal/PROGRESS user acceptance testing complete PROGRESS ready for deployment with CMS interface PROGRESS go-live in test areas PROGRESS ready for deployment with XHIBIT interface PROGRESS ready for deployment with all interfaces (incl SPI) PROGRESS ready for national rollout Go Live of redeveloped service CJS Exchange service deployed to 10% of CJS areas - drop CJS Exchange service deployed to 30% of CJS areas - drop CJS Exchange service deployed to 50% of CJS areas - drop CJS Exchange service deployed to 70% of CJS areas - drop CJS Exchange service deployed to 90% of CJS areas - drop CJS Exchange service deployed to all 42 CJS areas - drop Early Adopter Sites CJIT Connectivity Testing - new Oct 06 Deployments CJIT Connectivity Testing - new Nov 06 Deployments CJIT Connectivity Testing - new Dec 06 Deployments CJIT Connectivity Testing - new Feb 07 Deployments CJIT Connectivity Testing - new Mar 07 Deployments CJIT Connectivity Testing - new Finalised and baselined requirements - drop Solution development complete - drop End to End testing complete - drop Magistrates Court Finalised and baselined requirements - new Magistrates Court Solution development complete - new Magistrates Court End to End testing complete - new Crown Court Finalised and baselined requirements - new Crown Court Solution development complete - new Crown Court End to End testing complete - new Overall Programme Outline Business Case (Business Justification) Full Business Case Evaluation Procurement Strategy Overall Programme Final Business Case (Investment Decision)
Secure eMail redevelopment
Recommendations
There are no specific recom consideration at this point.
National Offender Management Information System NOMIS
Libra Third Party Access
Violent & Sex Offender Register

ViSOR (CR Submitted)
Offender Assessment System
OASys
Offender Management National Infrastructure OMNI Shared Access Prisons Infrastructure
Aug-06 Dec-06 Mar-07
Bichard Recommendation 7 CR Submitted
eQuip
Report as at: Jul-06

Last Updated: 12/07/2006 16:20:13
Delivery Plan %
Actual %
Forecast %
Projected %
YJB / YJS ICT Programme
Feb-06 Jun-06 Apr-06 Jul-06
Actual vs Forecast Spend (To Date 06/07) / Forecast Spend vs Budget (Full Year)
Initiative Profiled Budget YTD May
Resource Capital
CJS IT Programme Risk Register

Risk Title Risk Description Impact Probability Severity Mitigating Actions 1. Prioritise Libra & Police implementation in potential joined up Areas; this activity is on-going and forms a natural part of refining the JoiningUp rollout plan. The Libra deployment plan is to be reviewed and updated following the Libra Project Board meeting (6/07/06). The revised deployment plan will be used with the PITO roll-out plan for NSPIS 5.1 to plan a schedule for deploying links to the Areas. The ExISS Board has created a Planning and Co-ordination Group to manage this process. Medium Medium 2. Police Case Prep/Legacy Court Systems links - investigate the feasibility of re-engineering NSPIS/Court legacy system links (e.g. Case Prep/EQUIS) so that they are robust and can be implemented in more Areas. Completed - a solution has been identified which can be implemented where necessary. 3. Libra/legacy Police Case Prep links investigate the feasibility of linking Libra to legacy Police Case Prep systems. Completed - An investigation was conducted in Leicestershire which has resulted in the development of a contingency solution which can be deployed if necessary. 1. A paper (Cross CJO Data Management Agreement) has been circulated to the OCJR Operational Board and approved. 2. A recommendation will be put forward to the CJIT Board and TDB for the Architecture Management Boards (AMB) Terms of Reference to incorporate governance and evolution of Business Interchange Standards in accordance with the Strategic Exchange Architecture. This agreement is being sought. The AMB will make use of existing CJS forums including the newly established ExISS Business Content Forum 3. Agreement of the principles and the AMB Terms of Reference is required to mitigate this risk. It should be noted that the draft policies set out in the paper have started to be adopted by CJIT Information Management and Information Assurance functions in support of mitigating the risk. The Cross CJS Change and Release Management Board will be responsible for co-ordinating change across the CJS IT Programme. The Board will have authority over the approval, scheduling, coordination and priority of strategic change across the CJS. It will be delegated with the authority to ensure that cross CJS change is consistently and expeditiously implemented.The Board will agree the principles for funding of any change with cross-CJS implications. 1. Issues associated with LIBRA third party access are being discussed with the DCA to reduce the impact on CPS network performance. A paper is being prepared for TDB approval. 2. A TDB infrastructure policy should be established. A paper is being prepared for TDB approval. Date Action Owner
Actual Spend YTD May

Resource Capital
Variance
Resource
Variance
Capital
Forecast Full Year Outturn

Resource Capital
Annual Full Year Budget

Resource Capital
Variance
Resource
Variance
Capital
Source
Comment
There is a risk that the delay in the deployment of the Libra application, caused by the requirement for Magistrates' Areas to further develop business process changes before they migrate to Libra, will reduce the scope for interfacing with the police and other systems using the CJS Exchange during 2006/7.
COMPASS Case Management System
8.81
8.81
33.30 0.94 0.59
33.30 0.94 0.59 14.07 -
25.01 2.11 36.48 1.00
14.07 25.91 5.50 0.13 69.85
25.01 2.11 36.48 1.00
Serious Organised Crime Agency SOCA
Witness Management System WMS Police Custody & Case Preparation Penalty Notices Project PentiP eXchanging Hearing Information XHIBIT Crown Court Infrastructure LINK Magistrates' Court Case Management System
LIBRA
CPS return shows forecast for planned work. CPS advises not all planned projects have secured funding and within this forecast, some indicative costings Debbie have been used to inform the forecast & Flunder/ Kirsty Tovey is subject to change. RF budget is supplemented with CPS baseline funding. April figures shown. PITO have not had their 06/07 budget delegated and are unable to provide Nick Pittman profiles until such time. Nil return. Assume same reason as Andy NSPIS Chaytor Unable to provide figures for May due to the timing of internal DCA processes. Future returns will be one month in arrears. April figures presented here.
Ongoing
Financial Performance
Delay to the deployment of the Libra Case Management System.
Bryan Lee Completed
Completed Completed The ToR is now being drafted and will be ready for TDB approval in September Ongoing Terms of Reference for the Board have been distributed to the TDB. The Board is in the process of being established July Carl Bate July
Failure to agree & operate comprehensive data ownership & security model for the CJSE.
- CJOs develop & agree individual workarounds on a project by project basis. - Risk to named individuals - Damage to public confidence in CJS.
Medium
Medium
Carl Bate
0.33 3.00 3.83
0.27 2.85 3.83
0.06 0.15 -
4.00 36.00 46.00
4.00 36.00 46.00 25.91 5.50 0.13 69.85
Vijay Patel
Implementation failure of Cross-CJS Release Management planning may result in mis-aligned delivery schedules.
There will be a cost impact of mis-aligned delivery schedules due to, for example, additional regression testing being required.
High
Low
Ian Young
National Offender Management Information System NOMIS Violent & Sex Offender Register ViSOR HMPS Extranet Shared Access Offender Assessment System Prisons Infrastructure eQuip Offender Management National Infrastructure
OMNI
Current Infrastructure within the CJS The performance impact on networks from may not be able to support Joined-Up- Cross-CJS working degrades the performance Working as envisaged within the CJS from current systems to the extent that they Delivery Plan. become 'unusable'.
High
High
David George
NOMS unable to run reports on Adelphi until 13 June, but expect to provide some actuals later that day. To include as an update when received
Proposed Programme Risks for TDB to Consider There is a risk that some Forces do not complete their rollouts by March 2007. This is primarily due to some Forces having to reschedule their Go Live dates because of the delay to the implementation of V5.1, which was caused by the issues over funding. 1) Ensure that only hard constraints are accepted as valid reasons for delaying rollout into 07/08 Medium High 2) Communicate exception handling process to Forces July Derek Cake On Going John Neil
PROGRESS Case Progression Tool
0.12 0.14 0.18 8.42 24.84 6.39 6.39
0.095 0.14 0.18 7.57 23.74
0.097
0.027 - 0.097 5.35 5.26
6.30 0.27 54.95 182.35 17.50 17.50
6.31 0.27 6.81 54.95 1.37 306.00
7.29 17.50 16.61 106.00
0.01 6.81 -
7.29 -
YJB / YJS ICT Programme Bichard Recommendation 7 CJIT (CJS Exchange & Secure eMail) Under / Over (-) allocation
Figures are for April. Capital spends but Steve there is no RF Capital budget. Query Hatherall/ sent to PROGRESS - no response Trevor Read received Robert Figures are for May Burnand David Gosling Figures are for May
Risk Assessment
Risk of some Forces completing rollout post March 07
1.04 1.14
0.85 1.09
Total Programme
Un-coordinated updates to CJO systems could lead to excessive downtimes, regression testing could have a potential impact on costs and benefits. In the long term the ideal position would be for all CJOs to agree to a scheduled timetable of Uncontrolled change to NSPIS updates. The first step taken to address this Custody & Case Preparation, has been the establishment of a Change OMEGA, Compass, Libra and the Advisory Board. However, it is recognised that CJS Exchange will have an impact on it will be some time before this Board will be other parties. effective. In the meantime the responsibility is with individual CJOs to raise awareness of changes via the ExISS Board. Configuration management of interfaces.
1) Ensure that any changes to the product set are considered by the CJS community before being implemented
Ongoing (until Change Advisory Board is established)
PITO
High
Low
2) Set up focus group for each interface
September
CJIT
CJO CPS Police DCA NOMS PROGRESS YJB

Bichard Recommendation 7
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
Resource
Capital
33.7%
Total
17.6%
Very High
2006-07 Full Year Budget (source: 200608 DP) 34.83 14.07 86.00 101.39 6.31 0.27 6.81 54.95 306.00 1.37 27.12 37.48 7.29 17.50 106.00 16.61
In Year Returns to ring-fence (as at April 2006)
In Year Allocations (as at April 2006)
Revised Annual Budget (as at April 2006) 34.83 14.07 86.00 101.39 6.31 0.27 6.81 54.95 306.00 1.37 27.12 37.48 7.29 17.50 106.00 16.61
CJS IT Funding by CJO

1.5%
0.1%
3.4%
KEY SCORE Very Low (1) Low (2)

4.4% 8.5%
CJIT CJS IT Programme total Under / Over (-) allocation
CPS YJB
CPS Police DCA NOMS PROGRESS YJB BR 7 CJIT 20.9% PoliceUnallocated DCA BR 7 Total CJIT
8.5% 34.8 10.0% 41.2 20.9% 86.0 33.7% 138.9 1.5% 6.3 0.1% 0.3 3.4% 14.1 17.6% 72.5 10.0% NOMS PROGRESS 4.4% 18.0 Unallocated 100.0% 412.0
High
PROBABILITY (DESCRIPTION) Less than 5% chance. Extremely unlikely, or virtually impossible. 6-20%. Low, but not impossible. 21-50%. Fairly likely to occur. 51-80%. More likely to occur than not. Greater than 81%. Will almost certainly occur.
IMPACT (DESCRIPTION) Minimal impact on the achievement of CJS IT Delivery Plan Milestones. Can be easily and quickly remedied. No measurable impact on the reputation of the CJS IT Programme.
IMPACT
18
20
21
24
25
12
16
19
22
23
Medium
Minor impact on the achievement of CJS IT Delivery Plan Milestones. Can be recovered but with some cost or delay. Little or no impact on the reputation of the CJS IT Programme. Significant impact on the achievement of CJS IT Delivery Plan Milestones. Can be recovered but at significant cost or delay. Some impact on the reputation of the CJS IT Programme. Major impact on the achievement of CJS IT Delivery Plan Milestones. Cannot be recovered in the short term. Major impact on the reputation of the CJS IT Programme. Huge impact on the achievement of CJS IT Delivery Plan Milestones. Cannot be recovered in the short term. Huge impact on the reputation of the CJS IT Programme.
10
11
14
15
17
Low
Medium (3) High (4) Very High (5)
13
Very Low
1
Very Low
2
Low
4
Medium
6
High
7
Very High
PROBABILITY
66
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Portfolio Prioritisation - Lessons Learnt

1. Agree your Investment Principles before reviewing projects
2. In Prioritisation exercises - everything is out until its in! 3. Investment Principles do not remove the need for informed judgement 4. Triangulate appraisals - consider the appraisal from more than one perspective 5. Agreed processes do not remove the need for hard decision making 6. Take charge - if you dont someone else will! 7. Play by the rules - individual agendas must be left behind 8. One-off Portfolio Reviews and Investment Appraisals need to be backed up by repeatable processes of on-going review and appraisal 9. Establish an independent Portfolio Unit to act as an Intelligent Customer
67
Portfolio Reviews
Portfolio Analysis
Lessons Learnt
Benefits of the Portfolio Management Process

