Transcript Defeating ‘Benefits Fraud – Stephen Jenner

Defeating ‘Benefits
Fraud’
Project Challenge Sept 25th 2008
Stephen Jenner
[email protected]
Major change programmes - the rationale
“The fundamental reason for beginning a programme is to
realise the benefits through change.”
Office for Government Commerce (OGC), ‘Managing Successful
Programmes’
“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.”
UK Cabinet Office, ‘Successful IT: Modernising Government in Action’
But the track record is not good…
“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.”
Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, 2000
“Deficiencies in benefits capture bedevils nearly 50% of government projects”
OGC Gateway News, 2003
“30-40% of systems to support business change delivery no benefits whatsoever.”
OGC Successful Delivery toolkit, 2005
“the committee has no confidence that the amounts being assessed have any
relationship to the benefits anticipated to be returned.”
US Senate Appropriations Committee, 2007
And ‘horror’ stories abound…
• The Dome visitors down by 5-6 million
• Channel Tunnel – Eurostar passenger forecast in yr1 of full
operations = 15.9m, actual = 2.9m
• Bangkok skytrain – demand 2.5 times over-estimated.
And research indicates this is a widespread problem…
• 2002 Mott MacDonald study for HM Treasury:
• 2% benefits optimism bias BUT and
• it’s a BIG BUT – most did not either quantify the benefits and/or
evaluate the benefits realised.
• Flyvbjerg et al (2005) Demand forecasting in road and rail projects found:
• The average overestimation in rail projects was 106%
• Road projects - around half were inaccurate by +/-20%
• No improvement in accuracy over the last 30 years.
And it’s concluded…
“There is a demonstrated, systemic tendency for project appraisers to be
overly optimistic. This is a worldwide phenomenon that affects both the
private and public sectors…appraisers tend to overstate benefits, and
underestimate timings and costs.” HM Treasury Green Book
“Delusional optimism: we overemphasise projects’ potential benefits and
underestimate likely costs, spinning success scenarios while ignoring the
possibility of mistakes.” Lovallo and Kahneman
“forecasters generally do a poor job of estimating the demand for
transport infrastructure projects”. Flyvbjerg et al
The explanations…
1. The technical explanation - our investment appraisal tools are inadequate
in relation to future uncertainty?
2. The psychological explanation – Optimism bias, derived from cognitive
biases?
3. The economic explanation – approval creates work for project managers,
suppliers etc
4. The political explanation – “Strategic misrepresentation”?
The explanations - Strategic Misrepresentation?
“the planned, systematic, deliberate misstatement of costs and benefits to
get projects approved.” In short, “that is lying”. And that’s because, “Lying
pays off, or at least economic agents believe it does.”
Flyvbjerg et al
“Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure”
Sharpe and Keelin
38% of respondents in one survey openly admitted to overstating benefits to
get funding with the traditional investment appraisal process being, “seen as
a ritual that must be overcome before any project can begin”
Ward
The result - Business Cases contain ‘assumptions
masquerading as facts’
Examples of ‘Benefits Fraud’ or being, ‘economical with the
actualité’
• Double counting
• Inconsistent valuation
• Over-estimation of impact
• Under/over valuation of impact
• Efficiency ‘savings’ or buying vouchers
Key messages – 3 challenges…
1.
Ensuring benefits claimed are robust and realisable
2.
Capturing all forms of value created
3.
Realising benefits and creating value.
1.1 Ensuring Benefits forecasts are robust and realisable –
the Benefits Eligibility Framework
• The set of rules about what benefits can and can’t 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
11. are considered i.e. any investment prior to the beginning of the SR2002 period is
ignored for the purposes of determining the CJS IT cost/benefit case.
