POL00448847
POL00448847
POST
OFFICE
POL without agreemen
- POST
OFFICE
SPM Diagnostic -
Executive Summary
POL00448847
POL00448847
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I EXECUTIVESUMMARY I
Post Office Limited (POL) commissioned an independent diagnostic review of its Strategic Platform Modernisation (SPM) Programme in Autumn 2023, given
significant delays and cost overruns.
The diagnostic has found that:
* The purpose of the SPM programme (to replace the Horizon platform) is sound, removing functional and commercial dependence on an end-of-life core
system whilst providing a flexible platform to enable future retail initiatives. There is some misalignment amongst stakeholders regarding the specific scope of
the programme, which is being addressed
+ The technology architecture is fit for purpose, based on modern technologies that will scale to support future products and services, however some critical
remediation activities have been identified. The technical build is well underway, with a live service (Drop & Collect) and an NBIT Pilot already delivered and
well received by both the business and Postmasters
+ However, SPM is suffering in delivery execution and, without a change in course, will fail:
- POL does not have the required internal experience to lead and deliver a large-scale IT transformation like SPM (despite assigning some capable colleagues to
the programme)
~ The current delivery model is not channelling POL’s capability in a way that will deliver the programme at pace
Delivery team morale is low - people don’t feel equipped to deliver a programme of this importance
Based on the findings of this diagnostic and Accenture’s experience we recommend resetting the programme to:
> Clarify vision and revalidate current scope - through scope guiding principles clearly linked back to the overall programme vision
> Engage an experienced IT and Change Transformation delivery support partner - to provide the external expertise to close identified gaps whilst building
POL’s internal capability
> Agree delivery method, organisation and governance - with clear business sponsorship and streamlined forums
> Re-plan and re-cost the programme to the next logical stage - including a t-shirt sized estimate based on the chosen delivery model and method
> Embed data-driven management and decisioning - from GE, through SteerCo and delegated to lower levels to allow the programme to move at pace
>
Re-energise your teams and stakeholders - cascade a consistent vision and plan, address ways of working, and maintain comms across and beyond the
programme
> Implement tech remediation plan - with consistent standards across environments, security and modern engineering approaches
> Embed business change and support into programme - empower teams to identify, design and deliver the right interventions for stakeholders and BAU
> @ Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved 3
KEY OBSERVATIONS
POL00448847
POL00448847
THE PROGRAMME HAS SOME GOOD FOUNDATIONS BUT SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES EXIST
>@
Robust scope guiding principles are not in place leading to inconsistent scope translation from the vision
Post Office is playing the ‘integrator’ role internally despite limited complex IT delivery capability
Delivery methodology is not fit-for-purpose constraining ability to deliver the solution and manage business change with
confidence
Governance has been ineffective given some unclear accountabilities and inconsistent adherence to RACI
Frequent amendments to timelines and cost forecasts have led to concerns around delivery confidence
Limited data-driven reporting on programme progress has prevented the ability to detect issues early
Culture has been a key blocker for overall success impacting team morale and impeding collaboration
Tech solution has been built on a modern and stable architecture but requires some critical remediation and consistent
rollout
Change and deployment teams have been brought together but it is not yet clear how they will be embedded into delivery
Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
WE RECOMMEND “RESETTING” THE PROGRAMME TO ADDRESS THE KEY OBSERVATIONS
KEY OBSERVATIONS
A
Robust scope guiding principles are not in place leading to inconsistent
scope translation from the vision
Post Office is playing the ‘integrator’ role internally despite limited
complex IT delivery capability
Delivery methodology is not fit-for-purpose constraining ability to
deliver the solution and manage business change with confidence
Governance has been ineffective given some unclear accountabilities
and inconsistent adherence to RACI
Frequent amendments to timelines and cost forecasts have led to
concerns around delivery confidence
Limited data-driven reporting on programme progress has prevented
the ability to detect issues early
Culture has been a key blocker for overall success impacting team
morale and impeding collaboration
Tech solution has been built on a modern and stable architecture but
requires some critical remediation and consistent rollout
Change and deployment teams have been brought together but it is not
yet clear how they will be embedded into delivery
>@
POL00448847
POL00448847
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
L> I
L> I
Clarify vision and revalidate current scope - through scope guiding principles clearly linked
back to the overall programme vision
Engage an experienced IT and Change Transformation Delivery Support Partner - to provide
the external expertise to close identified gaps whilst building POL’s internal capability
Agree delivery method, organisation and governance - with clear business sponsorship and
streamlined forums
Re-plan and re-cost the programme tonext logical stage - including a t-shirt sized estimate
based on the chosen delivery model and method
Embed data-driven management and decisioning - from GE, through SteerCo and delegated
to lower levels to allow the programme to move at pace
Re-energise your teams and stakeholders - cascade a consistent vision and plan, address
ways of working, and maintain comms across and beyond the programme
Implement tech remediation plan - with consistent standards across environments, security
and modern engineering approaches
Embed business change and support into programme - empower teams to identify, design
and deliver the right interventions for stakeholders and BAU
Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved.