1. Evidence-based funding allocations 2. Poor projects are withdrawn or rejected 3. Transparent reporting of performance against a consistent baseline the Delivery Plan 4. Significantly improved business cases of those projects in the Portfolio 5. Material increases in the Portfolio level benefits forecasts 6. Improved Stakeholder confidence
68
Value Management Role 1
Value Management 1
Ensuring benefits are robust and realisable
Cabinet Office Report to the OECD on the UK Approach to Benefits Realisation 2006 - CJS ITconsidered a best practice case in the UK
69
Overview
Benefits Integrity Check
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Value Management Role 1 - Ensuring benefits are Robust & Realisable
Overview Benefits Eligibility Framework (BEF) Benefits Integrity Check Strategic Alignment Quarterly Benefits Reporting Benefits Risk Management
70
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
The need for a Benefits Management Framework

In accounting for costs we are guided by: Financial Reporting Standards International Accounting Standards Generally Accepted Accounting Practice Government Accounting Internal Costing Manuals
71
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
In accounting for benefits we are guided by:

Note This page has been deliberately left blank
72
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
The consequence anything goes and business cases that include

Double counting of benefits (whats yours is mine) Youre the beneficiary (whether you know it or not) i.e. benefits are not validated with the recipient Opportunity value or non-cashable efficiency benefits with no indication of how they will be realised or what the time saved will be used for Pay now, benefit later (a long, long time later) No consideration of disbenefits
73
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Tricks of the trade continued

Value Management Role 1 Notional costs avoided that should only apply at the options appraisal stage are claimed in the cost/benefit appraisal Fully loaded benefits i.e. that include overheads where there will be no consequent saving in overhead costs Funny money benefits claims without substance or logical analysis The centre of the universe syndrome projects that claim to enable everything you couldnt use the PC without the table so the table gets the benefits of the PC.
74
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
So we need a Benefits Eligibility Framework

The set of rules about what benefits can and cant be claimed and how they should be valued Ensures a methodologically sound approach to measuring and valuing benefits Allows a consistent approach across the Portfolio a level playing field and so Enables comparisons over time and between projects
Use a benefits framework to define business benefits
Source: Gartner, Show Me the Money: Advanced Practices in Benefits Realisation
11. Legacy costs are those associated with systems being replaced by applications and infrastructure developed from investment in the CJS IT Portfolio. These costs can be treated as a cost reduction (reduced funding requirement) or a benefit depending on whether they are:
1 1 . a r e c o n s id e r e d i. e . a n y in v e s t m e n t p r i o r t o t h e b e g i n n in g o f t h e S R 2 0 0 2 p e r io d i s ig n o r e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e s f dused to inreduce the I T c o s of e n e f it c a s e . by the current o e t e r m in g t h e C J S cost t / b the project
F a c to r s Im p a c t in g C o s t & B e n e f it F o r e c a s t s P r o je c t L if e S p a n
cost of running, maintaining and refreshing legacy systems by recycling these costs and hence reducing the funding required from the ring fence; or redirected to alternative value adding services or activities.
12. These conditions are best explained through example scenarios:
1 2 . T h e c o s t s a n d b e n e f it s c o n s id e r e d s h o u ld c o v e r t h e p e r i o d o f t h e u s e f u l l if e t i m e o f t h e a s s e t s / c o n t r a c tScenarioB o o k p a g e 1 9 ) 1 . T h e m a x im u m p e r i o d u s e d s h o u ld (G re e n 1 b e t e n y e a r s f r o m c o m m e n c e m e n t o f in v e s t m e n t f r o m t h e r i n g f e n c e t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e Ongoing psupport kand rmaintenance tcosts0of e a r snewesystem are less than those of p r o je c t a y b a c p e i o d i s w it h i n h e 1 y the s p c if i e d b y t h e S R 2 0 0 4 C J S S e tthem legacy system. e No je c t ( a n d has been crequestedt sfrom the ring fence after t le e n t. W h e re th p r o funding t h e a s s o ia t e d c o s and b e n e f it s ) is n o t e x p e c t e d t o la s t f o r 1 0 y e a r s , t h e r e le v a n t s h o r t e r p e r io d s h o u ld deployment b e u s e d . T h e B e n e f it s I n t e g r i t y C h e c k w i ll s e e k t o v e r if y t h a t t h e re i s e v id e n c e t o s u g g e s t t h a t b e n e f i t s i n t h e la t t e r y e a r s o f t h e 1 0 y e a r p e r io d a r e g e n u i n e ly r e a l is a b le o n t h e b a s is o f t h e c o s t s c la im e d . O p t im i s m B ia s 1 3 . T h e G r e e n B o o k s t a t e s t h a t , T h e r e is a d e m o n s t r a t e d , s y s t e m ic , t e n d e n c y f o r p r o j e c t a p p r a is e r s t o b e o v e r l y o p t im is t ic . T h i s is a w o r l d w id e p h e n o m e n o n t h a t a f f e c t s b o t h t h e p r iv a t e a n d p u b l ic s e c t o r s a p p r a i s e r s t e n d t o o v e r s t a t e b e n e f it s , a n d u n d e r e s t i m a t e t i m i n g s a n d c o s t s , b o t h c a p it a l a n d o p e r a t i o n a l T o r e d r e s s t h is t e n d e n c y , a p p r a is e r s s h o u l d m a k e e x p l ic i t a d ju s t m e n t s f o r t h i s b ia s . T h e s e o f t h e c o s t s a n d d e c r e a s in g , a n d
w i ll in e in Benefitsyt ainkge t ht hee r efco er m t o ff ,Frameworkt.e s Eligibility e sctrimaast e dg b e snteimi tas d e la ip o e f
1 4 . T h e s e a d j u s t m e n t s s h o u l d b e e m p ir ic a ll y b a s e d u s i n g e i t h e r t h e c r o s s d e p a r t m e n t a l g u id a n c e f o r g e n e r ic p r o j e c t c a t e g o r ie s a v a i la b l e o n t h e H M T w e b s it e ( s e e h t t p : / / g r e e n b o o k . t r e a s u r y . g o v . u k / ) o r w h e r e D e p a r t m e n t s / a g e n c ie s Treatment: s e f should b e e f i t o v as an / o v e r e s t im a t e s , t h e ir h a v e a m o r e ro b u s t e v i d e n c e b a5m o r c o s t / be nshown e r r u n s efficiency cashable benefit. o w n o f f ic ia l a d ju s t m e n t s s h o u ld b e u s e d .
To: Author: Owner: Version: Status: Issue Date:
Scenario p 1 5 . A d ju s t m e n t s a r e m a d e t o : C a 2 it a l c o s t s ; W o r k s d u r a t io n ; O p e r a t in g C o s t s ; a n d B e n e f it s . T h e s e a d ju s t m e n t s w il l r e d u c e a s m o r e r e lia b le e s t im a t e s o f r e le v a n t c o s t s a r e b u il t u p , a nOngoing n e r ic r is k s a n d p r o je c t s p e c if ic of k s anew system l are d a s g e support and maintenance costs r is the r e e f f e c t iv e y m it i g a t e d . the legacy system. Funding has been requested from the
less than those of ring fence after Benefits W orking Group deployment i.e. the legacy costs are re-directed to other activities. CJIT Portfolio Unit - Benefits Management Team
Benefits W orking Group
C o s t s 2.5 b e n e f i t s c o n s i d e r e d s h o u l d n o r m a l l y b e e x te n d e d t o c o v e r t h e p e r i o d o f t h e u s e f u l and l if e ti m e o f t h e a s s e t s e n c o m p a s s e d b y t h e o p t i o n s u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a l t h o u g h , if t h e a p p r a i s a l c o n c e r n s t h e c o n t r a c t u a l p u r c h a s e o f o u tp u t s a n d o u t c o m e s ( e . g . i n P F I ) , t h e Draft a p p r a i s a l p e r i o d m a y b e d if f e r e n t.
8 th September 2006
Not Protectively Marked
75
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
And bi-dimensional Benefits Categorisation by Type and by Recipient

Benefit Type Efficiency Benefit Recipient
Cashable Opportunity Value Cashable Opportunity Value
Effectiveness
Sponsoring CJO Other CJOs Other Parts of the CJS Cross CJS Beyond the CJS
76
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
The Benefits Integrity Check

A quarterly check by the Value Management Office that project benefits reports: Are consistent with the Benefits Eligibility Framework Are agreed with the recipients Efficiency Benefits - are consistent with the Departmental Efficiency Plans Effectiveness or Performance Benefits - are agreed by the Strategic Planners Other benefits are agreed by appropriate professionals (see sections on Social and Political Value)
77
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Validating Benefits
Project View of Benefits
Benefits Contributor
Business Case Development

Measuring & Tracking: Initial Baselining
If funding approved Benefits Eligibility Framework Check alignment with BEF e.g. double counting, cost avoidance
1-Page Summary Benefits Report
Project Live Service
CJIT VMO
Benefits Evidence & Revised Forecast
Project Benefits Lead and Benefits Realisation Lead agree Efficiency & Effectiveness benefits
Benefit Realisation Plan: Police Benefit Realisation Plan: CPS Benefit Realisation Plan: Courts Benefit Realisation Plan: Corrections
Benefits Recipients
Benefits Validation with Recipients Benefits Validation with Efficiency Planners Benefits Validation with Strategic Planners
Measuring & Tracking: Benefits Realisation
CPS Efficiency Plan
Efficiency Planners
DCA Efficiency Plan HO Efficiency Plan Confidence
Strategic Planners
Strategic Planners agree Efficiency & Effectiveness Benefits that contribute to Strategic Targets & priorities
Victims & Witnesses Offences Brought To Justice (OBTJ) Enforcement Reduced Re-offending
Benefit Realisation Leads and Efficiency Planners agree Efficiency Benefits that contribute to Departmental Efficiency Plans
78
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Strategic Alignment
Number 1 in the National Audit Office/Office of Government Commerces list of Common Causes of Project Failure is: Lack of a clear link between the project and the organisations key strategic priorities So its fundamental - but whilst many Business Cases make claims about strategic alignment few actually demonstrate it.
79
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Strategic alignment the CJS IT approach

Project Level Alignment to Strategic targets and Business priorities is assessed by: 1. The Proving Model scores for Strategic Contribution (See Investment Appraisal section) 2. Strategic planners are asked to rate each projects contribution, using the OGC definitions, as: Mission Critical Highly Desirable Desirable (See Investment Appraisal section) Portfolio Level Alignment to Strategic targets and Business priorities is assessed by: 1. Strategy Benefits Realisation Plans all contributions to a strategic target or business priority are extracted from the contributor project and recipient organisation Benefits Realisation Plans and are re-cut to present a Benefits Realisation Plan for each Strategic target and this is validated with the target owner/planners. (See next page) 2. The Root Cause Model maps project contributions against the root causes of key problems to strategic targets. (See section on cross system benefits)
80
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Strategy Benefits Realisation Plans

