Sounds like a massive, risky UK.gov scheme, but let's not keep too many tabs on it, OK?

The UK's spending watchdog has said it isn't possible to tell whether the biggest and most risky government projects are doing what they're supposed to because of poor records and incomplete reporting. In 2011, Whitehall established a Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) to improve the way it monitored large, costly and …

[Will Godfrey]

SNAFU

... in an unknown way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple test - did they give the project to Capita or G4S?

Then yes, it's failing.

[monty75]

In some cases this was because it was simply to early to tell, but in others it wasn't clear what the intended benefits were – seven projects didn't have a business case, for instance.

How do you even start a project without a business case? This is, like, day one session one of any project management course.

[David Lewis 2]

No Business Case?

The level of incompetence is truly breathtaking but is anyone really surprised?

In over 40 years in the IT industry I have never seen a business case that wasn’t a total work of fiction.

[SVV]

I believe these projects are thought up as "efficiency savings"

Seems like the only savings are those made by not bothering to spend money on project reviews, as everybody knows they were an appalling waste of money. However, failing to do so prevents all the lessons of why they failed from being learned, and condemns them to endlessly repeat the failings.

[Bogle]

"Bring out the GMPP"

"But the GMPP's sleeping."

[codejunky]

Hmm

Again for those who push for nationalisation, these are the people who would be running it. Who without further nationalisation already take a large portion of our economy for them to spend how they want and with their level of 'competence'.

There is a reason to keep government small. Too easy to forget about the people and splash out the taxed hard earned money.