The report by auditor Arthur D Little on a project to
deliver new air traffic control systems at Swanwick in Hampshire
showed the value of timely independent oversight.
Today its findings make salutary reading for any senior IT
professional engaged in a major high-risk project.
The Swanwick audit was commissioned after the opening of the
£600m New En Route Centre (Nerc) at Swanwick had been delayed for
several years because the software was not ready.
National Air Traffic Services (Nats), which owned and managed
Swanwick, fought against the idea of an independent audit, but went
on to enact many of its recommendations.
The report was direct and did not avoid mentioning individuals.
For example, it criticised a former chief executive who "maintained
a high degree of personal involvement in the management of the New
En Route Centre project... liaising in many cases directly with the
project director and bypassing operational and engineering managers
who held line accountability."
It highlighted the fact that information given to the board of
Nats about the project seemed "very mild when compared with the
reality of the true risks for the New En Route Centre
systems".
- "The underlying reason for the New En Route Centre delays was
not "weak" project management - on the contrary, the senior Nerc
personnel who ran the project were experienced, strong project
managers hired in from outside. It could be argued that their
'firmness' in isolating the project from the influence of Nats'
wider operations was itself one of the major contributors to the
problems."
- There was a "lack of respect on the part of the [former] CEO
for the ability of the board to provide worthwhile judgements about
Nerc and on how issues might be resolved. Often, by the time the
board was made aware of a problem with Nerc or the need to make an
important decision, there were few real options left open to the
board members, apart from continuing with the project as already
laid out."
- "The fact that the CEO chaired these meetings and also felt a
very high level of commitment to the success of the Nerc project...
very likely inhibited more open discussion at such meetings on
project problems and possible 'O' date slippage. This in turn
stifled debate and helped reduce the effectiveness of the review
meetings."
- "[There were] poor internal communications and inhibition of
open debate at review committee and board levels; inadequate
exercising of control and reporting powers at review committee and
board levels."
- "The Nerc project team felt it was their responsibility to
demonstrate that everything was under control and to justify why
their proposed programme of work for the next phase should be
adopted by Nats."
- "There is evidence that the information presented to the review
boards hindered their ability to do their job effectively. From
studying many of the reports presented to the review boards, it is
clear the quantity of material presented was copious... What is
noticeable is that it is difficult to extract key messages from
what was presented."
- "The whole culture and environment within which reviews were
held was a major contributor to weakness in picking up on major
issues... The approach adopted was non-investigative, there was an
unwillingness to face up to and discuss bad news, and a style which
inhibited an open and frank discussion of difficult
problems."
- "The Nerc project director and the CEO were both keen to
maintain a firm hand on the project and 'get on with the job',
avoiding needless interventions from Nats' operations and senior
management. They perceived that given the relative inexperience of
the rest of Nats with projects of this size, further intervention
from them would only take additional time and effort, and risk
adding further to design changes without any corresponding
benefits."
- "Nats board meetings are held monthly. It is evident from the
meeting reports that a lot of material, often in great detail, was
presented at these meetings. It is also evident from interviews
that board members felt they received little information enabling
them to make informed decisions and carry out their governance
duties."
- "Nats failed to understand the importance of public relations
when reporting the Nerc system project to the [Department of
Transport]. The quarterly reports forwarded by Nats to the
department were very bland and did not contain information about
project management issues. "Also, Nats did not alert the
department to problems until they were upon them, leaving the
department with very little real choice on what should be
done.
- "A possible reason for this lack
of openness was the concern within Nats that if the department were
made aware of difficult problems on Nerc which could lead to
significant delays to the 'O' date and extra project costs, the
department would have to be seen to be taking firm action to
intervene. Intervention was clearly seen as unattractive by
Nats."
How an independent review could make the difference between success
and failure >>