Project
No. Source Project 1 OASys
(1)
Strategy / Priority
Contribution
Q1 06/07 SR04- SR07 CJS IT CONTRIBUTION TO CJS 2008 VISION - CJS PSA Standard Settlement Condition - Reduce Re-offending
Benefit Description (1) Source (1) (4) Benefit Category
(1)
Benefit Owner (Name) (1)
Key Measures/Indicators of Benefit
(1)
Hypotheses (2) (3) OASys: provides data to be used by researchers to produce statistical reports, highlight trends in offending and offending related needs, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, regimes, and work programmes. OASys: improves value for money from interventions through more informed definition and targeting to offender needs OASys: improves assessments meaning NPS and HMPS can target offenders more appropriately to interventions (for drugs and sexual offences programmes, for instance) thereby improving completion rates
Current RAG Status 2005-06 Q4 (1) GREEN
Value to Strand Board target Mission Critical
Improved understanding of offenders risks and needs that OASEFEo001 OASys delivers increases NOMS impact on offending behaviour through better targeted interventions.
Effectiveness Opportunity
2005/6 indicators: 100% NPS Areas & Prisons, OASys John Powls (on behalf of Christine installed; At least 430,000 completed NPS OASys assessments; At least 48,000 completed HMPS OASys Knott) assessments; At least 90% of OASys ROH assessments undertaken on High/Very High Risk offenders; At least 90% of OASys assessments undertaken on Prolific/Other Priority Offenders. At least 15,000 programme completions per year. At least 68.57% of offenders completing programmes commenced.
OASys
Creation of the central O-D+C5EAT database enables the OASEFIO005 provision of aggregate offender data across NOMS.
Efficiency Opportunity
John Powls (on 2005/6 indicators: O-DEAT database to have at least 800,000 OASys: enables HMPS and NPS to adopt common techniques and exchange offender behalf of Christine completed offender assessment records; 624 O-DEAT reports. assessment information efficiently and effectively so that offenders are better managed Knott) across service boundaries, i.e. when they move within and between communities and prisons
GREEN
Mission Critical
C-NOMIS
Resettlement: Eliminating re-keying and enables end-toend offender management
C-NOEFIo010
John Powls (on Not included in the baseline and tracking sample. behalf of Christine Possible use of structured questionnaire Knott)
C-NOMIS: enables HMPS and NPS to exchange information efficiently, thus releasing opportunity efficiency savings due to less time and frustration in sourcing files/information/chasing up queries and more time spent in processing the core business of managing offenders C-NOMIS: reduces multiple rekeying of data and organisational process improvement
WHITE
Mission Critical
C-NOMIS
Additional NPS benefit: Reduction in mulitple re-keying of C-NOEFIo011 data & organisational process improvement
John Powls (on Not included in the baseline and tracking sample. behalf of Christine Possible use of structured questionnaire Knott) John Powls (on The number of Quantum PCs that do not need to be installed behalf of Christine Knott)
WHITE
Highly Desirable
SHARED ACCESS
SHARED ACCESS
SHAEFEo005 Extranet will allow NOMS to better manage entry and release of prisoners from public to private prisons and visa versa (COP users will be able to access OASys and this will allow immediate updating of prisoner records) Extranet will allow COPs and other external organisations SHAEFEo006 like charities to integrate into the NOMS community (COP and other external users will be able to update prisoner records on-line) CEI CONSEQUENCE 2 Reduce offences committed on bail CJIT CEIc2
SHARED ACCESS: Allows NOMS to better manage entry and release of prisoners from public to private prisons and visa versa
WHITE
Desirable
John Powls (on Less time spent by staff in tracing prisoner records following behalf of Christine transfers between HMPS and private prisons Knott)
SHARED ACCESS: Allows COPs and other external organisations like charities to integrate into the NOMS community
WHITE
Desirable
C-NOMIS ExISSr1b LIBRA NSPIS SeM VISOR XHIBIT portal C-NOMIS LIBRA NSPIS OASys SeM
To be confirmed during CEI realisation planning
LIBRA/ ExISSr1b/ NSPIS, XHIBIT portal and SeM: provides earlier access to electronic court results (including bail decision and conditions), enabling faster more accurate PNC updates NSPIS, VISOR, LIBRA, C-NOMIS, and SeM: provides access to bail information therefore facilitates more informed bail decisions
AMBER
Minimal
CEI CONSEQUENCE 12 Reduce the rate of reoffending
CJIT CEIc12
To be confirmed during CEI realisation planning Reconviction rates
OASys: prevents multiple assessments therefore assisting end to end offender management C-NOMIS and SeM: enables connectivity to external agencies - authorised agencies (e.g. drug treatment providers) facilitating better information sharing OASys and C-NOMIS: provides information about interventions/ measures and monitors outcomes so facilitating more effective use of interventions C-NOMIS: provides access to full offender history facilitating more informed sentence planning and improved interventions targeting NSPIS, C-NOMIS, OASys: identifies priority and other prolific offenders and tailors evaluation appropriately LIBRA: provides 3rd party access to court information
AMBER
Desirable
RAG Status Red: Amber : Green: Grey: White:
Benefit realisation behind plan Difficulties with benefits measurement/evidence means realisation is uncertain Benefit realised ahead or in line with plan Benefits not included in BRP total as not confident in forecast. realisation to be confirmed Benefits not yet due for realisation
Value to Strand Board targets In the context of all Strand Board iniiatives set to achieve SR04 targtes, how valuable is this benefit considered to be? 1. Mission Critical, 2. Highly Desirable, 3. Desirable, 4. Minimal, 5. Not Known
(1) Source: CJO Benefits Realisation Plans Q1 06/07 (BRP) (2) Source: CJIT Combined Effectiveness Impact (CEI) Model vA1.0 July 05 (3) Source: Appropriate programme/ project business case (4) Note: Number refers to the benefits unique reference number allocated to programme benefits (and assigned in the 1 pagers and BRPs) (5) Subject to change request - see change control worksheet
Benefit
KPIs
Status
81
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Quarterly Reporting - Contributor Project Benefits Report

Benefits Maturity Assessment
Recipient Self Assessment Q3 Assessment Quality of Benefits Forecast Scale of Benefits Forecast Quality of Realisation Planning Likelihood of Realisation Q3 Forecast for Q4 Q4 Assessment Q4 forecast for Q1 Crown Courts Other CJOs Cross CJS Outside CJS Total
Life cycle cost benefits Analysis

CJS IT BENEFITS PROGRESS REPORT - QUARTER 4 2004-05 FOR CJS EXCHANGE XHIBIT PORTAL 10 Year Analysis Efficiency M Cashable Opportunity 12.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.700 35.620 117.820 0.000 0.000 153.440 Effectiveness Cashable Opportunity 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 m 0.01 NPV m* 4.1 IRR % -4.09 94.2 *NPV discounted at 3.5% 0.0% 25.920 52.760 173.710 694.860 947.250 Cost Avoidance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Last report 154.301 Total % 74.240 170.580 173.710 694.860 1113.390 Now 4 -0 03 20
5 -0 04 20 6 -0 05 20 7 -0 06 20 8 -0 07 20 9 -0 08 20 0 -1 09 20 1 -1 10 20 2 -1 11 20
Break even chart

Cumulative Costs
Cumulative Cost and Benefit Forecast 2003-2013

Cumulative Benefits
6.7% 15.3% 15.6% 62.4% 100.0%

'm
1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200
Benefits Realised this financial year Monetary Value of Benefits Realised YTD Forecast in latest published Delivery Plan YTD Variance
3 -1 12 20
Year
Project Life Cycle Benefits Profile (Top 5-10 benefits over 10 years) Impact Benefit Description
Performance M
Benefit Category
Strategic Alignment PSA Target 5
Main Recipient
Name(s) of recipient agreed with
Realisation Ramp Up
Key Measures/Indicators of Benefit Time from CC result to PNC update
Benefits Realisation Status Benefit realisation behind Plan
1 Reduction in the cost of crime
PNC update down to 3 days
173.71 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 1 and 3 694.86 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5 4.06 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 1, 2, 3 and 5 31.78 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
CJS
To start 6 months after completion in a CJ Area Time from CC result to PNC update
UK economy
To start 6 months after completion in a CJ Area No. of adjournments as a result of no PSR
Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefit ahead of or in line with plan
Percentage of ineffective hearings
3 Court time saving (PSR adjournments)
Improvement from 15% to 3.4% Assumption of improvement of 1-10%
Crown Court
From Go-live at each court centre
4 Court time saving ( Ineffective Hearings)
Crown Court, Police, CPS, Probation
From 6 months after Go-live at each court centre Number of disposals From 3 months after Go-live at each court centre Backlog count Number of disposals
Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan
5 Court time saving (Same day delays)
5.98 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
Crown Court
6 Crown Court Efficiency benefits
35.61 Efficiency opportunity PSA Target 5
Crown Court
From 1 month after Go-live at each court centre Number of enquiries made to CC No of daily lists faxed/time taken.
7 CPS Benefits
CPS
3 months after go live in a CJ Area No of enquiries made to CC No of daily/warned lists sent and time taken No of bail forms sent and time taken
8 Police Benefits
115.52 Efficiency opportunity
Police
3 months after go live in a CJ Area
Top 10 Benefits - What? - When? - How much? - Whos Responsible?
10 PSA Target 5 9 NOMS Benefits 36.9 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5 10 Reduction in solicitor waiting 12.7 Efficiency cashable Crown Court From 1 month after Go-live at each court centre NOMS Following rollout to all prisons in a CJA Reduced waiting time claim values
Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefit not yet due for realisation
Approved by SRO:
82
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Quarterly Reporting Recipient Organisation Benefits Realisation Report

Accountability Named benefit owner for each benefit Progress by Quarter
Accountability Agency Benefits Realisation Lead
Current RAG Status On top 10 benefits

83
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Quarterly Portfolio Benefits Scorecard

Maturity Assessment
CJS IT BENEFITS SCORECARD Q1 2006/07 (Aug 2006) Forecast Benefit Values ('m) CJS IT Projects SR2004 CSR07 249.50 0.00 25.83 12.51 1.62 92.67 124.24 57.65 2.46 11.06 8.98 17.12 13.25 2.55 0.01 2.84 125.83 12.88 24.71 3.83 9.36 15.55 10.40 22.00 179.85 31.11 107.12 10 Year Total 348.06 0.00 52.75 25.02 3.43 144.99 239.12 164.92 5.54 17.88 16.79 34.85 25.40 4.78 0.02 6.07 252.75 35.74 70.68 6.48 36.37 28.49 23.40 55.00 311.00 53.49 249.86
Variance Q4-Q1
Strategic Alignment
Benefits Maturity Self Assessment
Quality of Benefit Forecast
AMBER RED GREEN GREEN GREEN
Recipient Benefits
2006/07 2007/08 Forecast
Strategic Contribution1 Victims and Witnesses

D M D D D M M M TBC D TBC M M M D TBC HD TBC M TBC D TBC M M M
Police Benefits Realisation Plan Re-offending

M M M M D M D M M TBC M TBC M M M Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness Total TBC M TBC M HD D M
Scale of Benefits Forecast

GREEN GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN RED GREEN GREEN RED GREEN AMBER RED GREEN RED
Quality of Realisation Planning

AMBER RED GREEN GREEN GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN RED GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN AMBER AMBER GREEN
Likelihood of Confidence Realisation

AMBER RED AMBER AMBER GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN AMBER AMBER AMBER AMBER GREEN AMBER AMBER AMBER
OBTJ
D HD HD D M D
Enforcement
M HD M
Public protection
TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness Total Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness Total
Q1 03/04 - Q1 06/07 Realised
2006/07 Q1 Plan Actual
Applications
NSPIS Custody & Case Prep PentiP COMPASS CMS (50%) NWNJ IT tool (WMS) SOCA Libra application (incl Exchange 3a) OASys NOMIS (70%) ViSOR CJSE Release 1a (NSPIS-CMS) CJSE Release 1b (NSPIS - Libra) XHIBIT/CJSE Release 2a&b (Portal) PROGRESS Secure Email/Emailing Securely CJSE Release 3a (Libra/DVLA) CJSE Release 3b (NSPIS/DVLA) COMPASS infrastructure (50%) Libra enabled (Enforcement Initiatives) NOMIS infrastructure (30%) OMNI infrastructure OMNI cost effectiveness LINK enabled (ETMP xCJS model) Shared Access Equip direct Equip enabled (Phoenix) Combined Effectiveness Impact Social Value Benefits
TOTAL BENEFITS
79.08 0.00 10.95 5.70 0.61 19.55 79.52 3.70 0.39 1.63 0.39 13.44 1.38 1.49 0.00 1.10 85.95 13.44 1.58 1.03 0.00 8.68 5.20 16.50 41.41 10.17 15.78
M M D D M M D M D
14.06 0
9.32
GREEN GREEN
6.57 2.69 1.62 0.26 0.24 6.83 2.93 1.62 CPS Benefits Realisation Plan
Q1 03/04 - Q1 06/07 Realised 2006/07 Q1 Plan Actual
0.39 26.14 0.96 27.493
0.71 50.11 1.21 52.03
2006/07
2007/08
2.59 0.54 20.50 13.71 0.64 0.00
GREEN AMBER GREEN RED AMBER GREEN AMBER AMBER GREEN
Forecast
38.78 0.25
8.88 0.39
7.38 0.12
35.50 1.56 37.06
39.04 2.82 41.86
39.03 9.27 7.50 HMCS Benefits Realisation Plan

2006/07
2007/08
Infrastructure
Project Benefits
Forecast
0.01 see COMPASS CMS 59.8 see LIBRA application 1.11 see NOMIS application 0.00 0.00
4.08 4.08
0.53 0.34 0.87
1.15 1.15
2.15 4.48 2.54 9.16
17.40 3.21 4.42 25.03
NOMS Benefits Realisation Plan

Q1 03/04 - Q1 06/07 2006/07 Q1 Plan Actual 2006/07 2007/08
418.66
1,164.93 1,215.13 203.87
2,212.87
121.49
NOTE: Benefits shown only include quantified, validated benefits but other enabled benefits have been identified and will be included as further work is undertaken. This includes 1. Projects provisionally included in the portfolio that are still being scoped i.e. YJB ICT and BR7 7.95 2. Projects in the process of bidding for funding i.e. NES 3. Applications within the exchange or CJO pipeline which run off CJS IT funded 41.35 infrastructure
0.65
Realised Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity D D HD M HD=Highly Desirable MC=Mission Critical Effectiveness Total
Forecast
30.03 16.90 46.93
5.68 5.26 10.94
3.26 5.15 8.41
16.75 23.75 40.50
22.62 23.99 46.61
Prog
KEY
M= Minimal
D=Desirable
Total 10 year CJS IT Application benefits Ring Fence only CJS IT Application NPV Ring Fence only ('m)
Based on Proving Model assessments completed March 2005. These will be refreshed to reflect latest business cases in due course. CEI line is signed off by Strand Board leads.
Cumulative Cost Benefit Analysis Benefits as % of Cost Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness
YJB Benefits Realisation Plan

