Our conclusions—Governing the project
Despite the efforts of those involved in the program and the application of many procurement, project management and assurance practices, the program’s governance was not effective from inception.
SPER did not have the right skills and experience to manage the project effectively. It did not sufficiently mitigate risks raised in assurance reviews and chose to remain overly optimistic rather than pause the project when it had the opportunity to do so.
The program steering committee was highly reliant on advice and information from consultants and contractors, because of the skills gaps it had.
Because SPER and the vendor were not on the same page in terms of system requirements, the contract required significant changes. The contract variations increased the vendor’s revenue, with an additional $10.3 million on top of the original agreed contract value of $13.8 million. SPER ended up without an ICT system because it terminated the contract, and the vendor retained ownership of the software because it was a software as a service arrangement