Introduction

1.1 Responsibilities of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) include:

• collecting taxation revenue, such as personal income and company taxes;
• administering the goods and services tax on behalf of the Australian states and territories;
• administering a range of programs that result in transfers and benefits back to the community;
• administering major parts of Australia’s superannuation system; and
• administering the Australian Business Register.¹

1.2 These responsibilities require interaction with a wide range of stakeholders including individual taxpayers (10.9 million), small businesses (3.8 million) and super funds (597 000). Improving stakeholders’ experiences in dealing with the ATO was one of the key drivers for introducing the Reinventing the ATO program in 2015.

Reinventing the ATO program

1.3 The Reinventing the ATO program is a broad transformational change program focused on achieving the ATO’s vision of being a contemporary service oriented organisation.² It is aimed at improving taxpayer and staff experiences as well as transforming the ATO’s culture to be more service oriented. At a high level, implementation of the program was expected to better position the ATO to: be more contemporary; innovate with technology; and meet taxpayer expectations. While productivity benefits and operational savings were expected from the Reinventing the ATO program³, they were not a key driver for its implementation.

1.4 The program was initiated partly in response to the Australian Public Service Commission’s capability review in 2013, which outlined the challenge for the ATO to transform its existing processes, systems, culture and workforce to be more agile, responsive, efficient and effective. Initiation of the program was also due in part to an internal review of the ATO’s cultural traits conducted in early 2014.

1.5 The program applies to all aspects of the ATO’s operations, including infrastructure, tools, services and capability. It is expected to create a different internal culture resulting in a stronger connection to the community and an openness and willingness to change in order to maximise the community’s willing participation in the tax and super systems. The program is also expected to generate new products and services aimed at improving the staff and taxpayer experience.⁴

1.6 The precursor to the program was the ATO’s 2020 Vision and Mission, developed in July 2013. The Reinventing the ATO program formally commenced in 2015 with the release of the Reinventing the ATO Blueprint. The ‘blueprint’ was co-designed with taxpayers and staff and describes their expected experience shifts as a result of the implementation of the program.

1.7 Although not a ‘program’ in the technical sense, Reinventing the ATO encompassed both formal corporate projects, a number of behavioural and cultural elements, and more locally managed change and continuous improvement initiatives driven through localised action in teams, branches and business lines.

1.8 The Reinventing the ATO program included the establishment of six strategic programs. Existing and new projects have been assigned to one of the six strategic programs, and there are 100 Reinventing the ATO projects (see Appendix 2).⁵ These projects are required to be managed in accordance with the ATO’s project governance methodology, which requires clear articulation and approval of deliverables, milestones, timeframes, cost and outcomes. The project governance methodology is not applied to the Reinventing the ATO program as a whole. As such, aggregated program costs, savings and performance indicators have not been established.

1.9 The ATO Executive is ultimately responsible for implementation of the Reinventing the ATO program as it sets the strategic direction and priorities for change in the ATO. As illustrated in Figure 1.1, the governance arrangements for the program also included:

• an Integration Forum—responsible for ensuring activities align with the Reinventing the ATO program and that an appropriate level of resources and expertise are allocated to the six strategic programs. The Integration Forum is responsible for providing recommendations, guidance and advice to the ATO Executive in relation to the program as well as providing strategic advice and guidance to the six strategic program governance bodies;
• a Resource Forum—responsible for making recommendations to the ATO Executive on strategic investments, providing strategic oversight of the use of ATO resources and facilitating the allocation and assignment of resources to ATO business outcomes;
• a Reinventing the ATO program office—established to support the delivery of the Reinventing the ATO Blueprint through developing tailored governance arrangements and providing assurance activities to support the strategic programs;
• a Value Management Office—established in 2016, with a central function to provide consultancy services and support to project and program teams for value management, including benefits planning, monitoring and realisation; and
• strategic program governance bodies—responsible for directing and managing implementation of the strategic programs.