Q1 03/04 - Q1 06/07 2006/07 Q1 2006/07 2007/08
CJS IT Application IRR Ring Fence only

Benefits to the CJS and Society
x-CJS, 9% Social Value, 14% (-2%)
11.4%
Home CJO, 78% (+2%)
Cost Benefit Analysis3 Total Police RF Cost/Budget Direct Benefits Enabled Benefits Total Police Benefits Total Corrections RF Cost/Budget Direct Benefits Enabled Benefits Total Corrections Benefits Total CPS RF Cost/Budget Direct & Enabled Benefits Total CPS Benefits Total HMCS RF Cost/Budget Direct Benefits Enabled Benefits Total HMCS Benefits
2003-04 57.09 0.53 0.53 111.21 5.50 5.50 25.05 154.55 3.10 3.10
2003-05 90.37 1.63 1.63 194.71 15.38 8.55 23.93 58.82 2.05 2.05 283.61 0.30 6.36 6.66
2003-06 143.99 5.21 5.21 270.55 38.64 10.12 48.75 97.87 31.53 31.53 426.40 2.93 15.04 17.97
2003-07 184.62 32.71 32.71 409.69 79.35 19.22 98.57 132.70 68.59 68.59 512.40 12.10 21.50 33.60
2003-08 202.72 84.74 84.74 521.21 126.34 49.96 176.30 170.63 110.45 110.45 585.28 37.12 28.48 65.60
Realised
Plan
Actual
Forecast
42%
Total
0.16 0.16
0.05 0.050
0.046 0.046
0.210 0.21
0.373 0.37
34%
65%
Benefits Rating Benefit behind schedule Difficulty with tracking/measure. Benefit on track/ahead of schedule Benefit not yet due for realisation
RAG of Benefits in SR2004 Benefits Realisation Plans Q4 05/06 Q1 06/07 No. % No. 2 2% 9 35 36% 23 19 20% 19 41 42% 44
% 9% 24% 20% 46%
11%
Benefits By Type
Home CJO
x-CJS
Social Value
Ring Fence actuals from 2003-06 and Delivery Plan RF budget from 2006-08. Full benefits by recipient used. Corrections includes YJB.
Risk Register - CJS IT Benefits Management Risk Description

1 2 3 4 Scale of CJS IT benefits forecast is less than expected Quality of CJS IT benefits forecast is not robust and realisable CJSIT benefits realisation falls below forecast CJS IT programme does not adjust to changes in strategic and political priorities
Impact Probability
Effectivess 28% (-2%)
Efficiency Cashable 8% (-1%)
Severity
Summary of Key Mitigating Actions

1. Settlement Letter Conditions/Hurdle rates 2. Root Cause Model 3. Social Value Research 4. Analysis of benefits enabled by CJS IT funded infrastructure 1. Quarterly Benefits Integrity Check 2. Benefits Eligibility Framework 1. Process Modelling 2. CJO Benefit Realisation Plans approved by OB and BWG 3. Project Benefit Realisation Plans approved by BWG 1.Biannual portfolio prioritisation, 2. strand board BRPs signed off by strandbaord leads, 3. 6 monthly ministerial approved delivery plan.
Efficiency Opportunity 64%(+3%)

Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness
Source: BE&RF report Q1 2006/07 Approved by the BWG 10/08/2006
Risk Assessment
Cost/Benefit Analysis
84
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management
Benefits Risk Management

Benefits Risk
Scale of benefits is insufficient to justify investment
Mitigation Strategies
Root Cause Modelling to capture cross system benefits Portfolio-level research into social value benefits Potential Opportunity Value benefits managed on an active basis Process modelling and computer simulation to identify scope for increased benefits particularly at the points of intersection between agencies Benefits Eligibility Framework Independent review of Business Cases against the Benefits Eligibility Framework Benefits agreed with recipients Efficiency Benefits validated with departmental efficiency plans Effectiveness/Performance benefits validated with strategic planners Project Benefits Realisation Plans agreed by Benefits Working Group Organisation/Agency Benefits Realisation Plans prepared for the year ahead for all benefits to be realised Quarterly benefits reporting against plan
Benefits forecasts are not robust
Benefits realisation falls behind forecast
85
Overview
Strategic Alignment
Quarterly Reporting
Risk Management

Benefits risks are assessed and managed in three ways:
Risk register on scorecard
Risk assessed as part of Proving Model assessment
Application of Optimism Bias adjustments to the Business Case
86
Value Management 2
Capturing all aspects of value
CISCO Report on behalf of the New York Housing Authority to the US NECCC 2005 - your CJIT Portfolio Management initiative is considered a strong and proven approach to measuring the benefits of IT investments.
87
Overview
Cross System Benefits
Social Value
Political Value
Potential Opportunity Value
Value Management Role 2 - Ensuring all forms of value are captured
Overview Cross System Benefits Social Value Political Value Potential Opportunity/Foundation Value
88
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Cross-System Benefits the issue

Business cases were found to be particularly strong on the assessment of costs and benefits related to the lead department itselfHowever, the identification and quantification of external benefits, for example to users or other departments, were less well handled resulting in business cases that often understated the benefits, and provided an incomplete base for tracking future 3rd party benefits through to realisation.
Source: Cabinet Office, UK Country Report on Benefits Realisation
89
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The solution
Cause and Effect analysis similar solutions include: Fujitsus Results Chain Cranfields Benefits Dependency Network Root Cause Modelling
90
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The Results Chain - Oregon Department of Transport

2 Develop 2 Develop Community-based Community-based solution solution 1 Re-engineer 1 Re-engineer Project Selection &Project Selection Development & Development 7 8 5 Established state 5point of view state Established point of view 6 Improved 6 Improved collaboration collaboration with with stakeholders stakeholders 7 Reduced time 7 Reduced time for service delivery for service delivery 4 More integrated 4 More integrated state direction state direction 9 2 Community 2 Community Prepared to Prepared to adapt behaviour adapt behaviour
8 9
3 Deploy 3 Deploy maintenance maintenance strategy strategy
6 8 2
11 More 11 More effective effective leadership leadership 10 Better 10 Better skilled skilled & equipped & equipped people people 5 Human 5 Human Resources Resources organisation organisation development development
3 Transportation 3 Transportation balanced with balanced with other liveability other liveability factors factors
8 More effective 8 More effective public investment public investment 3 4 2
2 Improved total 2 Improved total transportation transportation experience experience
1 Improved 1 Improved community community liveability liveability
1 8 Higher 8 Higher quality quality solutions solutions 2 4 3 Enhanced 3 Enhanced economic economic opportunity opportunity 1 Balanced with 1 Balanced with growth, revenue growth, revenue base & needs base & needs
4 Oregon 4 Oregon Transportation Transportation Initiative Initiative
Source: Thorp J, The Information Paradox
91
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Cranfield Universitys Benefits Dependency Network

BENEFITS DEPENDENCY NETWORK
D R I V E R S
IS/IT Enablers
JW113
Enabling Changes
Business Changes
Business Benefits
Investment Objectives
92
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
CJS IT uses Root Cause Modelling because

Value Management Role 2 It is particularly suited to the Central Government context and commitment to Public Service Agreement targets It is particularly suited to the Portfolio level - it helps capture the cross-system benefits to which projects collectively contribute i.e. what are termed the Combined Effectiveness Impact (CEI) benefits It helps avoid double counting The process gains stakeholder buy in and fosters cross-system understanding The process promotes discussion of how projects can impact on performance & what business change is necessary to realise those benefits
93
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Root Cause Model Process Overview

IT initiative impact derived from a series of interactive workshops with business domain experts, benefits realisation leads and project leads. Latest cost and measurement data is applied. This data is agreed with Benefits Realisation Leads. Align root causes with target delivery plans Impact on Key problem areas
(consequences)
Inappropriate time in custody Cost of remand place per day No. in of inappropriate custody events pa Cost of inappropriate time in custody pa Police % by recipient CJO Inappropriate tim e in agency (Note a): custody Courts (MC) Courts (CC) CPS 62,067 5,523,963 89 Assumptions and sources: i) Period of inappropriate custody assumed 1 day/night (Estimate CJPD Paul Henderson) ii) Assume no. of inappropriate custody events = no. of detainees subsequently bailed next day Source: Flows and Cost model CJPD 2001/02. iii) x Cost of remand place per day 0.00% 0.00% No. in of inappropriate 0.00% custody events pa
62,067 89 Assumptions and sources: i) Period of inappropriate custody assumed 1 day/night (Estimate CJPD Paul Henderson) ii) Assume no. of inappropriate custody events = no. of detainees subsequently bailed next day Source: Flows and Cost model CJPD 2001/02. iii)
IT initiative enables Information flows
Performance Target 1 Performance Target 2 Performance Target 3 Performance Target 4 Efficiency Target
Information flows Financial benefit
Address Problems
(root causes)
Performance Benefits Efficiency Benefits
(Underpinned by cost and measurement data)
Probation 0.00% Cost of inappropriate time 5,523,963 HMPS in custody pa 100.00% YOT 0.00% Police % by recipient CJO x Other: Legal Aid 0.00% agency (Note a): Courts (MC) 0.00% Other: W itness Payments 0.00% Inappropriate tim e in Cost Courts (CC) of remand place per 0.00% Other: Defence Sols, day 0.00% custody CPS 0.00% Other: Prosecution counsel 0.00% ProbationNo. in of inappropriate 0.00% HMPS custody events pa 100.00%
YOT
62,067
89 Assumptions and sources: i) Period of inappropriate custody assumed 1 day/night (Estimate CJPD Paul Henderson) ii) Assume no. of inappropriate custody events = no. of detainees subsequently bailed next day Source: Flows and Cost model CJPD 2001/02. iii)
Cost of inappropriate time0.00%5,523,963 in custody pa Other: Legal Aid 0.00% Other: W itness Payments Police % by recipient CJO Other: Defence Sols, agency (Note a): Courts (MC) Other: Prosecution counsel Courts (CC) CPS Probation HMPS YOT Other: Legal Aid Other: W itness Payments Other: Defence Sols, Other: Prosecution counsel 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% x 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
94
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Building the root cause model through interactive workshops
95
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
One Map for each consequence

Initiative Hypothesis (IT Functionality) Root Cause (Level 2) Root Cause (Level 1) Consequences Targets
In ap prop riate tim e in cus to dy
C ost of re m and p la ce per day N o. in of in approp riate cu stody eve nts pa C ost of ina ppropriate tim e in custo dy pa
62 ,0 67 5,523 ,9 63
89 Ass um p tio ns a nd s ou rces: i) Period of in app ro priate cu stody a ssum ed 1 da y/nig ht (E stim ate C JP D P aul He nderso n) ii) A ssu m e no . o f inapp ro priate c ustod y e vents = no. of detaine es su bseq uently baile d next d ay S ou rc e: Flows a nd C ost m od el C JP D 2 001/02 . iii)
% b y recip ie nt CJ O P olice In ap prop riate tim e in age ncy (N ote a ): cus to dy C ourts (M C ) C ourts (C C ) C PS P ro batio n H MP S
x C ost of re m and p la ce per 0.00 % day 0.00 % N o. in of in approp riate 0.00 cu stody eve nts pa % 0.00 % C ost of ina ppropriate tim e in custo dy pa 100.0 0%
62 ,0 67 5,523 ,9 63
89 Ass um p tio ns a nd s ou rces: i) Period of in app ro priate cu stody a ssum ed 1 da y/nig ht (E stim ate C JP D P aul He nderso n) ii) A ssu m e no . o f inapp ro priate c ustod y e vents = no. of detaine es su bseq uently baile d next d ay S ou rc e: Flows a nd C ost m od el C JP D 2 001/02 . iii)
Y OT 0.00 % x P olice % b y recip ie nt CJ O O ther: L egal Aid 0.00 % age ncy (N ote a ): C en ts 0.00 % O ther: W itnes s Pa ymourts (M C ) 0.00 % In ap prop riate tim e in ost of re m an d place pe r 0.00 % C O ther: D efen ce S ols , ourts (C C ) 0.00 % da y cus to dy 0.00 % O ther: P rose cution C PS co unse l 0.00 % P ro batio n N o. in of inapp ro priate 0.00 % cu stody ev ents pa 100.0 0% H MP S
6 2,067
89 Assu m ption s an d so urce s: i) P eriod o f inap propriate cus to dy ass um e d 1 day/n igh t (E stim ate CJ P D P aul Hen derso n) ii) A s sum e no. of ina ppropriate cu stody eve nts = no. of detainee s sub sequ ently bailed next d ay S ource: F low s and C os t m odel CJ P D 200 1/02. iii)
C ost of in approp riate tim e0.00 % 5,52 3,963 in cus to dy pa O ther: L egal Aid 0.00 % Y OT % b y recip ie nt CJ O ther: W itnes sePa ym en ts P olic age ncy (N ote a ): O ther: D efen ce S(MC ) C ourts ols , O ther: P rose cution co unse l C ourts (CC ) C PS P ro bation H MP S YOT O ther: L ega l A id O ther: W itne ss P aym e nts O ther: D efen ce S ols, O ther: P ros ecution co uns el 0.00 % 0.00 % 0.00 % x 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 10 0.00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 0 .00%
Cost and measurement data underpins Each consequence
96
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Validation of performance impact through strategic alignment