POL00448847
- POST
OFFICE
Appendix
A Approach & Methodology
B Recommendations Summary Detail
POL00448847
POL00448847
AI Approach &
Methodology
> oot Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved. 7
POL00448847
POL00448847
SCOPE & APPROACH
OVER SEVEN WEEKS, WE HAVE INTERVIEWED A CROSS SECTION OF THE SPM POPULATION AND ASSESSED A
WIDE RANGE OF ARTEFACTS TO INFORM THIS DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW
Mobilise: 1 week
Fieldwork: 4 weeks Reporting: 2 weeks
_ MOBILISE
+ Stakeholder Interviews (Phase 2) : Ay
+ Gather Artefacts + Artefact Review + Tooling Access & Data Analysis feyeeck ndings &
oa ; at 7 Recommendations
Confirm Stakeholders & Plan Initial Interviews (Phase 1) Findings & Recommendations + Produce Final Output
Consolidation
STRATEGY
GOVERNANCE
a 166 89 c.500 91
Interviews Individuals Artefacts Survey
SOLUTION Conducted
IMPLEMENTATION
Engaged* Reviewed** Responses
“Across GE, STP/RTP leadership, business change, 3rd parties, and technical delivery. **Includes artefacts provided by POL, additional interviewee material, and live content within programme tools, e.g., JIRA, Confluence and ServiceNow.
> @ Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved
8
SOURCE LIST
DETAILED VIEW OF STAKEHOLDERS ENGAGED AND ARTEFACTS REVIEWED THROUGH THE DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW
We have engaged a
broad group of
stakeholders of all
levels working
across the SPM
Programme
This includes:
General Executive
Programme Leadership
Programme Management
Technical Delivery
Engineering
Architecture
Product Management
Commercial
Stakeholder Engagement
Change Management
Assurance
Security
Retail Operations
89 INTERVIEWEES*
Abigail McGeever
Ajay Patel
Amit Dandekar
Andrew Kingham
Andy McAllister
Anne-Marie Hearne
Barry Johns
Ben Marsh
Ben Owens
Brian Jones
Chris Darriet-Jones
Christo Caratossidis
Claire Hurrell
Clare Mapes
Colin Moore
Dan Perrin
Daniel Wood
David Gemmell
David Steed
Davyd Nash
Dipesh Chandegra
Ed Harris
Ed Spencer
Emily Robinson
Emma Jones
Fiona Burns
Gareth Clark
George Cross
Greg Lewis
Hema Kanani
lan Bilclough
Jane Kidd
Jeff Mak
Karen Cleary
Kate Kay
Kathryn Sherratt
Kathryn Wearne
Kelly Goodwin
Kelly Metcalfe
Lauren Brogden
Lee Hosford
Liam Carroll
Luke Bailey
Mark Elmslie
Mark Nash
Marnus Marx
Martin Roberts .