Figure 1.1: Reinventing the ATO governance arrangements

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

1.10 The ATO advised that to effectively enable transformation, it was important to strike the right balance with governance, ensuring it was commensurate to the scale and scope of each element and not imposing unnecessary red tape for localised change. Evolving its approaches to strategic planning, investment management, project delivery and change management were also part of the overall cultural change being sought.

Internal audits in relation to the Reinventing the ATO program

1.11 The ATO has undertaken a number of internal audits in relation to the Reinventing the ATO program, as shown in Table 1.1. Notwithstanding sound design of the new benefits management framework⁶, the audits found scope to improve major elements of the program’s administration, including monitoring of projects’ performance and costs.

Table 1.1: ATO internal audits in relation to the Reinventing the ATO program

Note a: These findings were made based on a sample of four of the strategic programs.

Note b: Aspects of the Optimise Workforce Capability and Culture program were reviewed as part of this audit. Findings were not limited to the Optimise Workforce Capability and Culture program, and therefore, the high-level findings are not specific to the program.

Note c: Aspects of the Smarter Data program were reviewed as part of this audit. The high-level findings outlined in the table are only those relevant to the Smarter Data program.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

1.12 The ATO has outlined a number of positive results from the Reinventing the ATO program, which are discussed in Chapter 2.

Audit approach

1.13 The audit objective was to assess the effectiveness of the ATO’s processes for estimating and monitoring the costs, savings and benefits associated with the Reinventing the ATO program.

1.14 To form a conclusion against this objective, the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) adopted two high-level criteria:

• sound processes were in place for estimating the potential costs, savings and benefits associated with the Reinventing the ATO program; and
• actual costs, savings and benefits associated with the Reinventing the ATO program are measured and monitored.

1.15 The audit focused on the costs, savings and benefits of the 100 Reinventing the ATO projects that contributed to the Reinventing the ATO program, but also examined the benefits delivered by the program as a whole. The audit did not examine the:

• project governance or management arrangements applied to individual projects, the six strategic programs or the Reinventing the ATO program beyond costs, saving and benefits—for example, risk management, communication or governance arrangements;
• selection, prioritisation and delivery of individual projects; or
• locally managed change and continuous improvement initiatives, including those affecting behaviours and cultures in the ATO.

Audit methodology

1.16 The audit methodology included reviewing: relevant project and benefits management templates and guidelines; Reinventing the ATO project documentation and performance reporting; and contributions received through the ANAO’s website.⁷ The methodology also included interviewing key ATO staff.

1.17 The audit was conducted in accordance with the ANAO’s auditing standards at a cost to the ANAO of approximately $270 000.

1.18 The team members for this audit were Kylie Jackson, Renee Hall and Andrew Morris.

Introduction

2.1 As discussed in Chapter 1, Reinventing the ATO was a broad transformational program focused on improving the client and staff experience. Benefits expected from the program were articulated at a high-level. For example:

• implementation of the program was expected to better position the ATO to be more contemporary, innovate with technology and meet taxpayer expectations; and
• the ‘blueprint’ outlined expected experience shifts for key stakeholders as a result of implementing the Reinventing the ATO program.

The blueprint also stated that ‘ultimately, the true measure of success of our reinvention will be client satisfaction and participation in the tax and super systems’.⁸

2.2 Some elements of the Reinventing the ATO program were delivered through formally recognised programs of work and projects, with other elements of the program delivered through localised action in teams, branches and business lines.

2.3 The Reinventing the ATO program is supported by a suite of articulated outcomes that include both financial and non-financial benefits arising from Reinventing the ATO projects. While outcomes from these projects have been monitored, the success of the Reinventing the ATO program needs to consider other elements including the cultural and experience changes from less formal and continuous improvement initiatives. However, the ATO has not clearly captured the benefits from these other elements, as it intentionally has not managed or reported on the entire Reinventing the ATO program technically as a ‘program’. In this light, the ATO has not identified performance indicators to measure the benefits delivered by the program or established baselines to measure improvements in key benefit areas.