Factors Impacting Cost & Benefit Forecasts
Project Life Span
12. The costs and benefits considered should cover the period of the useful lifetime
of the assets/contract (Green Book page 19) 1. The maximum period used should
be ten years from commencement of investment from the ring fence – to
demonstrate that the project pay back period is within the 10 years specified by
the SR2004 CJS Settlement. Where the project (and the associated costs and
benefits) is not expected to last for 10 years, the relevant shorter period should
be used. The Benefits Integrity Check will seek to verify that there is evidence to
suggest that benefits in the latter years of the 10 year period are genuinely
realisable on the basis of the costs claimed.
Optimism Bias
13. The Green Book states that, “There is a demonstrated, systemic, tendency for
project appraisers to be overly optimistic. This is a worldwide phenomenon that
affects both the private and public sectors…appraisers tend to overstate benefits,
and underestimate timings and costs, both capital and operational…To redress
this tendency, appraisers should make explicit adjustments for this bias. These
of the costs and decreasing, and
“Use a benefits framework to define business benefits”
Source: Gartner, ‘Show Me the Money: Advanced Practices
in Benefits Realisation’
will take
the form of Framework
increasing estimates
Benefits
Eligibility
delaying the receipt of, estimated benefits.”
14. These adjustments should be empirically based – using either the crossdepartmental guidance for generic project categories available on the HMT
website (see http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/) or where Departments/agencies
have a more robust evidence base for cost/benefit overruns/overestimates, their
own official adjustments should be used.
15. Adjustments are made to: Capital costs; Works duration; Operating Costs; and
Benefits. These adjustments will reduce as more reliable estimates of relevant
costs are built up, and as generic risks and project specific risks are effectively
mitigated.
To:
Benefits Working Group
Author:
CJIT Portfolio Unit - Benefits Management Team
Owner:
Version:
Status:
Issue Date:
Benefits Working Group
1
Costs 2.5
and benefits considered should normally be extended to cover the period of the useful
lifetime of the assets encompassed by the options under consideration, although, if the
appraisal concerns the contractual purchase of outputs and outcomes (e.g. in PFI), the
Draft
appraisal
period may be different.
8th September 2006
Not Protectively Marked
1.2 Independent review – a ‘fool’s errand’
• Ayers suggests an, “’Advocatus Diaboli’…whose job it is to poke holes in
pet projects. These professional “No” men could be an antidote to
overconfidence bias.”
• Davidson Frame proposes the use of “murder boards” – a cross
departmental panel charged with pulling a proposal apart to, “make sure
that arguments in support of project ideas do not have built into them the
seeds of their own destruction.”
• Steve Jenner - I suggest a ‘fool’ to ask the questions others dare to ask
and identify those assumptions that masquerade as facts.
1.3 Triangulation
Triangulation
• Use more than one appraisal method,
or value lens:
• combine financial metrics with
multi-criteria analysis and decision
conferencing, and
• examine ‘Attractiveness’ in the
context of ‘Achievability’.