Matt Walton .
Mayuresh Sane .
Mel Park .
Melissa Gribben .
Michelle Stainsby .
Mike Braithwaite .
Natalie Cross .
Natasha Gowardun +
Nick Ravenscroft .
Nicola Marriott .
Nik Gill .
Nikki Savekar .
Nirmal Radhakrishnan +
Owen Woodley .
Paul Minchell .
Pete Marsh .
Phil Newton .
Praveen Bhujade .
Reuan Williams .
Rob Guest
Rob Wilkins
Ryan Allan
Ryan Jones
Richard James
Rob Fry
Sam Jeyakumar
Samantha Swann
Sarah Gray
Shelley Genery
Simon Pearson
Sophie Drury
Steve Hepburn
Steve McFarlane
Steve Young
Stuart Banfield
Sue Saikia
Thomas Maddern
Tim McInnes
Vinay Swali
will Jenkins
Yogesha Ramanna
Zdravko Mladenov
POL00448847
POL00448847
500
ARTEFACTS
Alongside
interviews, an
extensive list of
artefacts were
provided by Post
Office for review as
part of the
engagement. The
review has
additionally
included live
content captured
within programme
tools such as
Confluence, Jira,
and Service Now
“Interviewees based on a list provided by POL, following a role-based ask from the diagnostic team. Also includes additional interviewees identified during the diagnostic review. Every effort has been made to engage the appropriate
subject-matter experts and gather insights from a representative group across all areas and levels but, due to timescales, it was not feasible to interview every stakeholder across STP/RTP within SPM.
>@
Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved. 9
POL00448847
POL00448847
DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY
AN END-TO-END REVIEW ACROSS THE FIVE MAJOR CAPABILITIES REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL DELIVERY
> Using a Level 1-3 framework, detailed > Each Level 3 has received a
observations have been captured following diagnostic RAG from which an
quantitative (artefact and data analysis) and overall Level 2 diagnostic RAG
qualitative review (interviews, surveys) has been derived
> Where a capability requires intervention,
recommendations, have been captured (see
appendix) and form the basis for the summary
recommendations outlined
GOVERNANCE PEOPLE SOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGY
LEVEL2 CAPABILITY
1.1 Strategic Intent
1.2 Business Case
Economics
1.3 Stakeholder Alignment
1.4 Scope & Requirements
1.5 Sequencing &
Prioritisation
1.6 Delivery Model
1.7 Target Operating Model
LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY
2.1 Planning
2.2 Reporting, KPIs &
Metrics
2.3 Prog Organisation,
Authorities & Forums
2.4 Change Control
2.5 Commercial & Contract
Management
2.6 Resource Management
2.7 Vendor Management
NOTE: See Appendix for further detail on the diagnostic methodology.
>@
LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY
3.1 Change Strategy
3.2 Change Execution
3.3 Stakeholder
Engagement & Comms
3.4 Culture & Behaviours
3.5 Skills & Competencies
3.6 Learning & Training
LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY
4.1 Operations Capability
4.2 Solution Architecture
4.3 DevSecOps &
Environments
4.4 Non-Functional
Requirements
4.5 Data
4.6 Code
4.7 Infrastructure
LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY
5.1 Design
5.2 Build
5.3 Testing
5.4 Release Mgmt. &
Deployment
5.5 Conversion
5.6 Post Go Live Support
5.7 Service Introduction
Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved. 10
POL00448847
POL00448847
SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS RAG RATING
14 “LEVEL 2” CAPABILITIES ASSESSED AS RED - WHERE SIGNIFICANT INTERVENTION IS RECOMMENDED
LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY RAG RATING
STRATEGY GOVERNANCE
LEVEL2 CAPABILITY LEVEL 2CAPABILITY
2.1 Planning
2.2 Reporti
1.1 Strategic Intent
1.2 Busines:
Economics Met
2.3 Prog Organisation,
Authorities & Forums
NOTE: See Appendix for observations per Level 1 capability and the diagnostic methodology.