2.4 To assess the extent of benefits from the Reinventing the ATO program, the ANAO examined the benefits reported at the project level (through the Connected Benefits Management System and ATO benefits performance measures), and more broadly for the program by examining recent ATO annual reports and advice provided by the ATO.

High-level benefits from projects

Connected Benefits Management System

2.5 On 1 July 2016, the ATO introduced the Connected Benefits Management System with the revised corporate project management method. The Connected Benefits Management System links project and program outcomes to defined corporate benefits categories and ATO corporate impact areas. It is intended to measure enterprise-wide investment, not only the impact of the Reinventing the ATO program. Figure 2.1 illustrates the ATO’s benefits categories and their relationship to broader ATO impact areas.

Figure 2.1: Benefits categories in the Connected Benefits Management System

 

 

Source: ATO.

2.6 In 2015–16 the ATO had four corporate impact areas: integrity; willing participation; revenue; and productivity, as illustrated by the inner circle of Figure 2.1. The middle circle illustrates how the ATO intends to achieve its corporate impact areas and the outer circle defines the associated benefits categories.⁹

2.7 There are 21 benefits categories in the ATO’s Connected Benefits Management System that can be considered in the assessment of the impact of programs of work on ATO corporate priorities. The ATO has developed benefits measurement methods for 18 of the 21 categories, which leverage off existing tools and processes, such as surveys, where possible.¹⁰ As at August 2017, measurement methods had not been defined for the cost per transaction, total revenue effects and tax assured benefits categories.

2.8 The ATO is tracking and reporting on the contribution from individual projects by monitoring the project outcomes achieved towards these 21 benefits categories. Monitoring is undertaken at an enterprise-wide level, including Reinventing the ATO projects, and the exclusive contribution of the Reinventing the ATO program towards these benefits categories is not monitored by the ATO. Figure 2.2 outlines the main outcomes contributing to ATO benefits performance measures.

Figure 2.2: Outcomes contributing to ATO benefits performance measures, June 2017

 

 

Note: The corporate impact of ‘perception that ATO listens and responds to feedback’ is a measure from the ATO 2015–19 corporate plan and not included in the Connected Benefits Management System wheel (refer Figure 2.1). The wheel is aligned to measures from the 2016–20 corporate plan.

Source: ATO portfolio benefits reporting.

2.9 As illustrated in Figure 2.2, the benefits categories that have the largest number of contributing project outcomes are¹¹:

• perception of ease to access services and information (56 project outcomes);
• community satisfaction with ATO performance (44 project outcomes);
• level of employee engagement (39 project outcomes); and
• cost per transaction (26 project outcomes).

Benefits from the program more broadly

2.10 The ATO reports publicly on benefits categories in its performance statements as part of its corporate planning and annual reporting. Since 2013–14, the ATO has been increasing the number of measures reported in its annual reports—from 13 in 2013–14 to 15 in 2014–15 and 18 in 2015–16.

2.11 Table 2.1 outlines the ATO’s performance against the specific benefits categories, as reported by the ATO in its annual reports from 2013–14 to 2015–16. The ANAO assessed¹² that performance of seven benefits categories was positive¹³; four categories had negative performance results; and another four remained stable.¹⁴ As noted in paragraph 2.8, these results cannot be wholly attributed to the Reinventing the ATO program and the ATO advised that the program’s exclusive contribution towards these categories cannot be reliably measured.

Table 2.1: Performance of benefits categories

Note a: This result was considered by the ANAO as stable overall. Results for companies were not comparable to the prior year as a change in methodology occurred in 2015–16.

Note b: Overall result is stable. Percentage of activity statements lodged on time is declining and percentage of tax returns lodged on time is increasing.