Inappropriate time in custody Cost of remand place per day No. in of inappropriate custody events pa Cost of inappropriate time in custody pa %by recipient CJO agency
(Note a)
ssum ptions and sources: 89 A i) Period of inappropriate custody assumed 1 day/night (Estimate CJPD Paul Henderson) ii) Assume no. of inappropriate custody events = no. of detainees subsequently bailed next day Source: Flows and Cost model CJPD 2001/02. iii) 5,523,963 62,067 x 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Police Courts (MC) Courts (CC) CPS Probation HMPS YOT Other: Legal Aid Other: Witness Payments Other: Defence Sols, Other: Prosecution counsel
Efficiency Plans
Q1 06/07 SR04- SR07 CJS IT CONTRIBUTION TO CJS 2008 VISION - CJS PSA Standard Settlement Condition - Reduce Re-offending
No. Source Project 1 OASys
(1)
Benefit Description (1)
Source (1) (4)
Benefit Category
(1)
Benefit Owner (Name) (1)
Key Measures/Indicators of Benefit
(1)
Hypotheses (2) (3)
Current RAG Status 2005-06 Q4 (1) GREEN
Value to Strand Board target Mission Critical
Improved understanding of offenders risks and needs that OASEFEo001 OASys delivers increases NOMS impact on offending behaviour through better targeted interventions.
Management Summary
Root Cause Model
Benefit ID No Benefit Owner: Benefit Category: Detailed Description: Monetary Value Impact % Realisation Ramp Up % Benefit ID No Strategic Alignment Benefit Owner: Benefit Category: Environmental: Detailed Description: Management Summary Monetary Value Benefit Dependencies: Impact % Other Projects: Technology: 2005-06 Planned Actual 2005-06 Planned Actual
Source Project: Date Profile Agreed:
John Powls (on OASys: provides data to be used by researchers to produce statistical reports, highlight 2005/6 indicators: 100% NPS Areas & Prisons, OASys behalf of Christine installed; At least 430,000 completed NPS OASys trends in offending and offending related needs, and to evaluate the effectiveness of Knott) assessments; At least 48,000 completed HMPS OASys interventions, regimes, and work programmes. OASys: improves value for money from interventions through more informed definition and assessments; At least 90% of OASys ROH assessments undertaken on High/Very High Risk offenders; At least 90% of targeting to offender needs OASys assessments undertaken on Prolific/Other Priority OASys: improves assessments meaning NPS and HMPS can target offenders more Offenders. At least 15,000 programme completions per year. At appropriately to interventions (for drugs and sexual offences programmes, for instance) least 68.57% of offenders completing programmes thereby improving completion rates commenced. John Powls (on 2005/6 indicators: O-DEAT database to have at least 800,000 OASys: enables HMPS and NPS to adopt common techniques and exchange offender behalf of Christine completed offender assessment records; 624 O-DEAT reports. assessment information efficiently and effectively so that offenders are better managed Knott) across service boundaries, i.e. when they move within and between communities and prisons
OASys
Creation of the central O-D+C5EAT database enables the OASEFIO005 provision of aggregate offender data across NOMS.
GREEN
Mission Critical
C-NOMIS
2006-07 Planned Actual
Resettlement: Eliminating re-keying and enables end-toend offender management
C-NOEFIo010
RAG Status
4 C-NOMIS Additional NPS benefit: Reduction in mulitple re-keying of C-NOEFIo011 data & organisational process improvement Efficiency Opportunity
John Powls (on Not included in the baseline and tracking sample. behalf of Christine Possible use of structured questionnaire Knott)
C-NOMIS: enables HMPS and NPS to exchange information efficiently, thus releasing opportunity efficiency savings due to less time and frustration in sourcing files/information/chasing up queries and more time spent in processing the core business of managing offenders C-NOMIS: reduces multiple rekeying of data and organisational process improvement
WHITE
Mission Critical
John Powls (on Not included in the baseline and tracking sample. behalf of Christine Possible use of structured questionnaire Knott) John Powls (on The number of Quantum PCs that do not need to be installed behalf of Christine Knott)
WHITE
Highly Desirable
SHARED ACCESS
Source Project: Date Profile Agreed:
SHARED ACCESS
SHAEFEo005 Extranet will allow NOMS to better manage entry and release of prisoners from public to private prisons and visa versa (COP users will be able to access OASys and this will allow immediate updating of prisoner records) Extranet will allow COPs and other external organisations SHAEFEo006 like charities to integrate into the NOMS community (COP and other external users will be able to update prisoner records on-line) CEI CONSEQUENCE 2 Reduce offences committed on bail CJIT CEIc2
SHARED ACCESS: Allows NOMS to better manage entry and release of prisoners from public to private prisons and visa versa
WHITE
Desirable
John Powls (on Less time spent by staff in tracing prisoner records following behalf of Christine transfers between HMPS and private prisons Knott)
SHARED ACCESS: Allows COPs and other external organisations like charities to integrate into the NOMS community
WHITE
Desirable
Enablers
RAG Status
8
C-NOMIS ExISSr1b LIBRA NSPIS SeM VISOR XHIBIT portal C-NOMIS LIBRA NSPIS OASys SeM
To be confirmed during CEI realisation planning
LIBRA/ ExISSr1b/ NSPIS, XHIBIT portal and SeM: provides earlier access to electronic court results (including bail decision and conditions), enabling faster more accurate PNC updates NSPIS, VISOR, LIBRA, C-NOMIS, and SeM: provides access to bail information therefore facilitates more informed bail decisions
AMBER
Minimal
CJIT CEIc12
To be confirmed during CEI realisation planning Reconviction rates
Realisation RampOther: Up %
Strategic Alignment Benefit Assumptions: Business Action Environmental: Description: Source: Benefit ID No Benefit Owner: Other Projects: Benefit Measures/ Indicators: Benefit Category: Benefit Dependencies: Detailed Description: Technology: Business process: Training: Benefit Assumptions: 2005-06 Planned Monetary Value Other: Key business change required: Management Summary Enablers Impact % Benefit Assumptions: Business Action Key Actions: Realisation Ramp Up % Mitigating actions to ensure Description: Strategic Alignment benefits realisation (to be Benefit completed if RAG status isMeasures/ Indicators: Environmental: red): Business process: Benefit Assumptions: Other Projects: Key business change required: Benefit Dependencies: Enablers Technology: Due Date: Owner: Key Actions: Other: Mitigating actions to ensure benefits realisation (to be Benefit Assumptions: completed if RAG status is red): Description: Business Action Benefit Measures/ Indicators: Business process: Training: Resourcing:
7 SeM OASys NSPIS NOMIS
OASys: prevents multiple assessments therefore assisting end to end offender management C-NOMIS and SeM: enables connectivity to external agencies - authorised agencies (e.g. drug treatment providers) facilitating better information sharing OASys and C-NOMIS: provides information about interventions/ measures and monitors outcomes so facilitating more effective use of interventions C-NOMIS: provides access to full offender history facilitating more informed sentence planning and improved interventions targeting NSPIS, C-NOMIS, OASys: identifies priority and other prolific offenders and tailors evaluation appropriately LIBRA: provides 3rd party access to court information
AMBER
Desirable
Frequency: Source Project: Date Profile Agreed: Resourcing: 2006-07 Planned Actual
RAG Status Red: Amber : Green: Grey: White:
Benefit realisation behind plan Difficulties with benefits measurement/evidence means realisation is uncertain Benefit realised ahead or in line with plan Benefits not included in BRP total as not confident in forecast. realisation to be confirmed Benefits not yet due for realisation
Value to Strand Board targets In the context of all Strand Board iniiatives set to achieve SR04 targtes, how valuable is this benefit considered to be? 1. Mission Critical, 2. Highly Desirable, 3. Desirable, 4. Minimal, 5. Not Known
(1) Source: CJO Benefits Realisation Plans Q1 06/07 (BRP) (2) Source: CJIT Combined Effectiveness Impact (CEI) Model vA1.0 July 05 (3) Source: Appropriate programme/ project business case (4) Note: Number refers to the benefits unique reference number allocated to programme benefits (and assigned in the 1 pagers and BRPs) (5) Subject to change request - see change control worksheet
Actual
RAG Status
Due Date: Source:
Owner: Frequency:
Action
Strategy Benefits Realisation Plans

SR2004 CJS IT CONTRIBUTION TO CJS 2008 VISION - CJS PSA Standard Settlement Condition - Reduce Re-offending No.
1
Training:
Resourcing:
Source (1) Project

ETMP/CPT
Action
(1) (2) (1) (1) Benefit Benefit Benefit Description Source Key Measures/Indicators of Benefit (1) (2) (4) (2) Owner Category (1) Casework Enabled by ETMP/CPT BRP: CPS - Efficiency Steve IT will support will reduce manual resulting in time savings in CPS for 13 opportunity Przybylski/ process times for some case case progression processes progression activities. Chris YULE
Source:
Frequency:
3 OASys
Benefit Assumptions: Key business change required:
Efficiency Creation of the central O-D+C5EAT BRP: database enables the provision of NOMS - 5 Opportunit y aggregate offender data across NOMS. CEI CONSEQUENCE 10 BRP: Effectivene Reduce incidents of offender self NOMS - 19 ss harm and harm to others Opportunit y
John Powls (on behalf of Christine Knott) John Powls (on behalf of Christine Knott)
Key Actions: Mitigating actions to ensure benefits realisation (to be completed if RAG status is red): Action
Due Date:
Owner:
8 SeM OASys NSPIS LIBRA NOMIS
CJIT CEI
Effectivene ss Opportunit y
(2) (3) Current RAG Status (1) Benefit realisation(2) ETMP/CPT: reduces the time taken by CPS for the following case progression processes in the crown court behind plan 1) Pre-PDH 2) Post-PDH 3) Check compliance with directions 4) Check readiness for Trial and 5) Applications together with some fax, phone, post savings. ETMP/CPT: reduces the time taken by CPS for the i th i t Benefit realised OASys: 2005/6 indicators: O-DEAT database to f ll i enables HMPS iand NPS to adopt common t ahead or in line with techniques and exchange offender assessment have at least 800,000 completed offender assessment records; 624 O- information efficiently and effectively so that offenders are plan better managed across service boundaries, i.e. when they DEAT reports. SIDs and self harm volumes Safe OASys: ensures that offenders are assessed consistently NOMS - GREEN Benefit realised Custody Group and thoroughly and that risk assessments are regularly ahead or in line with reviewed plan OASys and SeM: facilitates the exchange of assessment CJIT Difficulties with information benefits OASys: provides prompts for risk of harm screening measurement/evide NOMIS: facilitates improved offender information nce means idi i l d th NPS d HMPS Reconviction rates OASys: prevents multiple assessments therefore assisting CJIT Difficulties with
Hypotheses
end to end offender management NOMIS and SeM: enables connectivity to external agencies - authorised agencies (e.g. drug treatment providers) facilitating better information sharing OASys and NOMIS: provides information about i t ti / d it t
benefits measurement/evide nce means realisation is uncertain
Benefits Profiles
RAG Status Red: Amber : Green: White:
Benefit realisation behind plan Difficulties with benefits measurement/evidence means realisation is uncertain Benefit realised ahead or in line with plan Benefits not yet due for realisation
(1) Source: CJA Benefits Realisation Plans Q1 05/06 (BRP) (2) Source: CJIT Combined Effectiveness Impact (CEI) Model vA1.0 July 05 (3) Source: Appropriate business case (4) Note: Number refers to the row in the named BRP
Recipient Benefits Realisation Plans
97
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Social Value Benefits

Value Management Role 2 The Issue - traditional financial return on investment approaches do not capture all the benefits of investment in e-Government. The Solution: US Value Measuring Methodology Australias Demand & Value Assessment Methodology European Commissions e GEP model CJS IT approach to Social and Political Value
98
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The United States Value Measuring Methodology (VMM)

Developed from a study in 2001-02 by Booz Allen Hamilton and Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government that concluded that financial return on investment must be balanced by rigorous analysis of other factors in a multi-dimensional analysis: The full value of an e-service must be measured from multiple perspectives represented by the 6 Essential Factors; it cannot be captured in a single internal financial metric (i.e. ROI).
99
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
VMMs 6 Essential Factors: Five Value Factors + Risk