1.4 Validation in the CJS IT portfolio…
Project View of Benefits
Benefits
Contributor
Business Case
Development
CJIT VMO
Measuring &
Tracking: Initial
Baselining
If funding approved
Benefits Eligibility
Framework
Check alignment with BEF e.g. double
counting, cost avoidance
Benefits
Recipients
Efficiency
Planners
1-Page Summary
Benefits Report
Project Live Service
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
Measuring &
Tracking: Benefits
Realisation
CPS Efficiency Plan
DCA Efficiency Plan
HO Efficiency Plan
Benefit Realisation Leads
and Efficiency Planners
agree Efficiency Benefits
that contribute to
Departmental Efficiency
Plans
Confidence
Victims & Witnesses
Strategic
Planners
Offences Brought To
Justice (OBTJ)
Enforcement
Strategic Planners agree
Efficiency & Effectiveness
Benefits that contribute to
Strategic Targets & priorities
Value Management 2 - Capturing all Forms of Value
Political
8
2 Develop
2 Develop
Community-based
Community-based
solution
solution
1 Re-engineer
1 Re-engineer
Project
Selection
Selection
&Project
Development
& Development
5 Established state
5point
Established
of view state
point of view
9
7
6 Improved
6 Improved
collaboration
collaboration
with
with
stakeholders
stakeholders
8
3
6
5 Human
5 Human
Resources
Resources
organisation
organisation
development
development
fy
Project
K
Project
O
Project
Z
Project
Y
Project
L
3 Transportation
3 Transportation
balanced
with
balanced
with
other
liveability
other
liveability
factors
factors
4
8
1 Improved
1 Improved
community
community
liveability
liveability
2 Improved total
2 Improved total
transportation
transportation
experience
experience
8 More effective
8 More
effective
public
investment
public investment
3
3
2
6
4 Oregon
4 Oregon
Transportation
Transportation
Initiative
Initiative
Iden
ti
4 More integrated
4 More
integrated
state
direction
state direction
7 Reduced time
7 Reduced
time
for service
delivery
for service delivery
1
10 Better
10 Better
skilled
skilled
& equipped
&people
equipped
people
2
Project
X
4
11 More
11 More
effective
effective
leadership
leadership
8
0
4
1
8 Higher
8 Higher
quality
quality
solutions
solutions
4
2
1 Balanced with
1 Balanced
with
growth,
revenue
growth,
revenue
base
& needs
base & needs
3 Enhanced
3 Enhanced
economic
economic
opportunity
opportunity
Foundation
Social
Qua
lify
Project
H
Project
M
Project
N
Inve
stig
ate
Project
J
Project
P
Com
mit
Project
F
Project
A
Live Projects
Project
D
Project
C
Project
E
Project
B
Project
Q
Effectiveness
9
9
3 Deploy
3 Deploy
maintenance
maintenance
strategy
strategy
Efficiency
2 Community
2 Community
Prepared
to
Prepared
to
adapt
behaviour
adapt behaviour
Value
Opportunity domain
Cross department
Cross CJS
Intra CJO
Categories of Value
Understanding the logic that underpins an investment
Initiative
Hypothesis
(IT Functionality)
Root Cause
(Level 2)
Root Cause
(Level 1)
Consequences
Inappropriate time in
custody
Cost of remand place per
day £
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)
No. in of inappropriate
custody events pa
Cost of inappropriate time
in custody pa
Police
% by recipient CJO
Inappropriate time in
custody Courts (MC)
agency (Note a):
Courts (CC)
CPS
Targets
62,067
5,523,963
x
Cost of remand place per
day £
0.00%
0.00%
No. in of inappropriate
0.00%
custody events pa
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)
62,067
Probation
0.00%time
Cost of inappropriate
5,523,963
HMPS
in custody pa 100.00%
YOT
0.00%
Police
x
% by recipient CJO
Other: Legal Aid
0.00%
agency (Note a):
Courts (MC)
0.00%
Other: Witness Payments
0.00%
Cost of remand place per 0.00%
Inappropriate timeCourts
in
(CC)
Other: Defence Sols,
0.00%
day £
custody
CPS
0.00%
Other: Prosecution counsel
0.00%
ProbationNo. in of inappropriate
0.00%
HMPS custody events pa
100.00%
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)
62,067
Cost of inappropriate time0.00%5,523,963
in custody
pa
Other: Legal
Aid
0.00%
YOT
Other: Witness
PolicePayments
% by recipient CJO
Other: Defence
CourtsSols,
(MC)
Other: Prosecution
counsel
Courts (CC)
agency (Note a):
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
CPS
Probation
HMPS
x
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
YOT
0.00%
Other: Legal Aid
0.00%
Other: Witness Payments
0.00%
Other: Defence Sols,
0.00%
Other: Prosecution counsel
0.00%
Cost and measurement data underpins
consequence
3. Realising benefits and creating value
• Leadership – re-setting the standards of expected behaviour
• Who writes the business case?