Note c: Against this measure, the ATO only reports on the goods and services tax gap in its performance statement (which was negative as reflected in this table). However, in its annual report the ATO also includes reporting on the proportion of tax gap for the luxury car tax (declining), wine equalisation tax (not reported in 2015–16), Pay-As-You-Go withholding (not reported in 2015–16) and fuel tax credits (improving). The methodology for the measure on the tax gap as a percentage of revenue is changing and the ATO intends to report a new baseline in 2016–17.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

2.12 In addition to the improvements in the seven benefits categories outlined in Table 2.1, the ATO advised that there have been a number of positive changes in the ATO’s business results and performance stemming from, and as a direct outcome of, the Reinventing the ATO program. Examples of positive changes included improved employee engagement, changing lodgment behaviour by taxpayers and dispute resolution approaches. These positive changes occurred in the context of a decrease in the ATO’s workforce of approximately 3500 people due to a redundancy program undertaken in 2014–15.

Was there a sound basis for estimating the costs associated with Reinventing the ATO projects?

3.1 While the ATO is not applying a program management methodology to the Reinventing the ATO program as a whole, all projects within the scope of the Reinventing the ATO program are required to follow the corporate project management methodology. Most of the projects categorised as Reinventing the ATO projects were already in place prior to the initiation of the Reinventing the ATO program.¹⁵ In January 2015, the six strategic Reinventing the ATO programs were established, and existing projects were subsequently allocated to these programs. This process identified integration opportunities with some projects being stopped or amalgamated.

3.2 The ATO had an existing corporate project management approach in place to support the implementation of these projects and any new Reinventing the ATO projects. In July 2016, the ATO revised its project management framework to better support the new portfolio management practices that were introduced as part of the Reinventing the ATO program. The introduction of the framework was also designed to address issues from a project management certificate of assurance exercise undertaken in 2013 as well as an external assessment of the ATO’s project management maturity in 2015.¹⁶

3.3 The revised project management approach was expected to provide a greater focus on the value proposition of projects as well as tailor governance and project management methods to individual projects according to project complexity and risk. This is different from the previous project management approach where projects were classified as one of three tiers¹⁷ and then were expected to be managed in line with the ATO’s corporate project management approach relevant to that tier.

3.4 Both approaches included a suite of project management documentation as well as review points throughout projects’ lifecycles. Under the previous project management approach, governance gates were required for Tier 2 projects and were intended to be the points where project sponsors¹⁸ determined whether projects should be discontinued or continued with or without modification.¹⁹ The governance gates remained as progress decision points under the revised project management approach, however, rather than project sponsors being responsible for these decisions, governance bodies became responsible.²⁰ Figure 3.1 illustrates the purpose of the different governance gates under the revised project management approach, as well as the required project documentation.

Figure 3.1: Governance gates and required documentation under the ATO’s revised project management approach

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.5 To support project managers to complete the required project documentation, the ATO provided templates on its intranet. Further, to assist with estimating the costs associated with projects, the ATO also provided a project resource estimation tool on its intranet. The tool estimates the cost associated with project staff and captures expected supplier costs, such as contractors, software, legal, travel and accommodation. The Enterprise Portfolio Office²¹ was then responsible for having completed cost estimates assured by ATO Finance. Of the 100 Reinventing the ATO projects, 62 had a completed costing tool; of which 34 had been assured by ATO Finance.

3.6 The ATO’s project management frameworks identified the documentation that should have included estimated cost information, as illustrated in Table 3.1. Actual cost information requirements are outlined in Chapter 4.

Table 3.1: Requirement to outline costs in project management documentation

Note a: Under the revised project management approach, rather than a concept brief, a project proposal is required.

Note b: Under the revised project management approach, rather than a business case, a value case is required.

Note c: Both project management approaches require project plans. However, under the previous project management approach, Tier 2 projects were required to complete project plans while Tier 3 projects were required to complete project outlines.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.7 The ATO advised that there were more than 200 projects in place prior to the initiation of the Reinventing the ATO program, however the re-scoping and amalgamation of projects, as well as the program’s dynamic nature made the number of projects difficult to quantify. At the time of the audit the ATO provided 100 projects in the Reinventing the ATO program for review.²² Sixty-seven projects were initiated under the previous tier-based project management; six were initiated under the revised project management approach; 12 have applied another project management approach (for example, tailoring templates²³); and for 19 projects, the methodology applied is unclear.

