POL00448888
POL00448888
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Overall reports
Key themes
Both the IPA and Public Digital reports provide different but helpful insights and recommendations
on how to improve the delivery of SPMP.
Both reports do attempt to be constructure, which is in line with our experience of the teams
doing the reviews.
Both reports take the view that we need to push on and deliver SPMP — but improvements on how
to progress are required.
They do not shy away from highlighting the problems as they see them, and give a tough
assessment of where SPMP is today. The IPA rates the overall programme as ‘red’, and while the
Public Digital report does not rate the programme, the narrative would suggest a similar rating.
In principle, POL agrees with the recommendations and the overall themes, but the detail on how
to action the recommendations will not be straight forward, and will take time.
It is also clear that a substantial number of the recommendations are not within POL’s gift to
deliver alone:
o Most are dependent on securing funding for SPMP - almost creating a chicken and egg
impasse;
o Many require DBT / UKGI decisions; and
o Some improvements that are needed to be made relate to DBT/HMT/UKGI processes and
approach
Both reports highlight the difficulties in providing SPMP with short-term funding from government,
numerous assurance reviews, and the conflict between delivering SPMP in an Agile way while
reporting to government and internally in a Waterfall way.
Public Digital review is most helpful in terms of the technical recommendations and improving the
approach to delivering the technical solution — including internal processes and governance.
The IPA review is most helpful in terms of recommendation to improve overall governance and
HMG processes.
Key messages for engaging DBT
We recognise the seriousness of the reports and some of the commentary is sobering. We
understand that there is genuine concern on how SPMP will be delivered.
We are committed to delivering SPMP in a way that maximises value for money, delivers a Post
Office that works for postmasters and customers, and reduces our reliance on government
support.
It is very positive that the conclusions of both reports are that we need to push on to deliver
SPMP, and both highlight the dangers of pausing at this stage and losing momentum.
We also agree with the overall recommendations from both reports in principle.
We will work through each of the recommendations as a priority, but it is clear from both reports
that this will also require some government decisions on approach and scope. A joint effort
between Post Office, DBT, and UKGI is needed and this will take time to get right.
We have made a huge amount of progress since the end of last year, but there is more to do. We
think that working closely with DBT we can make this a success.
The worst outcome at this point would be a further delay in deciding on what to do next. I
understand that these decisions are difficult, and across government funding is tight.
However, the reports have given a very clear view that SPMP is the right way forward. We need to
drive on and make the improvements that are needed. 4
Confidential
POL00448888
POL00448888
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Public Digital Summary
Key points
e Public Digital supports the need to continue delivering SPMP albeit not enthusiastically “Given the
need to exit the Fujitsu relationship and move away from the Horizon platform, we see little
choice but to continue to invest in this transformation.” It also explicitly states that bringing SPMP
to a halt at this stage would be damaging.
« It notes significant gaps in strategy, capability, technology and governance.
« The report does call out that the issues are not all fixable within SPMP, and require POL, UKGI,
and DBT to work together to deliver improvements. It notes that it is not possible for POL to know
what capabilities it will need without a clearer picture of what the government wants POL to be.
e The report highlights some positive aspects, noting that SPMP is moving in a positive direction
with pockets of excellence and deeply expert people. However, this is not consistent across SPMP.
Findings and recommendations
* The report sets out five categories of findings and recommendations covering:
e Mision: The findings and recommendations on ‘vision’ cut across the whole of POL and
government. It stresses the need for POL to recognise that this is a large transformation of POL’s
operating model, from a retail business to a digital organisation. It proposes POL needs to change
from top to bottom to make this transformation work.
« It also highlights a disconnect between SPMP and the rest of the business, in terms of vision and
mission but also in terms of ways of working and collaboration with other parts of the business.
« Capability: The report highlights a number of areas already known to POL, such as the need to
rebalance from temporary to permanent staff, attract the best talent, strengthen different
functions, etc. It also stresses the need to increase digital expertise at senior executive levels.
e It makes a number of recommendations to improve this, which POL agrees with in principle.
However i) a large barrier is the short-term funding cycle that SPMP faces with government
making the future of the programme uncertain, which in turn makes it difficult to attract and/or
appoint permanent staff ; ii) restructuring and/or reorganising will require Board engagement,
and in some instance shareholder engagement / approval. For example, the report suggests
creating a new Chief Operating Officer (COO) role, appoint new board members with digital
expertise.
« Technology: This is the strongest part of the report, and where Public Digital’s expertise is most
evident. It recognises that building NBIT internally rather than outsourcing is the best approach,
but highlights the need to review whether the individual components should be bought from a
third party or developed in-house. ePOS is cited as an example that could be bought rather than
built.
« It also proposes specific ways of working to improve delivery cadence and productivity, and
provides suggestions such as paying for roles or organising secondment at Royal Mail.