> @ RAG Definitions i I Significant interventions recommended
Moderate interventions recommended
PEOPLE
LEVEL2 CAPABILITY
3.3 Stakeholder
Engagement & Comms
SOLUTION IMPLEMENTATION
LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY LEVEL 2 CAPABILITY
Deployment
4.3 DevSecOps &
Environments
4.4 Non-Functional
Requirements
imited or no interventions recommended —_ Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved "
POL00448847
POL00448847
B I Recommendations
Summary Detail
> oot Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rightsreserved. 12
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
POL00448847
POL00448847
THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AN AGGREGATION OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
Clarify vision &
revalidate scope
Engage delivery
partner
Delivery method,
org & governance
Re-plan & re-cost
the programme
Data-driven
management &
decisioning
Re-energise teams
&stakeholders
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
Implement tech
remediation plan
Embed business
change & support
into programme
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Set up Reset
Team
L
2) Develop Scope
Guiding Principles
y)
(3) Clarify Horizon
Replacement
(Scope
Final Build vs. Buy
4) Communicate
Decision
5) Evaluate Prog.
(6) Select & .
'7) Refine Vendor
Delivery & Support ItOnboard Delivery /Management
Model* {Support Partner** (Approach
8) Operationalise (10) Review fit) Redefine (2) Embed fi3) Rationalise f\4) Improve (iS) Re-establish
Programme Org _I]9) Define RACI Delivery Workforce Procesees & Tools IIForums & Technology & Solution Change
Structure Methodologies _)IStrategy (Ceremonies Change Planning (Controls
16) Revise E2E
Programme Plan
(17) Re-baseline
Programme
Delivery Costs
18) Re-baseline
Benefits & Future
TCO
(19) Embed Data-
(20) Test & Iterate
(21) Establish
Communication
Agree Programme
Ways of Working
led Insights & Assurance Benefits & Cost
Reporting Approach Management
cr r 5)
32) Interim Prog. II 22) Identify &
23) Programme
Kick-off
(24) Estimate &
Prioritise
Remediation Plant
95) Deliver
Remediation
Itemst
(26) Establish the
Platform
Engineering Team
27) Introduce
Hardening Sprints
(28) Consolidate &
Refresh Change
(Strategy & Plan
(29) Reset Comms
I& Engagement
Delivery
30) Design TOM
Deployment
Support Approach
) fm Integrate
“Delivery Model decision impacts subsequent recommendations. *“*if applicable. *Some of these activities are currently progressing as part of ‘Build Better’ initiative.
> @ Actions Key
Action TBC
Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved. 8
POL00448847
POL00448847
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY DETAIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AN AGGREGATION OF SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES
© SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS @
3) Clarify Horizon Replacement Scope: Identify and communicate'like- (4) Communicate Final Build vs. Buy Decision:
for-like’ vs. process improvement scope for horizon replacement, I Agree path forward for Build vs. Buy decision and
ensuring clear traceability from vision to implementation (e.g., HU/CHJ) _) I_ establish auditable documentation as necessary
Clarify vision & 1) Set up Reset Team: Formation
of programme team to own and
embed the programme reset
2) Develop Scope Guicling Principles: Re-
establish strategic direction (incl. success
metrics) and reset scope guiding principles
5) Evaluate Programme Delivery & Support Model*: Agree suitability and
approach to onboarding a 3" party delivery support provider to substitute
and/or expand existing capabilities. Includes designing TOM principles
Engage delivery
phe selection process and onboard relevant delivery support provider, clear vendor management process (e.g., include contract
6) Select & Onboard Delivery Support Partner**: Complete I 7) Refine Vendor Management Approach: Re-establish
Ensure that they inform overall delivery approach clauses to ensure knowledge transfer)
8) Operationatise \ (9) DefineRACI: \( 10)Review Delivery) (11) Redefine ) (12) Embed Processes & (13) Rationalise Forums.) (14) improve 15) Re-establish
Programme Org Agree RACland II Methodologies: I Workforce Strategy: II Tools: Agree, adapt and I & Ceremonies: Refine Technology & Change Solution Change