3.8 Indicative costs were not routinely recorded in project pre-approval documentation as illustrated in Table 3.2. Twenty-five of the 100 Reinventing the ATO projects had final project plans that included estimated project costs.

Table 3.2: Completion of required documentation for Reinventing the ATO projects

Note a: Thirteen projects had draft or incomplete scoping documents. Three of these projects were initiated under the revised project management approach and were not required to include cost information. Thirteen of these projects had prepared a concept brief or project proposal, the remaining thirteen had another form of scoping document such as a design document, green paper, policy project briefing, scoping document or workshop.

Note b: Four of these were concept briefs; one was a project proposal; and one was a scoping document.

Note c: Three projects were cancelled or halted prior to reaching the value case preparation stage. These projects were: Improving the business experience, Sub accounting period application and Accounting program of work Phase 2. Therefore, these projects were not required to deliver a business/value case or project plan/outline.

Note d: Twenty-two of these projects had traffic light reporting in relation to budget position. Five had traffic light reporting for budget position for some months and no mention of budget position in other months. Two had traffic light reporting and reported the estimated project cost in less than half of its status reports. A further 12 projects had status reporting that did not reference budget position.

Note e: One of these projects reported its budget for more than half of its status reports but not for all.

Note f: Thirty-six of those projects were in progress at the time of the audit and therefore, did not require closure reports; and seven projects were halted but not cancelled at the time of the audit. Another project was advised by the project office that it did not require a closure report.

Note g: Ten of these 29 projects indicated that a budget was not reported as the project had been undertaken from business-as-usual resources or was now being undertaken as part of business-as-usual resources and three projects indicated that no budget had ever been prepared.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.9 Project costing guidance indicated that projects were to be approved based on their value proposition and/or alignment with ATO priorities. The guidance also indicated that project sponsors would review the project at least monthly to assess its ongoing viability. In particular, sponsors might consider the actual costs to date as well as the projected versus budgeted costs of the project. The absence of cost information in key project documentation did not support value for money assessments during the project scoping, approval or delivery phases. Expected cost estimates should be included in the pre-approval documentation for any future Reinventing the ATO projects.

3.10 The ATO is not managing the Reinventing the ATO program by applying a program management methodology and consequently, did not quantify the cost versus the benefit of the Reinventing the ATO program at an aggregate level. While costs and benefits were expected to have been quantified at a project level, costs were not consistently captured and there is no total Reinventing the ATO program cost estimate.

Was there a sound basis for estimating the savings associated with Reinventing the ATO projects?

3.11 The ATO advised that it does not have a savings methodology, however, in early 2017 it implemented a verification process where ATO Finance confirm the value of expected savings indicated in project pre-approval documentation (refer paragraph 4.16).

3.12 Savings estimates associated with individual Reinventing the ATO projects should have been outlined in business cases and project management plans. Savings were to be identified as potential benefits in the business case and project plan templates for Tier 2 projects but not in the project plan template for Tier 3 projects. A financial benefits table was included in the revised business case template but there was no mention of savings in the revised project plan template. Instead, the template indicated that the project benefits management plan should be attached.

3.13 As illustrated in Table 3.3, a small number of Reinventing the ATO projects had identified and estimated savings associated with their projects (16 in total).²⁴ Twelve projects had estimated all expected savings components in either a business case or project plan and six of those had included the calculations to support the savings estimates. The ANAO assessed the six projects that had included calculations and found that three of those estimates appeared to be of a sound basis.²⁵ The ANAO could not assess the remaining three as the supporting calculations were of insufficient detail for two projects and the third was based on an external provider’s estimate.

Table 3.3: Number of projects that identified and estimated savings

Note a: Two of these projects did not identify any benefits.

Note b: Six of these projects did not identify any benefits.