• Transparency & Accountability - Regular stage gates with formal recommitment to the cost/benefit case
• REAL post implementation reviews - Track results and use them to provide
an evidence base for future forecasts
• Managing benefits from an enterprise-perspective and asking - Is that the
best we can do? And…
‘Clear line of Sight’ from Strategic Intent to Value creation
• Contributor project benefits
report
• Recipient Organisation Benefits
Realisation Report
• Benefits Scorecard
CJS IT BENEFITS SCORECARD June 2006
CJS IT Benefits Realisation Plans
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
CJS IT BENEFITS PROGRESS REPORT - QUARTER 4 2004-05 FOR CJS EXCHANGE XHIBIT PORTAL
10 Year Analysis
Q3 Forecast
for Q4
Q4
Assessment
Efficiency
£ M
Cashable
Opportunity
Crown
Courts
Q4 forecast
for Q1
Quality of Benefits Forecast
12.700
35.620
0.000
117.820
Other CJOs
Effectiveness
Cashable
Opportunity
0.000
Cost
Avoidance
25.920
0.000
Total
%
£
74.240
0.000
52.760
Cumulative Benefits
0.000
0.000
0.000
173.710
0.000
173.710
15.6%
0.000
0.000
0.000
694.860
0.000
694.860
62.4%
12.700
153.440
0.000
947.250
0.000
1113.390
100.0%
Total £
1,000
15.3%
Cross CJS
Outside CJS
Likelihood of Realisation
1,200
6.7%
170.580
0.000
Scale of Benefits Forecast
Quality of Realisation Planning
Cumulative Costs
Applications
Q3
Assessment
800
£'m
Recipient
Self Assessment
Cumulative Cost and Benefit Forecast 2003-2013
600
400
200
Benefits Realised this financial year
£m
Monetary Value of Benefits Realised YTD
Now
Last report
0.01 NPV £m*
-
-
154.301
-04
2003
4.1
Forecast in latest published Delivery Plan
YTD
IRR %
Variance
-4.09
-05
2004
-06
2005
-07
2006
-08
2007
0.0%
94.2
-09
2008
-10
2009
-11
2010
-12
2011
-13
2012
Benefits
Realisation
Status
Benefit Description
Performance
£ M
Benefit Category
Main
Recipient
Strategic Alignment
Name(s) of recipient
agreed with
Realisation Ramp Up
Key Measures/Indicators of Benefit
Time from CC result to PNC update
PNC update
down to 3
days
2 Reduction in the cost of crime
PNC update
down to 3
days
3 Court time saving (PSR adjournments)
Improvement
from 15% to
3.4%
4 Court time saving ( Ineffective Hearings)
Assumption
of
improvement
of 1-10%
5 Court time saving (Same day delays)
-
6 Crown Court Efficiency benefits
-
173.71 Effectiveness opportunity
To start 6 months after completion in a
CJ Area
CJS
Infrastructure
Benefit
realisation
behind Plan
PSA Target 5
1 Reduction in the cost of crime
Time from CC result to PNC update
Benefit not
yet due for
realisation
PSA Targets 1 and 3
694.86 Effectiveness opportunity
UK economy
To start 6 months after completion in a
CJ Area
Crown Court
From Go-live at each court centre
No. of adjournments as a result of no PSR
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
4.06 Effectiveness opportunity
Percentage of ineffective hearings
31.78 Effectiveness opportunity
Crown Court,
Police, CPS,
Probation
From 6 months after Go-live at each
court centre
Crown Court
From 3 months after Go-live at each
court centre
Crown Court
From 1 month after Go-live at each court
centre
Benefit not
yet due for
realisation
Prog
PSA Targets 1, 2, 3 and 5
Number of disposals
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
5.98 Effectiveness opportunity
CSR07
199.82
5.08
20.79
9.66
1.21
81.70
348.06
14.06
52.74
25.02
3.43
154.31
OASys
NOMIS (70%)
ViSOR
CJSE Release 1a (NSPIS-CMS)
CJSE Release 1b (NSPIS - Libra)
79.52
5.06
0.93
1.63
0.87
93.18
50.00
2.21
9.76
19.08
239.12
162.33
6.08
17.88
37.29
9.29
1.88
7.11
12.02
21.15
26.04
1.49
0.00
1.10
85.95
30.17
2.17
1.03
-
1.90
0.01
2.13
95.79
34.26
21.43
3.11
9.36
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
8.68
11.79
28.49
7.80
16.50
149.10
24.05
55.00
311.00
9.78
15.61
21.43
113.53
999.74
Quality of
Benefit
Forecast
Scale of
Benefits
Forecast
Quality of
Realisation
Planning
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
GREEN
GREEN
AMBER
Likelihood of Confidence
Realisation
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
Number of disposals
Number of enquiries made to CC
PSA Target 5
7 CPS Benefits
-
No of daily lists faxed/time taken.