« Governance: The report highlights concerns that decisions for the programme are not made at
the right level in POL, and internal governance processes are unsuited to the programme and act
to slow down decision making. An example given is the quarterly funding drawdown process for
SPMP.
« It highlights the tension between Agile delivery of SPMP clashing with Waterfall approach of the
Change Excellence Framework, as well as the tendency of government to also approach
measuring milestones / success based on Waterfall design. It also raises concerns on the
government's short-term funding model.
e User-centred practice: The report states that SPMP is not truly user centred and expertise
around product management id lacking. The risk highlighted is a disconnect between development
2
Confidential
POL00448888
POL00448888
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
and end users. We are keen to engage with Public Digital on this piece to understand better their
thinking, as we are not convinced that we agree with their suggestions - for example testing in
rural franchises rather than DMBs
IPA Summary
Key points
The IPA reports to the Treasury as part of the Treasury Approval Process rather than DBT. We
think this is useful, and could help unlock a number of areas as discussed below, that we have
pushed DBT in the past to do but have not had success. IPA/HMT pressure may force some of
these issues.
The IPA’s assessment of the Programme is ‘Red’ which translates to “Successful delivery of [...]
Horizon replacement to time, cost [...] and quality appears to be unachievable. There are major
issues which, at this stage, do not appear to be manageable or resolvable entirely within POL. The
programme/project may need re-baselining and/or its overall viability re-assessed.”
However, the substance of the report is more considered. It is supportive of the improvements
made by leadership, the commitment of employees, the change management methodology, and
the approach to communications. It also highlights difficulties created by increased demands on
the programme from multiple assurance reviews and frequent business case processes, as well as
the oversight and approval piece with DBT. It makes recommendations in this space to improve.
Importantly it recognises that some of the recommendations and changes needed require DBT
input and decisions, and are not within the gift of POL to deliver.
Similar to Public Digital, it highlights the huge undertaking in transforming POL into a digital first
retail organisation, as well as the short-term funding cycle which creates uncertainty for SPMP
and limits the ability to plan long term.
Despite the rating, the IPA only makes seven recommendations and identifies two blockers. Only
one of the nine issues are solely for POL to action and deliver.
Findings and recommendations
It is critical of the lack of clarity on what programmes are being onboard onto GMPP - something
which DBT and IPA need to clarify, as well as confusion caused by the proposal by DBT for the
accountability of SRO not being aligned with POL’s governance structures.
It highlights the need to strengthen the levels of experience and expertise in the appropriate roles
across POL and DBT - including DBT Investment Committee, POL Investment Committee, and
Programme Steering Committees. This is seen as one of the blockers to the success of SPMP.
It notes that onboarding to GMPP is an opportunity for POL to access broader government skills,
including access to broader digital experience and standards, and recommends that IPA ensures
that this happens.
The IPA outline POL’s need to complete the Microsoft integration plan immediately, something
which is already in flight in POL.
A key recommendation which we are keen to push on, it’s the IPA’s suggestion the DBT / HMT
consider flexibility to the funding model used for SPMP, to create a better enabling environment.
The current model provides funding on an annual basis, and to date for relatively short periods.
The cycle for approval is onerous and frequent. IPA makes the point that funding up to FY25/26
implicitly commits government to funding the whole programme to completion and therefore it is
worth recognising this, and putting in place a suitable funding model to support SPMP on a longer
term basis. This is the second blocker for SPMP identified by the IPA.
IPA also recommend DBT considers an appropriate engagement model with POL to ensure access
to HMT Green Book experts for future approvals and business cases - something which we have
long pushed for and would welcome.
The last recommendation as around the risk appetite of POL and DBT regarding technical
development. Public Digital make a similar point, proposing that it is better to try things, test
Confidential
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00448888
POL00448888
early, and fail fast rather than try to perfect to deploy later. This is worth a discussion with DBT,
but is difficult in the context of the wider Horizon IT Inquiry and previous failures, and there is an
understandable sensitivity in deploying functionality that fails - even on a small scale.
built around business domains
(value streams).
all workstreams.
Public Digital Recommendations I Actions Authority Timing /
Owner
V.1, Recognise that this is not just Discussions
a retail IT project but a civic tech with DBT are
transformation and reform of a POL to action DBT / POL needed
great civic institution. Tim / Rob
V.2. Develop a clear strategy or Work is already in train to deliver a clear
the future of POL so that here isa I <trategy for POL in the future, and the 6 months
clear line of sight between SPMP I interim chair is equally interested in this mol Tim / Rob
and overall objectives for the work being plished forward!
organisation.
V.3. Ensure the vision and
outcomes are shared throughout I poi to action POL Immediately
all teams, both core delivery and
wider enabling
C1. Address capability gaps in POL agrees with each of the capability Subject to
leadership by supplementing the I recommendations in principle. We already funding and
team with individuals who have __I have plans in place to improve a lot of DBT
experience of delivering these areas, and will take further action to POL / DBT discussions on
transformation ina large-scale address each of these recommendations. funding model
mcqueen, This will require POL Board engagement / /approach—
: approval: as soon as
C2. Strengthen the SPMP director- POL / DBT possible
level team to include those with I This is closely linked to the funding
experience in civic organisations I approach. It is very difficult to plan long
as well as retail. term when funding is provided ona short-
term basis.