Note c: The projects identified in each category are not mutually exclusive and 16 projects in total identified savings in either a value/business case and/or project plan/outline.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.14 Table 3.4 outlines the total estimated monetary savings outlined by Reinventing the ATO projects. As some projects included options, there are ranges for the estimated savings.

Table 3.4: Estimated monetary savings associated with Reinventing the ATO projects

Note: These figures are based on the estimated savings included in the project planning documentation of 16 Reinventing the ATO projects. The savings estimates do not relate to a specific time period. Eight projects estimated savings over a number of years rather than on a per annum basis; a five-year period was included to accommodate those projects as five years was the longest estimated period. Annual estimates have been recalculated accordingly. Ranges are reflected as two projects included a range of estimated savings. For projects that did not include a range, the total value of savings is included in both the ‘low’ and ‘high’ estimate.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.15 Including savings estimates in value cases and project plans informs value for money assessments. As outlined in paragraph 3.3, the revised project management approach is expected to deliver a greater emphasis on the value proposition of proposed projects. To support informed decision-making of this nature, the ATO needs to improve the consistency with which project cost and savings information is outlined in key project documentation.

3.16 There is no total savings estimate for the Reinventing the ATO program. While the ATO identified productivity offsets associated with the Reinventing the ATO program to support the remuneration increases in its proposed 2015 Enterprise Agreement²⁶, it advised the ANAO that these offsets were ‘intangible’ savings that were expected to be delivered from indirect benefits associated with the program. Examples of these benefits included: addressing ‘irritants’ associated with the ATO’s case management system; simplifying internal interactions as well as those with taxpayers; and engaging with taxpayers through different communication modes, such as social media.

Was there a sound basis for estimating the benefits expected from Reinventing the ATO projects?

3.17 Successive ATO project management frameworks have required that benefits and outcomes be identified and measured for projects. According to these frameworks, outcomes are a change in state; they are the results or impacts that follow from the change the project is making. Outcomes are expected to lead to benefits. Benefits are measurable changes that contribute to the ATO’s corporate objectives, for example increased taxation revenue or increased stakeholder confidence.

Outcomes

3.18 Under the previous project management approach, Tier 2 and 3 projects were required to identify outcomes in the following project management documents: outcomes map; project plan/outline; and benefits management plan.²⁷ Tier 2 projects were also required to outline outcomes in the business case.²⁸ The ATO’s project management guidance indicated that outcomes were to be described in terms of the difference between the current and future state, and the problem that would be addressed. Outcomes were to be categorised according to the group to benefit—community (individuals, small business and tax agents), Government and the ATO.

3.19 The ATO recognised shortcomings in relation to managing outcomes under the previous project management approach, including that project outcome success measures needed improving, and outcomes owners were not always identified. As previously mentioned, a revised project management approach was introduced in July 2016. The revised approach aimed to improve conformance with project management requirements, improve accountability for outcomes and enhance the ATO’s ability to monitor and realise corporate benefits.

3.20 The revised project management guidance indicates that outcomes should be defined for all projects in a value case.²⁹ The value case template focuses projects on linking key project outcomes to corporate priorities and defined corporate benefits categories. In addition to the value case, the revised project management approach requires an outcomes map and benefits management plan or entry in the corporate benefits register.³⁰ The ATO’s guidance states that the level of benefits management planning will vary depending on a project’s assessed level of risk, complexity, change and business impact.³¹

3.21 Around one-third of the Reinventing the ATO projects had documented intended outcomes in a business or value case, while nearly half had included outcomes in a project plan or outline as illustrated in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5: Number of Reinventing the ATO projects with intended outcomes in planning documentation

Note a: The ANAO was unable to reliably determine from project management documentation those Tier 2 and 3 projects that were subject to the Department of Finance Gateway review process or an ATO IT review process, or were discretionary projects where the IT component was estimated at greater than $500 000.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO project documentation.

3.22 Seven projects in the Reinventing the ATO program had all of the required documents for the initial stages of the project. Of those seven projects, five had recorded intended project outcomes in all the required documents.