2.3 Efficiency opportunity
CPS
3 months after go live in a CJ Area
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
Total 10 year CJS IT Application benefits Ring Fence only
1274.65
CJS IT Application NPV Ring Fence only
250.18
GREEN
AMBER
GREEN
AMBER
CJS IT Application IRR Ring Fence only
12.90%
No of enquiries made to CC
PSA Target 5
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
NOMS
Following rollout to all prisons in a CJA
Crown Court
From 1 month after Go-live at each court
centre
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
Benefits to the CJS and Society
x-CJS, 9%
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
9
Social Value,
16%
Benefit ahead
of or in line
with plan
10
Benefit not
yet due for
realisation
PSA Target 5
9 NOMS Benefits
-
36.9 Effectiveness opportunity
-
12.7 Efficiency cashable
Reduced waiting time claim values
Benefit not
yet due for
realisation
PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
10 Reduction in solicitor waiting
Home CJO,
76%
Approved by SRO:
Home CJO
x-CJS
Enforcement
Re-offending
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
RED
AMBER
AMBER
HD=1
HD=1
Efficiency Opportunity
Effectiveness
M=1
M=1
Total
NK=1
GREEN
MC=2
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
MC=1 HD=1
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
Q1 03/04 - Q4
05/06
Realised
HD=1 NK=1
GREEN
GREEN
Police Benefits Realisation Plan
Relative
Contribution to
Strategic
Drivers2
Efficiency Cashable
D=2
Q1 03/04 - Q4
05/06
Realised
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
AMBER
Efficiency Opportunity
AMBER
GREEN
AMBER
AMBER
Effectiveness
AMBER
RED
GREEN
AMBER
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
GREEN
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
AMBER
M=1
M=4
D=1
M=1
2006/07 Q1
Plan
2006/07
Actual
31.40
0.13
2006/07 Q1
Plan
Q1 03/04 - Q4
05/06
D=2
Realised
2.59
2.59
Efficiency Cashable
Efficiency Opportunity
Effectiveness
Total
0.53
0.34
0.87
• Investment Appraisal report
ATTRACTIVENESS ANALYSIS
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS*
NPV (£M)
IRR (%)
PAY BACK PERIOD
(YEARS)
EXCLUDING OPTIMISM BIAS
INCLUDING OPTIMISM BIAS
CONFIRMATION THAT THE ABOVE FIGURES ARE COMPLIANT WITH BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY FRAMEWORK (BEF)
ACHIEVABILITY ANALYSIS
CONFIRMED BY:
COMMENTS:
Yes
No
PROVING MODEL ASSESSMENT
DATE OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT:
ACHIEVABILITY SCORE:
BENEFITS ANALYSIS OVER 10 YEAR PROJECT LIFE CYCLE (£M)
PROGRESS
SINCE LAST
STATE 10 YEAR PERIOD COVERED OR PROJECT LIFE
SPAN IF LESS THEN 10 YEARS:
ACHIEVABILITY ASSESSMENT:
RECIPIENT
EFFICIENCY –
CASHABLE
CJO: Police
CJO: CPS
CJO: DCA
CJO: NOMS
CJO: YJB
CROSS CJS:
BEYOND THE
CJS(SPECIFY):
TOTALS:
EFFICIENCY –
EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS –
OPPORTUNITY
CASHABLE
OPPORTUNITY
VALUE
VALUE
PROVING SERVICES ACHIEVABILITY SCORE BREAKDOWN
CONCEPT CASE (COMPLETE AS APPROPRIATE)