DIRECT USER (CUSTOMER) VALUE Benefits directly realized by users or multiple user groups. For example, time saved, more convenient service delivery/access etc. Benefits not related to direct users (e.g. society as a whole). For example, improved trust in Government, participation, inclusiveness. Order of magnitude improvements realized in current government operations and processes or those that lay the groundwork for future initiatives. For example, enterprise architecture and improved infrastructure. Financial benefits that have a direct impact on organizational (government service provider) and other federal government budgets via increased revenue, reduced costs or costs avoided. Benefits that move an organization, and government as a whole, closer to achieving its strategic goals and mission.
SOCIAL (NON-DIRECT USER/PUBLIC) VALUE
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONAL / FOUNDATIONAL VALUE
RISK
GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL VALUE
STRATEGIC / POLITICAL VALUE

Project, Organisational and Technical 100
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The VMM Value Structure

The 5 Value Factors are prioritised based on the objectives of the organisation Sub-criteria are identified Quantifiable performance measures are identified to measure each form of value Risk tolerance boundaries are defined Potential investments are appraised and ranked in accordance with the above
VE ATIIV E STR AT TR IILLU S LLU
VALUE FACTOR
PRIORITY 24 10 15 21 30 100
Direct User (Customer) Value Government Operational Value Government Financial Value Social Value Strategic / Political Value Total
101
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Australias Demand & Value Assessment Methodology (DVAM) Traditional ROI investment measures do not fully account for the value from e-Government. Many benefits are nonfinancial and intangible.
Source: Presentation by John Rimmer, CEO to CISCO Public Services Summit, Measuring the Impact and Benefits of E-government, Stockholm
Determining the benefit/cost ratio for e-Government is not straightforward, as the outcomes and benefits are not just financial. A particular problem for agencies is in identifying and measuring social value.
Source: NOIE E-Government Benefits Study
102
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The DVAM methodology includes 5 Value Categories

1. Agency benefits/value - Financial (quantitative) e.g. operating cost reductions, increased revenue, improved efficiency and productivity savings, improved effectiveness, improved service or cycle times, and increased staff retention 2. Strategic value (qualitative) - how well the initiative is aligned with the most important outcomes (and political objectives) for the organization 3. Consumer/user financial value - time and cost savings, faster payments and revenue generation opportunities to users of a service 4. Social benefits/value (economic and non-economic) - encompassing both reach and impact in areas of improved quality of life; improved decision making; and more integrated delivery so increasing business opportunities 5. Governance value - i.e. contribution to broader whole-of-government objectives including more open and inclusive government (citizen participation), accountability and improved information availability (transparency) These are combined with assessments of Risk to programme delivery and to achievement of benefits.
103
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Australias DVAM A Comprehensive Approach

it is broad in coverage and simple enough to be viable for both business case development and project portfolio management [and] the monitoring of benefit realization over time.
Source: Gartner, Australian Measure of the Public Value of IT is a Good Start
104
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The European Commissions e Government Economics Project (e GEP)
traditional ROI investment measures do not fully account for the value from e Government, since many of its benefits are nonfinancial and qualitative/intangible and contribute to a greater social value than can be measured using only financial and quantifiable indicators.
Source: Measurement Framework for third workshop of the e GEP
Programme Value is therefore seen as encompassing financial, organisational, social and political value..
105
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The ECs e GEP Measurement Framework

106
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
So
All these methodologies reach similar conclusions to the research by Mark Moore in the US that identifies 3 sources of Public Value: Outcomes (Effectiveness) Services (Efficiency) and Public trust/legitimacy (Political & Social Value) Assessing public value will help organizations understand how IT initiatives contribute to improved business process performance and organizational efficiency, and still assess the equally important, if less direct, effects of new processes on society and the economy.
Source: Gartner, Value for Money is not enough in Public Sector IT Projects
107
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The HM Treasury Green Book agrees

Wider social and environmental costs and benefits for which there is no market price also need to be brought into any assessment. They will often be more difficult to assess but are often important and should not be ignored simply because they cannot easily be costed and, In principle, appraisals should take account of all benefits to the UKthe wider effects on other areas of the economy should also be considered.
Source: HM Treasury, The Green Book
108
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
But
Value Management Role 2 We are faced with 3 immediate issues: 1. How to measure such wider Social and Political Value? 2. How to assess this value in economic terms as required by the Green Book? 3. How to ensure any measurement is robust?
109
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Its not straightforward the e GEP concludes that

110
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The CJS IT Value Chain Methodology & Social Value Pyramid

Extends the existing Root Cause Model analysis of impact on the Criminal Justice System to quantifying Social Value i.e. if the CJS is more effective in terms of bringing offenders to justice, improving witness and victim care, enforcement, reducing re-offending and public protection, what effects will this have on the wider economy and society? Research is undertaken by independent economists sponsored by the CJS IT Portfolio Unit. Principles: 1. The model accepts that our degree of confidence in causality declines as we go down the Social Value Pyramid; 2. A range of forecasts have been developed; 3. The quality of the forecasts is assessed using a confidence scale; and 4. Forecasts are regularly updated to reflect the latest research and portfolio delivery.
111
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Combining the EUs e-GEP model & RCM to assess Social Value
Tangible financial gains EFFICIENCY: Better functioning PA Program Financial Value
The CJIT Benefits Approach

Benefits Integrity Check Benefits Realisation Plan process Cross System Benefits
More efficient operations Better empowered PS employees Reduced adm. burden costs
eGov National Program
Program Organisational Value
Root Cause Model Consequences
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3
EFFECTIVENESS: Better user services & opportunities
Increased user value & satisfaction Increased access to opportunities Transparency and accountability
Program Social Value
Program Overall Value
Social Value Pyramid Time Savings/ Performance Impact Prevented Victimisation Degree of Confidence in Benefits Realisation
OPENNESS: good governance
Openness and participation
Program Political Value
Better cooperating PA Value Drivers Outcomes/ Impacts Mission Results
Public Protection
112
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Political Value The Issue

Value Management Role 2 Some projects wont necessarily have a positive Net Present Value for example: Politically mandated projects including those designed in response to major system failures Legally required projects Regulatory requirements Such projects will proceed with or without a positive NPV and this reality needs to be reflected in our Investment Appraisal criteria and Value Management approaches
113
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Political Value and the avoidance of Things Gone Wrong

Value Management Role 2 The rationale for such investments is often: The avoidance of systemic Things gone wrong i.e. major failures in the organisations purpose or core mission, or The avoidance of the consequences of not complying with the law or regulatory requirements We are therefore faced with the immediate problems of: How to measure things that dont happen? and How to attribute their avoidance to the project?
114
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Political Value - the CJS IT approach

There is an implicit assumption that the value of compliance with law/regulations and avoidance of a policy failure = the net cost of the project The CJS IT approach is based on: 1. Making this implicit cost explicit, and 2. Willingness to Pay analysis - requiring Ministerial agreement that the net cost represents the political value that they place on the project, and this requires: A cause and effect analysis to demonstrate the rationale for linking the project to the business requirement (approved by the SRO) An analysis demonstrating that the net cost represents the most cost-effective solution (also approved by the SRO)
115
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Potential Opportunity/Foundation Value

An enterprises IT infrastructure is the platform that allows business applications to be delivered reliably, but infrastructure business cases are particularly difficult for two reasons: The benefits are not always obvious to the end user or business leadership, and they are spread across multiple parties. In fact, many benefits of an infrastructure initiative are like an insurance policy you only notice them when things go wrong. infrastructure brings significant agility benefits Agility benefits are like financial options. They only have a value if and when you use the agility.
Source: Gartner, Get Real: The Future of IT infrastructure
116
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Investment in infrastructure is therefore difficult to justify

Value Management Role 2 Early investments in e-services are burdened with the costs associated with building required infrastructure and skills. Cost analyses that do not incorporate foundational value can make calculating and demonstrating a short-term or even long-term value difficult or even impossible. Decisions made based on these calculations will stifle innovation and make progress toward transforming government sluggish at best.
This leads to a first past the winning post bears all the costs syndrome.
117
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Potential solutions include

Infrastructure investments can be treated as a tax on the business Infrastructure investments can be treated as exempt from the normal investment appraisal criteria but is this enough?
118
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Analysis suggests that the value of future opportunities must be considered

Government IT organizations will face increasing problems in justifying investments that have an indirect or future impact on the businessa business case must be based on articulating how an infrastructure investment enables future investments as well as current projects and activities to better realize their potential or actual benefits.
Source: Gartner, How to Demonstrate the Elusive Value of IT Infrastructure in Government
Organizations taking an enterprise-wide approach to e-Government will be able to demonstrate the foundation value of an investment by calculating how the infrastructure, skills and processes being put in place will be leveraged by other services and by increasing levels of demand.
119
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
A number of options are available when valuing future opportunities

In determining the value today of the investment in infrastructure, we need to take into consideration the value of future applications that will run on that infrastructure
Include none of the value of these projects in justifying the investment
Value
Include some of the value of these projects in justifying the investment
Include all the value of these projects in justifying the investment
is e it inc pect s ns tic, ex alis le to licatio re ab not son e app d rea of th rocee e op t som
l rea the n the ce ee sin w ic, e bet es t alis ill li trem re w x ue wo e t val
ny ma ce ns in c, s atio isti pplic ed l rea e a nd not thes be fu f t o n wo
No. of opportunities
We can develop a methodology that takes into consideration some of this potential opportunity value and provides a mechanism for managing the realisation of this value on an active basis.
120
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Gartner identify 4 ways to measure this value

1.Mathematical, including Real Options Theory; 2.Simulation-based, including the application of Monte Carlo simulation; 3.Scenario-based, including probability-adjusted outcomes; and 4.Worst-case-scenario-based, i.e. what would happen if the investment was not made?
Source: Gartner, How to Demonstrate the Elusive Value of IT Infrastructure in Government
The approach developed by CJIT combines elements of options 1 and 3. It balances the need for simplicity with the need for rigour, to provide a practical approach for capturing and managing value.
121
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The CJS IT Potential Opportunity Value

The purpose is to: Justify investment in the infrastructure on a more complete basis Manage this value as projects join and leave the opportunities pipeline Ensure that potential value is considered when deciding which projects to start next Retain a focus on ensuring the full value of the investment in infrastructure is leveraged
122
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
The Potential Opportunity Value Process

1
Identify opportunities for the infrastructure to support Value the opportunities
3
Value the pipeline as a whole Constraints/ Synergies Adjustment Approval by Project Leads
Modelling Process with Toolkit Support
5
Manage the Pipeline Value Opportunity Conversion Benefit Conversion Business as usual
Active Portfolio & Benefits Management Approach
123
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Step 1: Identify opportunities for the infrastructure to support - the Pipeline of Opportunities
IIden dentt iiffy y
Project X Project K Project O Project Z Project Y Project L
Qua lify
Project H Project M
Inve
An opportunity will come from business and IT programmes that have IT requirements that could be supported by the infrastructure programme
stig ate Com m it
Project J Project P Project B
Project F Project A
Live Projects
Project D Project C Project E
Project N
Project Q
Opportunity domain
Cross department Cross CJS Intra CJO
124
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Step 2: Value the Opportunities

There are four components that need to be combined in order to calculate the Probability adjusted Expected Net Present Value [E(Pa)NPV] of the project/opportunity: Value Expected Project or Opportunity Cost . Expected Project or Opportunity Benefit Probability Probability of the Project or Opportunity happening and being supported by the infrastructure Probability of the Project or Opportunity happening in each of the next three years
Via the Project Opportunity Probability Scorecard
Probability Probability of the Opportunity happening Probability of the Opportunity happening in the next 3 Probability years Adjusted
Expected Net Present Value
Expected Cost of the Opportunity
Expected Benefit of the Opportunity Value
Via 3 point estimating
An automated toolkit is available to guide the user through the assessment.
125
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Step 2: Using the Project Opportunity Probability Scorecard

