Mr. John McKeon:

I refer to the list in figure 10.4 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. There was a project definition. The project objectives and scope were outlined. There was a stakeholder management plan. The dependencies and procurement issues were planned. The alternatives and consequences of not proceeding were evaluated. Security and data protection were considered. There was a timeline and a work plan. Risks were assessed. The staff resources required to support the project and the project costs were estimated. Qualitative and quantitative benefits to the Department were estimated. Qualitative and quantitative benefits to the customer were estimated. The project structure and project roles were in place. The project initiation document was in place. The two items that were not in place were the benefits realisation plan and an assessment of organisational capacity.

An assessment of organisational capacity is inherent in a lot of other assessments, such as risk, procurement and staff resources. It was not enumerated as a separate item. I do not think that is a huge deficit, to be honest, though it should have been there. Regarding the benefits realisation plan I note that the benefits were actually estimated, both in qualitative and quantitative terms. Benefits realisation is about measuring the benefits consequent to the plan's implementation.

Again, it would be part of a best practice business case. Was it absolutely detrimental to the project plan? I do not think so. I put my hands up in that regard. On whether we would include them in a new plan, the answer is "Yes", but as to whether they were absolutely critical exclusions from the plans that were in place, the answer is "No". It would have been better if they had been included, but they were not critical exclusions.