C3. Reduce the over-reliance on This is not just a consideration for POL in POL / DBT
contingency staff by bringing terms of resource mix, but for individuals
key roles in house, and investing I wishing to work on this project. It is
in developing internal skills and difficult to attract and retain top-talent
capability. when there is uncertainty around how long
CA. Recruitment, workforce, and _I they will be employed for. POL/ DBT
capability planning for SPMP To enable this, we need to reach
should be core business for POL; I agreement with DBT/HMT on how to
recruitment norms in POL secure the long-term future of SPMP.
should be reviewed to assess
suitability for the scale and type
of recruitment required.
C5. Leverage the opportunity to POL / DBT
right the wrongs of the
T.1 Develop on operating model POL to action POL Immediately
Confidential
POL00448888
POL00448888
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
T2. Embed engineering standards I POL to action POL Immediately
and necessary tooling across
T3. Undertake an independent POL to action POL Immediately
assessment of build vs buy
decisions alongside its technology
delivery partner
procurement activity.
T4. Assign clear product owners POL to action POL Immediately
to non-functional requirements
(NFRs) and prioritise closing
gaps.
G1. Refocus milestones on POL to action POL 6 months
achieving shared outcomes, not
deliverables.
G2. Speed up delivery by bringing I POL to action POL 6 months
appropriate capabilities and
continuous assurance to the team
at the correct moment, and use
the gating forum for high-risk and
high impact decisions.
G3. Develop a new risk model POL to action POL 6 months
that enables rapid ‘test and learn’
delivery.
G4. Embed transparency as a core I POL to action POL 6 months
value of SPMP, as part of the
strategy for managing risk.
G5. Redesign the funding release I POL to action POL 6 months
process to better account for
context, need, and in a way that is
commensurate with level of risk.
U1. Establish clear roles and POL to action POL Immediately
responsibilities between
Product Managers and
Product Owners, and
symbiotic relationships and
processes that ensure the
best outcomes.
U2. Define the Minimum POL to challenge POL N/A
Viable Branch for the most
complex branch setup and re-
orient delivery around an end-
to-end slice for this type of
branch.
U3. Establish regular feedback I POL to action POL Immediately
loops with Postmasters; the
current former Postmasters in
the team should be
repositioned as business
Confidential
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
POL00448888
POL00448888
SMEs rather than product
managers.
U4. Organise delivery teams
to focus on delivering an
outcome or solving a problem.
POL to action
POL
Immediately
IPA Recommendations
Actions
Authority
Timing
IPA, DBT, UKTI and POL should clarify which
programme or programmes are being
onboarded to GMPP, so the strategic
governance environment for these programmes
is clear and understood by all, and the terms of
appointment for the SRO can be agreed
POL agrees and will engage
with DBT
IPA, DBT, UKTI,
POL
Immediately
DBT and POL should agree an effective system
of governance for the programmes to be
onboarded to GMPP, aligned to strategic
governance, and delivered by the right mix of
experienced people covering technical and
business aspects, who understand all of the
programmes involved in replacing Horizon. The
right expertise must be included on the
Investment Committees in DBT and POL and all
Programme Steering Committees.
POL agrees and will engage
with DBT
POL / DBT
Before
October 2024
IPA should ensure POL has access to broader
digital experience across Government - to
reinforce and accelerate the changes in
technical development under way in SPMP..
POL agrees and will engage
with IPA
IPA
Immediately
POL needs to prioritise the completion of its
Microsoft integrated plan swiftly, with the staff
resources and skills required to execute the
various activities: this will underpin realism in
the plan. The integrated plan should include the
Horizon extension project at an early opportunity
and be employed as the Horizon replacement
master plan.
POL will action
POL
Immediately
DBT, POL and IPA should consider if there is
any flexibility to fund the Horizon replacement
programmes in a different way, that would
provide a better enabling environment for the
Horizon replacement programmes to succeed.
POL agrees and will engage
with DBT, IPA
DBT, POL,
HMT, IPA
Immediately
IPA and DBT should consider an appropriate
engagement model so that POL is able to
access support from HMT Green Book experts
to strengthen its understanding of approvals and
the requirements on future business cases
POL agrees and will engage
with DBT / IPA
IPA, DBT
Before
December
2024
SPMP should instigate a conversation about risk
appetite with POL Board and DBT and seek a
common understanding of what risk appetite
should be applied to technical development, and
what that means in practice.
POL agrees and will engage
with POL Board and DBT
POL/ DBT
Before
October 2024
Confidential
POL00448888
POL00448888
Post Office Limited - Document Classification: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL
Confidential