The Scorecard calculates the probabilities based on the available information about the project/opportunity.
Opportunity Name Description Initial assessment made by Initial assessment made on Latest assessment made by Latest assessment made on Likelihood of project happening Likelihood of Exchange supporting project, either:
should the project use exchange? should exchange support the project?
Likelihood of project happening with Exchange
x
0% 100% 0% 1 Weight 10% 10% 15%
or if less
=
0% 100% Comments 0% ####
Key Factors
Strategic Contribution Legislative Requirement Funding Status Stakeholder Commitment Relative Attractiveness Relative Achievability
Likelihood of project happening Questions Potential Answers Value 0 0 0 Show stopper
Factors derived from: - The OGCs top 10 causes of project failure - Cranfield University research
1 2 3
Is the project a legislative requirement or ministerial imperative? W hat is the scale of strategic contribution to the 7 Strategic Drivers? Is the project likely to receive funding? W hat proportion of the benefits have been agreed in principle with efficiency planners as viable for inclusion in departmental efficiency plans (or at least have benefit recipients identified)? Are the benefits from the project dependent on other projects? Is the project sponsor (SRO) perceived within the organisation as fully effective and committed to the project? Is there evidence of stakeholder commitment? Has the project undergone governance reviews and been approved? Does the project have a fixed start date?
4%
5 6 7 8 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2% 10% 8% 15% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 0% 2% 100%
10 W hen is the project implementation due to complete? 11 Is the project resourced correctly to deliver the benefits? 12 Does the project have a business case? 13 W hat is the degree of technical innovation? 14 How risky (business, technical, ) is the project perceived? Are the boundaries between the project and Exchange 15 defined and agreed? Is the supplier (or the market if no supplier chosen) capable 16 of delivering the project? Total Likelihood of Exchange supporting the project Questions Should the project use Exchange? W hat is the level of Exchange fit to business and technical requirements? 18 Does the project accept the Exchange solution? Have all reasonable alternatives to the Exchange solution 19 been considered? 17 20 How significant is the competition? 21 Does the Exchange solution look cost effective? Total Should Exchange support the project? How much is the project aligned with the Exchange 22 Strategic Architecture? Does this project enable services which can be re-used later 23 by other projects? 24 Can we manage the business and technical risks? Total Potential Answers
Value
Show stopper
Weight
Comments
0 0 0 0 0
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 100%
0 0 0
40% 40% 20% 100%
126
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Step 3: Value the pipeline as a whole

Combine all project or opportunity valuations into a valuation for the pipeline as a whole Consider adjusting this value to reflect: - Capacity constraints Financial is there enough budget available to fund all the opportunities? Business can the business cope with the number of opportunities? Technical can the infrastructure support all the opportunities in the expected timeframe? + Synergy benefits i.e. the value of additional future benefits that are enabled by the project or opportunities in the pipeline, for example: the ability to re-use the solutions that have been developed, and the ability to re-use the tools, methodologies and capabilities that have been developed
127
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Step 4: Validation of forecasts

Once the opportunity valuation has been completed, the outcome will need to be validated and agreed with project leads When projects are approved the benefits are agreed with the Benefit Realisation Leads and departmental efficiency planners
128
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Step 5: Manage the Pipeline Value - Opportunity & Benefits Conversion

Process An opportunity can leave the pipeline in one of two ways: It can become a live project and be managed in the usual way, or It is no longer an opportunity and is removed from the pipeline Frequency The pipeline will change frequently and the valuation will only ever be a snapshot in time The pipeline should be reviewed at regular intervals - the suggested frequency is every 3 months Quality These two conversion ratios are good indicators that the process is working: 1. Project Conversion Ratio The number of projects actually happening versus those predicted to happen 2. Benefits Conversion Ratio The amount of benefit realised versus the value included in the pipeline originally Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits
129
Overview
Social Value
Political Value
Potential Opportunity Value Conclusions

The methodology provides a prudent valuation of the opportunity value that currently exists in the infrastructure investment The methodology is not stand-alone. It is a part of a process that provides a basis for on-going active management of the exploitation of this investment in terms of launching projects and realising benefits It also builds upon and incorporates other aspects of the Portfolio and Benefits Management approach: The Project Pipeline Optimism bias adjustments or use of 3 point estimating of costs and benefits A Project Opportunity Probability Scorecard based on assessments of Attractiveness and Achievability using the Proving Model factors The practical approach (and supporting toolkit) helps to overcome some of the difficulties inherent in estimating the value of investment in infrastructure
130
Conclusions
Conclusions
131
Benefits of an integrated, active, repeatable approach to Portfolio & Benefits Management
value management office/outcome management office makes business cases more robust by challenging benefits claims and helps to avoid double claiming of benefits
Conclusions
Source: Summary from OECD Expert Seminar on Cost and Benefit Analysis of E-Government
132
Benefits of an integrated, active, repeatable approach to Portfolio & Benefits Management
1. Significant increases in Benefits Forecasts and Realisation 2. Focus on value throughout the project life-cycle 3. Improved alignment between IT and business priorities 4. More cost-effective allocation of funds 5. Improved accountability for performance 6. Increased stakeholder confidence 7. Transparent reporting provides a Clear line of sight and one version of the truth from strategic intent through to benefits realisation.
Conclusions
133
Summary - The 10 Steps to Benefits Realisation

1. Benefits realization starts with the Business Case research shows that failing programmes rarely have strong business cases 2. Benefits must be placed at the centre of the Portfolio Management & Investment Appraisal processes - funding should be linked to benefits forecasts and project sponsors should be able to answer the question - what benefits am I buying?
Conclusions
3. Optimism bias is a reality benefits tend to be OVERSTATED and are often little more than unsubstantiated assumptions masquerading as facts. ALL claims must be robustly scrutinised 4. Benefits need to be validated by agreeing them with the recipients and those who will be responsible for realising them 5. Book the benefits early by adjusting budgets, reducing target unit costs, including them in headcount reductions, or by reflecting them in the organisations and individuals performance targets
134
Summary The 10 Steps to Benefits Realisation cont

6. Funding allocations should be incremental and continued funding should be directly linked to benefits realization regular checkpoints should be built in so that if benefits fall away, budgets can be adjusted accordingly. Implement regular Gates with teeth! 7. Plan and manage benefits realisation from a business rather than a project perspective benefits are usually dependent on business change and are not realised until after project deployment has been completed 8. Benefits need to be actively managed to ensure that forecast benefits are realized (especially important where those benefits are dependent on business change) and to capture benefits that were not anticipated at the Business Case stage 9. Capture all forms of value added efficiency (both time and financial savings), effectiveness (improved performance), foundation and, particularly in the public sector, wider social and political value and apply these categories from business case preparation, through investment appraisal and portfolio prioritisation, to benefits realisation 10. Utilise Summary documentation short summary documents and reports (business cases, benefits reports etc) convey the relevant facts far more effectively than long documents. Size, in this context, is the enemy of understanding
Conclusions
135
Summary documentation providing a clear line of sight from strategic intent through to benefits realisation
Contributor Project Benefits Report
CJS IT BENEFITS PROGRESS REPORT - QUARTER 4 2004-05 FOR CJS EXCHANGE XHIBIT PORTAL 10 Year Analysis Recipient Self Assessment Q3 Assessment Quality of Benefits Forecast Scale of Benefits Forecast Quality of Realisation Planning Likelihood of Realisation Q3 Forecast for Q4 Q4 Assessment Q4 forecast for Q1 Crown Courts Other CJOs Cross CJS Outside CJS Total Efficiency Cashable 12.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.700 M Effectiveness Cashable 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 m 0.01 NPV m* 4.1 IRR % -4.09 94.2 *NPV discounted at 3.5% 0.0% Opportunity 25.920 52.760 173.710 694.860 947.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Last report 154.301 Cost Avoidance 74.240 170.580 173.710 694.860 1113.390 Now 3-04 200 4-05 200 5-06 200 6-07 200 7-08 200 8-09 200 9-10 200 0-11 201 1-12 201 2-13 201
Recipient Organisation Benefits Realisation Report

Cumulative Costs
Benefits Scorecard
CJS IT BENEFITS SCORECARD June 2006
Cumulative Cost and Benefit Forecast 2003-2013 Total % 6.7% 15.3% 15.6% 62.4% 100.0%
'm 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 Cumulative B enefits
This table shows the full CJS IT Programme benefits picture, including ring fence benefits and benefits enabled by the ring fence infrastructure (m)
Forecast Benefit Values CJS IT Projects SR2004 CSR07 10 Year Total
Quality of Benefit Forecast
AMBER GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN AMBER AMBER GREEN
CJS IT Benefits Realisation Plans

Relative Contribution to Strategic 2 Drivers
Efficiency Cashable
Self assessment of RAG status

Scale of Benefits Forecast
AMBER GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN RED GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN RED GREEN
Strand Board Alignment1 Confidence Victims and Witnesses OBTJ Enforcement Re-offending
Police Benefits Realisation Plan

Q1 03/04 - Q4 05/06 Realised
Opportunity 35.620 117.820 0.000 0.000 153.440
Quality of Realisation Planning

AMBER AMBER GREEN GREEN GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN GREEN GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN
Likelihood of Realisation
AMBER AMBER AMBER AMBER GREEN AMBER GREEN GREEN GREEN AMBER AMBER AMBER GREEN
2006/07 Q1 Plan Actual
2006/07
2007/08
Benefits Realised this financial year Monetary Value of Benefits Realised YTD Forecast in latest published Delivery Plan YTD Variance
Application s
NSPIS Custody & Case Prep PentiP COMPASS CMS (50%) NWNJ IT tool (WMS) SOCA Libra application (includes benefits jointly delivered with 3a) OASys NOMIS (70%) ViSOR CJSE Release 1a (NSPIS-CMS) CJSE Release 1b (NSPIS - Libra) XHIBIT/CJSE Release 2a&b (XHIBIT Portal) PROGRESS Secure Email/Emailing Securely CJSE Release 3a CJSE Release 3b COMPASS infrastructure (50%) Libra enabled NOMIS infrastructure (30%) OMNI infrastructure OMNI cost effectiveness LINK enabled Shared Access Equip direct Equip enabled CEI Economic/Social Value Benefits
TOTAL BENEFITS
79.08 10.95 5.70 0.61 18.15 79.52 5.06 0.93 1.63 0.87 9.29 1.88 1.49 0.00 1.10 85.95 30.17 2.17 1.03 8.68 5.85 16.50 41.41 9.78 15.61 433.41
199.82 5.08 20.79 9.66 1.21 81.70 93.18 50.00 2.21 9.76 19.08 7.11 12.02 1.90 0.01 2.13 95.79 34.26 21.43 3.11 9.36 11.79 7.80 16.50 149.10 21.43 113.53 999.74 1274.65 250.18 12.90%
348.06 14.06 52.74 25.02 3.43 154.31 239.12 162.33 6.08 17.88 37.29 21.15 26.04
Forecast
D=2 M=1
HD=1 NK=1
HD=1 HD=1 M=1 NK=1 MC=2 MC=1 HD=1
Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness Total
4.95 2.69 0.26 0.24 5.21 2.93 CPS Benefits Realisation Plan
0.39 26.136 0.94 27.473
0.71 50.59 1.12 52.42
Year
2006/07
2007/08
Forecast
Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness M=1 M=4 D=1 HD=1 D=2 D=2 Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness Total M=1 Total
Project Life Cycle Benefits Profile (Top 5-10 benefits over 10 years) Impact Benefit Description
Performance M
31.40 0.13
8.88 0.39
35.50 1.56 37.06
39.04 2.83 41.87
Benefit Category
Strategic Alignment PSA Target 5
Main Recipient
Name(s) of recipient agreed with
Realisation Ramp Up
Key Measures/Indicators of Benefit Time from CC result to PNC update
Benefits Realisation Status Benefit realisation behind Plan
31.53 9.27 HMCS Benefits Realisation Plan

173.71 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 1 and 3 694.86 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5 4.06 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 1, 2, 3 and 5 31.78 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
CJS
To start 6 months after completion in a CJ Area Time from CC result to PNC update
UK economy
Infrastructure
To start 6 months after completion in a CJ Area No. of adjournments as a result of no PSR
Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefit ahead of or in line with plan
Percentage of ineffective hearings
4.78 AMBER RED 0.02 AMBER 6.07 GREEN 252.74 see COMPASS CMS 95.54 see LIBRA application 69.57 see NOMIS application 6.48 36.37 28.49 24.05 55.00 311.00 45.54 291.21 2,334.36
AMBER AMBER AMBER
AMBER AMBER AMBER
2006/07
2007/08
Forecast
2.59 2.59
0.53 0.34 0.87
0.70 2.67 2.54 5.91
17.45 1.70 4.42 23.57
NOMS Benefits Realisation Plan

Q1 03/04 - Q4 05/06 D=2 Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity D=9 M=1 HD=3 D=5 M=1 HD=11 D=3 M=1 D=5 M=1 NK=1 D=1 M=1 Effectiveness Total Realised 2006/07 Q1 Plan Actual 2006/07 2007/08
3 Court time saving (PSR adjournments)
Improvement from 15% to 3.4% Assumption of improvement of 1-10%
Crown Court
From Go-live at each court centre
Forecast
4 Court time saving ( Ineffective Hearings)
Prog
Crown Court, Police, CPS, Probation
From 6 months after Go-live at each court centre Number of disposals From 3 months after Go-live at each court centre Backlog count Number of disposals
Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan Benefit ahead of or in line with plan
26.77 12.40 39.17
5.68 5.26 10.94 -
22.70 21.06 43.76
24.36 21.21 45.57
Conclusions
5 Court time saving (Same day delays)
5.98 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
Crown Court
NOTE: Benefits shown only include quantified, validated 1. Based on BRP submissions & agreed with Strand Board leads, this shows the number of benefits to the benefits but other enabled benefits have been identified Strands in terms of value (ie. mission critical, highly desirable etc) and will be included as further work is undertaken
KEY MC = Mission Critical, HD = Highly Desirable, D = Desirable, M = Minimal, NK = Not Known
Total 10 year CJS IT Application benefits Ring Fence only CJS IT Application NPV Ring Fence only CJS IT Application IRR Ring Fence only
Benefits to the CJS and Society
x-CJS, 9%
YJB Benefits Realisation Plan

