For want of an archaeologist ...

I love it when I find a new example of a Bottleneck item - those purchases which are often comparatively low price but of critical importance.  Today's Times yielded one such example which I'm not sure many would have thought of: archaeologists!

UK politicians have made a lot of noise about the need for more housebuilding. In parallel, the HS2 is quite possibly the biggest, and most politically sensitive infrastructure project for some time, for example, it's 350 miles long - you can read more of my observations on its procurement here. The financial cost of each of these initiatives is enormous and logically delays will add to cost and have a negative impact on delivery of the business case.  Politicians accountable for delivery will understandably be a bit sensitive too.

However, before work can actually commence on site there is a requirement in the UK for an archaeological investigation.  The estimated demand for archaeologists means that an additional 25% of these 'Indiana Jones' types are required.

I'm sure you can see where this is going - what's the lead-time to get an archaeologist with the necessary skills trained, was the supply pipeline of archaeologists created in sufficient time, has enough attention been given to attract students to pursue archaeology, how much had been budgeted for the premium costs which may now need to be paid for this scarce resource, has the Home Office thought through the potential visa implications for non-EU citizens who may be required? You get the feel for the procurement, project and programme management risks?

Somebody tell me that this has all been previously risk assessed and mitigated. Do I sense an 'In The Thick of It' moment?  Perhaps. as they used to say of procurement, this is Archaeology's opportunity - but hopefully not at Procurement's expense.

When news of procurement doom and gloom is a good thing

News that one in four government projects is in danger of failing may surprise you as something I view as worth celebrating.

It is a good thing that if it represents an honesty in project management status. It is a good thing if represents a true assessment of risk. It is a good thing if it avoids throwing further good money after bad. It is a good thing if it leads to corrective action being taken. It is a good thing if lessons are learnt and shared.

It is a good thing if other organisations learn that honesty in project management risk is something to be valued.

However, should the projects continue 'As Is' it represents a terrible waste of opportunity and a sad inditment on strategic procurement and project management.

The dream of the Stonehenge tunnel procurement

As we approach the Winter Solstice (and the next election) it has been announced that a new road is to be tunnelled near Stonehenge - a world heritage site and one of the wonders of the world.  As I understand it no one actually knows the origins of Stonehenge and I doubt they know what is actually underneath or surrounding it - the new tunnel may turn into an archaeological discovery mission.

But a modern myth is also being told, after all this scheme dates back to 1995! Are we being sold a dream which can easily be set aside in future spending cuts? We have the mystical belief that the UK has the skills and money to delivery such an ambitious project - on what basis? It could create jobs but when and how sustainable will they be? It will require money but when will the money flow?  Is there a justification for spending so much money on a road tunnel when we have people in the UK reliant on food banks and there are potholes in virtually every street?

Was it only last year that we learnt that a third of major projects were over budget or late? Could we have an update on the lessons learnt which will be transferred to the Stonehenge project?

Dominic Cummings, in today's Times claims the civil service lacks skills in budgeting, contracts, procurement, legal advice, and project management.  If he is right, and history provides plenty of examples, what are the chances of effective project delivery of the tunnel? Perhaps euphoria over the award of the east coast rail franchise has been a cause for a vision of such a landmark project. Perhaps it is easier to visualise completion of the Stonehenge tunnel than something which may impact on the lives of people today.

The amazing thing is that 5,000 years ago someone conceived and delivered Stonehenge - whether it was to time, cost and quality we haven't a clue, but for all our sophistication, it strikes me that they had skills which are not common and are urgently needed.

What I would like to know is, will anyone be accountable for the delivery of this dream?

'Cut the Cards: making SAP work' - Book review

At first glance you may wonder what relevance this book could have to you. Don't be put off by the title as it is not a book for SAP 'techies'; it is much more and I would view it as recommended reading for anyone on an MBA course or with an interest in PRINCE2. I suspect those who would benefit most though would be those designated as Sponsor of an ERP implementation and those charged with an oversight or scrutiny role.