3.23 Conformance with the ATO’s project management requirements to identify and document expected outcomes and benefits has been low among Reinventing the ATO projects. Defined project outcomes and benefits support informed decision-making as to the value proposition of projects as well as assist projects to remain on track during implementation. Future Reinventing the ATO projects should outline expected outcomes and benefits in pre-approval project documentation.

Outcomes mapping

3.24 The ATO’s outcomes mapping process was strengthened with the introduction of the Connected Benefits Management System and revised project management approach in 2016, with the requirement that outcomes are directly linked to defined corporate benefits categories. This enhancement is expected to better support a project’s value proposition. Project outcomes maps are intended to show the relationship between project outcomes and benefits. Currently the ATO prescribes three types of outcomes:

• capability outcome: when the business can do something that it could not previously do;
• change outcome: when the business exhibits a new behaviour or way of doing something; and
• strategic outcome: a benefit that will arise from doing a program of work.

3.25 The Value Management Office facilitated outcomes mapping for the six strategic programs and the Reinventing the ATO program from 2014 to 2016. The strategic programs mapping process assisted the Value Management Office to identify projects that would also benefit from undertaking the mapping process. Project outcomes would contribute to the Reinventing the ATO program outcomes through the six strategic programs as illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Expected alignment between project outcomes and ATO corporate priorities

 

 

Source: ANAO.

3.26 Thirty-three projects had completed outcomes maps. The ANAO analysed the alignment between the outcomes maps of these 33 projects, the six strategic programs and the Reinventing the ATO program. The ANAO also examined the extent to which outcomes maps linked to the ATO corporate impact areas. As illustrated in Table 3.6, there was a high-level of conformance in identifying programs’ outcomes and corporate priorities on the six strategic programs’ and the Reinventing the ATO program outcomes maps. However, individual Reinventing the ATO projects’ outcomes were not discernible on the six strategic programs’ or the Reinventing the ATO outcomes maps. Further, there was a lower level of conformance among the 33 projects with identifying relevant links on their respective outcomes maps as demonstrated by:

• five projects (15.2 per cent) identified their relevant strategic program outcomes;
• 24 projects (72.7 per cent) identified relevant Reinventing the ATO outcomes; and
• 23 projects (69.7 per cent) identified ATO corporate priorities.

Two of the 33 projects did not identify their own project outcomes on projects maps.

Table 3.6: Project outcomes mapping information

Note a: From a total of 33 projects.

Note b: Refer to the inner circle of Figure 2.1 for the ATO corporate impact areas.

Note c: Ten of these projects had outcomes that clearly aligned from their outcomes map to their business case.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.27 Greater transparency of the expected contribution by existing and planned projects to program outcomes would enable the ATO to better prioritise projects that would deliver the greatest value as well as assist it to identify where there are gaps in efforts to achieve intended program outcomes.

Benefits

3.28 Identifying and recording expected project benefits in key project documentation has been required under successive project management frameworks, as illustrated in Table 3.7. Guidance for Tier 2 projects under the previous project management framework included that information on benefits in addition to costs and options assists to present value for money propositions and confirm the viability of projects.

Table 3.7: Requirements to outline benefits in project management documentation

Note a: For simple projects, rather than developing a benefits management plan, benefits are listed in the project log.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.29 The ATO’s Tier 2 project management guidance encouraged the consideration of benefits according to the categories of:

• financial: benefits that can be measured in monetary terms, for example, an increase in taxation revenue;
• non-financial: qualitative benefits such as improved access to systems or greater confidence in the taxation system; and
• savings: quantifiable reductions in the ATO’s running costs.

3.30 Under the revised project management framework, project outcomes are linked directly to existing corporate indicators and benefits categories.³² Further, internal financial benefits are identified as harvestable benefits, reinvested benefits or notional savings.

3.31 As illustrated in Table 3.8, around one-third of the Reinventing the ATO projects had expected benefits outlined in value cases and half of the projects had benefits outlined in project plans. In total, 56 of the 100 projects included expected benefits in at least one pre-approval document.