Q1 03/04 - Q4 05/06 2006/07 Q1 Plan Actual 2006/07 2007/08
6 Crown Court Efficiency benefits
Crown Court
From 1 month after Go-live at each court centre Number of enquiries made to CC No of daily lists faxed/time taken.
2. Independent Scores assessed by Proving Services
Cost Benefit Analysis3
2003/04
2003-05
2003-06
2003-07
2003-08
Benefits as % of Cost
Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness Total
Realised
Forecast
7 CPS Benefits
CPS
3 months after go live in a CJ Area No of enquiries made to CC No of daily/warned lists sent and time taken No of bail forms sent and time taken
Social Value, 16%
8 Police Benefits
115.52 Efficiency opportunity
Police
3 months after go live in a CJ Area
10 PSA Target 5 9 NOMS Benefits 36.9 Effectiveness opportunity PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5 10 Reduction in solicitor waiting 12.7 Efficiency cashable Crown Court From 1 month after Go-live at each court centre NOMS Following rollout to all prisons in a CJA Reduced waiting time claim values
Home CJO, 76%
Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefit not yet due for realisation
1
57.09 90.37 142.59 183.78 202.01 Total Police RF Cost/Budget Direct Benefits 0.53 1.63 5.21 32.69 85.10 Enabled Benefits Total Police Benefits 0.53 1.63 5.21 32.69 85.10 42% 111.21 194.71 269.22 408.09 519.61 Total Corrections RF Cost/Budget 5.50 15.38 39.29 83.26 129.20 Direct Benefits 8.55 10.12 19.22 49.96 Enabled Benefits 5.50 23.93 49.40 102.47 179.16 34% Total Corrections Benefits Total CPS RF Cost/Budget 25.05 58.82 97.87 132.70 170.63 2.05 31.53 68.59 110.46 Direct & Enabled Benefits 2.05 31.53 68.59 110.46 65% Total CPS Benefits Total HMCS RF Cost/Budget 154.55 283.61 426.40 512.40 585.28 0.30 2.59 8.50 32.07 Direct Benefits Enabled Benefits 3.23 8.43 18.80 32.10 47.28 Total HMCS Benefits 3.23 8.73 21.39 40.60 79.35 14% 3 Ring Fence costs from 2003-06 and Delivery Plan RF budget from 2006-08. Full benefits by recipient used. Corrections includes YJB.
0.11 0.11
0.05 0.05
0.21 0.21
0.37 0.37
RAG of Benefits in SR2004 Benefits Realisation Plans Q3 05/06 Q4 05/06 No. % No. Benefits Rating 6 6% 2 Benefit behind schedule 26 27% 35 Difficulty with tracking/measure. 13 13% 19 Benefit on track/ahead of schedule 52 54% 41 Benefit not yet due for realisation Benefits By Type
Efficiency Cashable 9%
% 2% 36% 20% 42%
Effectiveness 30%
Home CJO
x-CJS
Social Value
Risk Register - CJS IT Benefits Management Risk Description

Scale of CJS IT benefits forecast Quality of CJS IT benefits forecast CJSIT benefits realisation
RAG
1. Settlement Letter Conditions/Hurdle rates infrastructure
Summary of Key Mitigating Actions

2. Root Cause Model 3. Social Value Research 4. Analysis of benefits enabled by CJS IT funded
Efficiency Opportunity 61% Efficiency Cashable Efficiency Opportunity Effectiveness
Approved by SRO:
2 3 1. Quarterly Benefits Integrity Check 2. Benefits Eligibility Framework 1. Process Modelling 2. CJO Benefit Realisation Plans approved by OB and BWG 3. Project Benefit Realisation Plans approved by BWG
Investment Appraisal Report

ATTRACTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS*
NPV (M) EXCLUDING OPTIMISM BIAS INCLUDING OPTIMISM BIAS CONFIRMATION THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE COMPLIANT WITH BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY FRAMEWORK (BEF) ACHIEVABILITY ANALYSIS CONFIRMED BY: COMMENTS: IRR (%) PAY BACK PERIOD (YEARS)
Portfolio Analysis
Proving Model Report
Yes No

DATE OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT: ACHIEVABILITY SCORE:
BENEFITS ANALYSIS OVER 10 YEARPPROJECT SINCECYCLE (M ) ROGRESS LIFE LAST

STATE 10 YEAR PERIOD COVERED OR PROJECT LIFE SPAN IF LESS THEN 10 YEARS: ACHIEVABILITY ASSESSMENT:
RECIPIENT
EFFICIENCY CASHABLE
EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS OPPORTUNITY CASHABLE OPPORTUNITY VALUE VALUE PROVING SERVICES ACHIEVABILITY SCORE BREAKDOWN
CJO: Police CJO: CPS CJO: DCA CJO: NOMS CJO: YJB CROSS CJS: BEYOND THE CJS(SPECIFY): TOTALS:
Score (1) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS StakeholderEAR Y Analysis (Achievability) CAPITAL RESOURCE TOTAL (M) (M) (M) Indication Achievability Complexity Analysis Achievability Total
TOTAL
INCLUDED IN BRP
BUSINESS CASE (COMPLETE AS APPROPRIATE) SOURCE OF CONFIRMATION OR PROPOSED

AGREED IN PRINCIPLE
BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE POLICE BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN (BRP)

OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE
POLICE BENEFITS REALISATION LEAD(BRL) BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE CPS BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE CPS BRL BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE DCA BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE DCA BRL BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE NOMS BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE NOMS BRL BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE YJB BRP OR AGREED IN PRINCIPLE BY THE YJB BRL
Score ACTIONS & TIMESCALES TO ESOURCE/CAPITAL CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FROM (2) R ENSURE BENEFITS ARE INCLUDED IN RComplexity Analysis ENEFITS THE BING FENCE REALISATION PLAN YEAR R Capability CAPITAL TOTAL Processes & ESOURCE (M) (M) (M) Ownership & Accountability Clarity & Perception Benefits Realisation Management TOTAL Stakeholders Analysis Achievability Total
RESOURCE/CAPITAL GAP (1-(2+3))
NOT YET AGREED
(3) OTHER FUNDING SOURCES RESOURCE (M) CAPITAL (M) TOTAL (M)
RESOURCE/CAPITAL REQUIRED FROM TOTAL (M) RESOURCE (M)

THE RING FENCE CAPITAL (M)
YEAR RESOURCE CAPITAL ASSESSMENT OF DEGREE OF BUSINESS CHANGE REQUIRED TO REALISE BENEFITS M) (M) ( RECIPIENT BRL ASSESSMENT COMMENTS
MEDIUM HIGH LOW N/A
TOTAL (M)
TOTAL
Police CPS DCA NOMS YJB Others [specify]
FUNDING OTHER ISSUES

FUNDING AVAILABLE TO REALISE BUSINESS CHANGE? CONFIRMATION THAT OVERSPENDS WILL BE MET BY DEPARTMENTAL BASELINES
AVAILABILITY CONFIRMED? Yes No Yes No

BY: BY: DATE DATE
RECYCLING OF COST SAVINGS YEAR LEGACY SYSTEM SAVINGS
SAVINGS RECYCLED?
AMOUNT BY WHICH THE RING FENCE REQUEST CAN BE REDUCED
TOTAL
136
An integrated, active, repeatable process

Portfolio Management Selection Criteria Investment Appraisal Portfolio Prioritisation
Doing Things Right Making Evidence Based Decisions that: Are determined by projects Attractiveness and Achievability Align IT investment with business priorities Adjust the composition of the portfolio when appropriate
Active Benefits Management
Building Confidence in Delivery

Performance Management Delivery Plan Portfolio Dashboard Performance Review
Doing Things Right Managing Delivery By: Transparent reporting / clear line of sight reporting Continued funding linked to performance including realisation of forecast benefits
Benefits Realisation Planning Data Validation Transparent reporting

Doing Things Right Ensuring Investment Success Through: Validating the scale and quality of benefits Benefits realisation management at project and recipient agency level Capturing cross-system benefits and wider social value
Conclusions
the entire process from business case to portfolio management to the appraisal of benefit realization has been defined and is actively being pursued.
Source: Gartner, Governments Make Progress in Demonstrating Public Value of IT
137
References
Booz Allen Hamilton, Building a Methodology for Measuring the Value of E-Services Booz Allen Hamilton, International e-Gov Benchmarking Study, 2005 Cabinet Office, Report to the OECD on the UK Approach to Benefits Realisation, 2006 Cabinet Office, Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action CISCO Report on behalf of the New York Housing Authority to the US NECCC, 2005 Cooper B & Edgett S, Ten ways to make better project portfolio and project selection decisions E GEP, Measurement Framework for third workshop, 30.1.06 Gartner, Australian Measure of the Public Value of IT is a Good Start, 24.3.2005 Gartner, Building Brilliant Business Cases, January 2004 Gartner, Get Real: The Future of IT infrastructure, December 2004 Gartner, Governments Make Progress in Demonstrating Public Value of IT, 15.11.2005 Gartner, How to Demonstrate the Elusive Value of IT Infrastructure in Government, 2 May 2006 Gartner, How to Optimize IT Investment Decisions, 21st July 2006 Gartner, Setting Accurate IT Investment Levels Demands an Appropriate Framework, 12th July 2006 Gartner, Show Me the Money: Advanced Practices in Benefits Realisation, December 2005 Gartner, U.K. Criminal Justice System Makes Portfolio Management Key to IT Success, 2005 Gartner, Value for Money is not enough in Public Sector IT Projects, 25 June 2003 Grindley K, Managing IT at Board Level HM Treasury, The Green Book Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government
References
138
References
KPMG, Global IT Project Management Survey, 2005 Management Today, 2001 Marchand D.A., Extracting the business value of IT: It is usage, not just deployment that counts! Mornan B, Benefits Realisation: Government of Canada Experience. Presentation to the OECD, Paris 6th February 2006 NOIE E-Government Benefits Study, 2003 OECD Expert Seminar on Cost and Benefit Analysis of E-Government, Paris, 6th February 2006 Office for Government Commerce, Gateway News, December 2003 Office for Government Commerce, Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) Office for Government Commerce, Portfolio Management, May 2004 Office for Government Commerce, Successful Delivery Toolkit, 2005 Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, Improving the Delivery of Government IT Projects, 1999 Rimmer J, presentation to CISCO Public Services Summit, Measuring the Impact and Benefits of Egovernment, Stockholm, 9th December 2003 Solow R quoted in The Information Paradox, J Thorp, 2003 Thorp J, The Information Paradox, 2003 Wentworth Research, Benefits RealisationMany Happy Returns, 1998
References
139
Want to know more?
Contact Details
Contact: Stephen Jenner Director, Criminal Justice Information Technology Stephen.Jenner@cjit.gsi.gov.uk (+44) 20 7035 8123
140

Benefits Ion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Benefits Ion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits Version 1.0

Foreword by John Suffolk, UK Government CIO Foreword & Introduction

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Introduction by Stephen Jenner, Director CJIT Foreword & Introduction

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

And its not a UK specific issue

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

And its not just IT projects and programmes

Deficiencies in benefits capture bedevils nearly 50% of government projects.

30-40% of systems to support business change deliver no benefits whatsoever.

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

And the tale of woe continues

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

The answer an integrated, active, repeatable process

Active Benefits Management

Building Confidence in Delivery

Benefits Realisation Planning Data Validation Transparent Reporting

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Encompassing multi-variate analysis & transparent reporting

Financial & Economic Analysis

Transparent Reporting - Clear Line of Sight

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

And specifically the independent role of the CJS IT Portfolio Unit

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Implementing Gates with Teeth

ppr ial A Init

Concept Case/ Feasibility Study or Outline Business Case

Status: Issue Dat e:

Statutor y Charging Project

Full Business Case

view view reRe ul a tR Reg Con

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Gate Reviews and the Project Life Cycle

CJS IT Portfolio Management Investment Appraisal (inc. Proving Review)

IA Gate X: Continuing Review

Gate 1: Initial Approval

Gate 2: Full Gate 2: Full Approval Approval

6 Monthly Review (Delivery Plan) Spending Reviews (Comprehensive Portfolio Re-prioritisation)

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Investment Criteria 3 A analysis

Investment Selection Criteria Investment Principles

But the process depends on robust data

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Business cases contain untested assumptions masquerading as facts

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

But its hardly surprising when

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

Optimism Bias is therefore an empirical reality

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

So robust validation of Business Case claims are required

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

CJS IT Portfolio Unit Validates and Triangulates investment decisions

Managing the Portfolio, Realising the Benefits

And adjusts the investment criteria to suit the type of project