(1) TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
Score
Stakeholder Analysis (Achievability)
YEAR
RESOURCE
CAPITAL
Indication
(£M) Achievability
(£M)
Complexity Analysis
Achievability Total
TOTAL
(£M)
NOT YET
AGREED
SOURCE
OF CONFIRMATION
OR)PROPOSED
BUSINESS CASE
(COMPLETE
AS APPROPRIATE
ACTIONS & TIMESCALES TO ENSURE
Score
BENEFITS ARE INCLUDED(2)
INR
BESOURCE
ENEFITS /CAPITAL CURRENTLY ALLOCATED FROM
THE RING FENCEComplexity Analysis
REALISATION PLAN
YEAR
RESOURCE
CAPITAL
TOTAL
Processes
& Capability
M)
(£M)
(£M)
Ownership(£&
Accountability
Clarity & Perception
Benefits Realisation Management
Stakeholders Analysis
TOTAL
Achievability Total
RESOURCE/CAPITAL GAP (1-(2+3))
(3) OTHER FUNDING SOURCES
RESOURCE
(£M)
CAPITAL
(£M)
TOTAL
(£M)
RESOURCE/CAPITAL REQUIRED FROM
THE RING FENCE
Police
CPS
DCA
NOMS
YJB
Others [specify]
RESOURCE
(£M)
FUNDING – OTHER ISSUES
TOTAL
(£M)
AVAILABILITY CONFIRMED?
FUNDING AVAILABLE TO REALISE BUSINESS CHANGE?
CONFIRMATION THAT OVERSPENDS WILL BE MET BY
DEPARTMENTAL BASELINES
RECYCLING OF COST SAVINGS
YEAR
LEGACY SYSTEM
SAVINGS
TOTAL
CAPITAL
(£M)
N/A
TOTAL
LOW
YEAR
RESOURCE
CAPITAL
TOTAL
ASSESSMENT OF DEGREE OF BUSINESS CHANGE REQUIRED
(£M)TO REALISE
(£BENEFITS
M)
(£M)
RECIPIENT
BRL ASSESSMENT
COMMENTS
MEDIUM
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
HIGH
BENEFITS INCLUDED IN THE POLICE
BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN (BRP)
AGREED IN
PRINCIPLE
INCLUDED IN
BRP
TOTAL
SAVINGS
RECYCLED?
Yes
No
Yes
No
BY:
DATE
BY:
DATE
AMOUNT BY WHICH THE RING FENCE
REQUEST CAN BE REDUCED
• Portfolio Analysis
41.87
2007/08
Forecast
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
Realised
Efficiency Cashable
Efficiency Opportunity
HD=3 D=5 M=1
HD=11 D=3 M=1 D=5 M=1 NK=1
D=1 M=1
Effectiveness
Total
2006/07 Q1
Plan
26.77
5.68
12.40
39.17
5.26
10.94
2006/07
Actual
2007/08
Forecast
22.70
24.36
21.06
43.76
-
21.21
45.57
benefits but other enabled benefits have been identified Based on BRP submissions & agreed with Strand Board leads, this shows the number of benefits to the
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
YJB Benefits Realisation Plan
Q1 03/04 - Q4
05/06
2. Independent Scores assessed by Proving Services
Benefits as %
of Cost
Cost Benefit Analysis3
2003/04
2003-05
2003-06
2003-07
2003-08
Total Police RF Cost/Budget
57.09
90.37
142.59
183.78
202.01
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%
Total Corrections RF Cost/Budget
111.21
194.71
269.22
408.09
519.61
Direct Benefits
5.50
15.38
39.29
83.26
129.20
Enabled Benefits
8.55
10.12
19.22
49.96
Total Corrections Benefits
5.50
23.93
49.40
102.47
179.16
34%
Total CPS RF Cost/Budget
25.05
58.82
97.87
132.70
170.63
Direct & Enabled Benefits
2.05
31.53
68.59
110.46
Total CPS Benefits
2.05
31.53
68.59
110.46
65%
Total HMCS RF Cost/Budget
154.55
283.61
426.40
512.40
585.28
Direct Benefits
0.30
2.59
8.50
32.07
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.