Donnelly has produced an easily readable book on what could be a very dry subject and his black humor works very effectively. Having said that, assuming there is a second edition, I think the addition of section headings would be beneficial.

In a forensic analysis of public and private sector IT implementation disasters, Donnelly provides a diagnosis of what he believes really went wrong: cash-flow, poor leadership, self-serving partners, poor project management, poor risk management, and poor contract management are all there.  Key lessons for me are the need to modify SAPs standard processes as little as possible, so change management should be concerned with moving from the As-is to the correct SAP process, having the correct governance in place and use PRINCE2 methodology.

Also covered, although indirectly, is SAP's marketing strategy - a good case study in itself.

But what's there for a procurement practitioner? If there's an ERP project the CPO needs to have a seat at the table as part of the business case development, specifying, contract drafting, selection, risk management, change management and contract management. Then the CPO needs to be engaged with Blueprinting the To-Be - I have previously discussed how that should be an opportunity for procurement transformation, yet too often is missed through automating the existing, yes, that still happens!

Strategic procurement programmes: Before and after

We're all familiar with the 'before and after' images which so often paint a picture that suggests 'after' is more attractive than 'before'. If only that were the case with strategic procurements.

After years of 'before' trumpeting the anticiapted aspirational success of the NHS National Programme for IT, a programme which appeared to be the offspring of political egotism, the first signs of faltering, and the cosmetics of a name change, now politicians want answers:

"There has to be a reckoning. We have to know how much money has been squandered and what could have been done instead."

"If the people letting the contract have made a catastrophic, gargantuan mistake then there is an opportunity cost. It is the taxpayer who has to fork out money for what should have been spent n services they need."

To me the NPfIT was clear who was leading and the governance structure to be used. But back in 2011 I asked what happened to the application of Gateway Reviews on the Programme. Of course MPs received NAO reports on the Programme's progress too - they were not ignorant of the risks.

So when the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee sit down looking for answers, I hope they start by considering their own role in oversight - didn't they have a responsibility to the electorate? They could ask about political pressure that that was exerted and if civil servants 'pushed back'? They could then ask about who was getting paid for Programme leadership, where, when and why it went wrong? Then they could get the detailed findings of the Gateway Reviews? Then look at the risk register, how it was reviewed and when and what actions were taken? Then they could look at similar debacles, of which there are many, forget the political rhetoric and posturing? Finally they must ensure an environment exists which ensures there are very real penalties in place for those who should have blown the whistle on this and similar programmes yet didn't - did they lack the knowledge or the spine?

Unfortunately the 'after' looks fairly ugly for this Programme but perhaps the Beast could spawn some Beauty's for the future.

A very political procurement

In 2012 I published a paper on International Lessons on Austerity Strategy - one of the key lessons being the  advantages of having projects 'shovel ready' so that you could deploy procurement to stimulate the economy and accelerate the recovery. That meant planning approvals gained and availability of construction resources 'ready to go'.

If you did that you could reduce unemployment and the human trauma which accompany it, you could also shift from paying benefits to receiving tax and national insurance income.

Today we learn that more than 200 projects are being announced to rebuild Britain - all to start during 2014/15. Some would scream "why weren't these measures taken much earlier to prevent the flooding and now dangerous condition of our roads?".

Of course the cynic could also say this investment is political - designed to create jobs and have a visible impact of 'something happening' in the run up to the election.

The spotlight now moves to the procurement, project management and risk management of over 200 major projects. If the procurement is successful the next election will see a celebration of successful delivery of improvement public services, local economic development and jobs. If the procurement is unsuccessful the spotlight can be expected to be on procurement blame.

Perhaps it is timely that Locke has just been released!

I have absolutely no understanding of the preparations prior to this announcement but it will be a significant test for the Major Projects Authority too. I assume that someone has checked the capacity to deliver on what could become a very political procurement.