wo Structure: ensure I Agree programme II Understandexisting II embed appropriate I forums and Planning: Revise Controls: Re
Fm Delivery Complete on accountabilitie II wide delivery I] programme II processes and supporting II ceremonies in line integrated tech and establish
Foye method. oras going Sareadhered II methodology(e.g.. II capability, mapto II tools tomanage I with agreed delivery change planning programme change
$< governance programme org toacrossthe II _ version of Agile) and I programme II programme delivery and I approach, approach (incl. clear management
E structure programme II howitwillbeadapted II requirementsand II solution development I programme estimation, processes (2.9., TDA,
a discussions and (e.g., structures I} forprogrammeneeds I} define resource II consistently and effectively II processes, org, forecasting and including refinement
a set up roles of escalation) _) I &POL(e.g., waterfall) _}\_management plan _} \_across delivery lifecycle (( structure and RACI dependency mapping) _} I_of low-level designs)
é Re-plan&re- 16) Revise E2E Programme Plan: Revise, estimate and 17) Re-baseline Programme Delivery Costs: Re-baseline 18) Re-baseline Benefits & Future TCO: Calculate holistic benefits (e.g., efficiency
costthe integrate tech and change plans across scope, timeline, programme costs, based on scope, E2E programme plan and gains, CSAT etc.), link at high level to delivery stage gates and re-estimate future
FAME programme delivery stage gates etc. agreed delivery methodology total cost of ownership
= ; ar
oy Data-driven 19) Embed Data-led insights & Reporting: Agree and embed (20) Test & iterate Assurance Approach: Review and update KPIs & 21) Establish Benefits & Cost Management: Re-establish.
PEPE management & proposed programme Assurance approach (e.g., Assurance I processes to consistently track and report delivery progress in line with programme cost monitoring and extend/embed ongoing
ri decisioning Universe). iterate and refine as needed (programme vision benefits management
= Re-energise 32) interim Programme Communication: Communicate an I { 22) Identity & Agree Programme Ways of Working: Identify and agree desired top-line 23) Programme Kick-off: Kick-off programme (e.g.,
teame& update to all internal stakeholders on the programme direction programme behaviours and ways of working to be embedded and enforced within through an away day) with relevant stakeholders to
¥ stakeholders following the diagnostic } I teams e.g., to encourage transparency, collaboration and empowerment energise and motivate for programme restart
eplsrioataek 24) Estimate & Prioritise Remediation Plant 25) Deliver Remediation Itemst: Deliver the Build Better ) ( 26) Establish the Platform Engineering Team: Setup a \ (27) Introduce Hardening Sprints:
I onal Develop a prioritised plan to address identified remediation recommendations, plus newly identified I] team that creates, standardises and maintains the II Include ongoing effort (& budget) to
sg issues by estimating required resources, costs, II recommendations, in a consistent, mandated way across al II underlying platform and tooling that supports II stalisethe code base at regular
: and timeframes delivery squads } \_ engineering intervals
Embed business 28) Consolidate & Refresh Change Strategy & Plan: Validate) (29) Reset Comms & Engagement Delivery: ) { 30) Design TOM: Complete 31) Integrate Deployment Support Approach
change& and update change strategy for the E2E programme and Re-define programme comms and II development of holistic and integrated I Integrate current business and tech related
support into execute activities in line with revised tech delivery engagement strategy for all impacted II BAU target operating model, including II deployment support plans and teams e.g., ROC -
programme timelines incl. change impact, comms, learning stakeholders (in and outside the programme) _) Horizon transition state planning _) \ Retail Operations Centre - previously defined in RTP
“Delivery Model decision impacts subsequent recommendations. **If applicable. tSome of these activities are currently progressing as part of ‘Build Better’ initiative.
> @ Copyright © 2023 Accenture. All rights reserved. 4