Realised
Efficiency Cashable
Efficiency Opportunity
0.11
Effectiveness
0.11
Total
2006/07 Q1
Plan
Actual
0.05
0.05
2006/07
Forecast
0.21
-
0.21
RAG of Benefits in SR2004 Benefits Realisation Plans
Q3 05/06
Q4 05/06
No.
%
No.
6
6%
2
26
27%
35
13
13%
19
52
54%
41
Effectiveness
30%
Benefits By Type
Efficiency
Cashable
9%
Summary of Key Mitigating Actions
1
Scale of CJS IT benefits forecast
1. Settlement Letter Conditions/Hurdle rates 2. Root Cause Model 3. Social Value Research 4. Analysis of benefits enabled by CJS IT funded
infrastructure
2
Quality of CJS IT benefits forecast
1. Quarterly Benefits Integrity Check 2. Benefits Eligibility Framework
3
CJSIT benefits realisation
1. Process Modelling 2. CJO Benefit Realisation Plans approved by OB and BWG 3. Project Benefit Realisation Plans approved by BWG
2007/08
Benefits Rating
Benefit behind schedule
Difficulty with tracking/measure.
Benefit on track/ahead of schedule
Benefit not yet due for realisation
Social Value
RAG
39.04
2.83
37.06
2006/07
Actual
Risk Register - CJS IT Benefits Management
Risk Description
0.71
50.59
1.12
52.42
2007/08
Forecast
35.50
1.56
2006/07 Q1
Plan
0.39
26.136
0.94
27.473
2006/07
Actual
8.88
0.39
31.53
9.27
HMCS Benefits Realisation Plan
Total
HD=1 D=2
2007/08
Forecast
4.95
2.69
0.26
0.24
5.21
2.93
CPS Benefits Realisation Plan
Efficiency Cashable
45.54
D=9 M=1
291.21 NOTE: Benefits shown only include quantified, validated
1.
2,334.36
OBTJ
AMBER
AMBER
GREEN
Backlog count
PSA Targets 2, 3 and 5
35.61 Efficiency opportunity
Victims and
Witnesses
AMBER
GREEN
GREEN
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
5.85
16.50
41.41
433.41
TOTAL BENEFITS
Strand Board Alignment1
Self assessment of RAG status
10 Year Total
79.08
10.95
5.70
0.61
18.15
XHIBIT/CJSE Release 2a&b (XHIBIT Portal)
PROGRESS
Year
*NPV discounted at 3.5%
Project Life Cycle Benefits Profile (Top 5-10 benefits over 10 years)
Impact
SR2004
NSPIS Custody & Case Prep
PentiP
COMPASS CMS (50%)
NWNJ IT tool (WMS)
SOCA
Libra application (includes benefits jointly delivered with 3a)
Efficiency
Opportunity
61%
Efficiency Cashable
• Proving Model report
Efficiency Opportunity
Effectiveness
0.37
0.37
%
2%
36%
20%
42%
Thank you – Questions?
[email protected]