Table 3.8: Conformance with documenting benefits in project management pre-approval documentation

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

3.32 To determine whether benefits have been achieved, benefit measurement methods need to be identified and applied. For the Reinventing the ATO program, of those projects that identified benefits:

• 15 projects identified measurement methods in value cases for some or all of the identified benefits and 20 did not; and
• 20 projects identified measurement methods for some or all of the identified benefits in project plans and 31 did not.³³

3.33 Benefits and their measurement methods have not been commonly identified and recorded. Consequently, projects’ value proposition and viability may not have been discernible from project management documentation.

3.34 A high level of conformance with the revised project management framework is required to enable the ATO to initiate projects with strong value propositions that contribute to its organisational priorities.

3.35 The ANAO reviewed the documentation for all six projects that were initiated after the introduction of the Connected Benefits Management System and revised project management framework.

3.36 Table 3.9 illustrates that half the projects that were initiated under the revised project management framework have been cancelled, with two of the projects cancelled prior to the development of a value case. For the three projects that remained in flight as at August 2017, two had developed value cases but not an outcomes map. The remaining project had been exempted from developing a value case and outcomes map, and was approved to proceed to developing a project plan.

Table 3.9: Projects in the Reinventing the ATO program initiated under the revised project management framework

Note a: These projects were cancelled as they did not align to organisational priorities.

Note b: These projects identified their key outcomes as Reinventing the ATO program outcomes in their value cases.

Note c: Project contributions to the Reinventing the ATO program were in a briefing update and not the standard project documentation.

Note d: Analysis undertaken by the ATO indicated a lack of benefit from the project and it was consequently cancelled.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

Is the ATO measuring and monitoring the costs of implementing the Reinventing the ATO projects?

4.1 Project managers are required to track actual project costs using ‘mandated’ status reports.³⁴ The ATO’s costing guidance states that regularly tracking actual costs along with the progress of project deliverables assists with keeping the project on track and maintaining actual expenditure within budget. There is no single process or system for tracking costs for all projects, rather the ATO has a differentiated approach. Project managers and sponsors are responsible for selecting a cost tracking method based on the complexity and scale of their project.

4.2 ATO project management guidance outlines the options available to project managers to track costs, which include:

• Establishing a project cost centre. This approach is promoted where it is considered necessary to capture labour and supply costs associated with the project. Benefits of this approach include being able to access cost information through the ATO’s financial reporting systems. However, as there are high administrative costs associated with establishing and monitoring a cost centre, some business lines have conditions around the establishment of cost centres, including that they cannot be established where estimated project costs are less than $2 million per annum.
• Tracking effort through the ATO Unit Costs Analysis system. This approach only captures ATO staff costs—it does not capture supplier costs. The costing guidance indicates that this approach to tracking costs is suitable for low risk, small to medium sized projects with minimal supplier costs.
• Recording costs in the Enterprise Project Management system. Projects undertaken by the ATO’s Enterprise Solution and Technology business line use this alternative cost recording system.
• Manually recording actual cost information. The ATO’s costing tool can also be used to capture actual cost information. Applying this approach, project managers manually record staff effort and supplier costs in the costing tool. While this approach enables all project costs to be captured and can provide financial reporting that illustrates actual cost compared with budgeted cost, it is resource-intensive.

4.3 The ATO’s costing guidance indicates that the cost tracking approach to be adopted for the project should be documented in ‘relevant project documentation’, such as project plans and business cases.³⁵ As illustrated in Table 4.1, cost tracking methods were not frequently identified in pre-approval documentation for Reinventing the ATO projects.

Table 4.1: Number of Reinventing the ATO projects where the cost tracking method was identified in project pre-approval documentation

Note a: The projects identified in each category are not mutually exclusive and 25 projects identified a cost tracking method in either a value/business case and/or project plan/outline.

Note b: These figures add to 104 as six projects that were initially scoped were later merged into two projects.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.4 In total, 25 of the 100 Reinventing the ATO projects identified the cost tracking method in project pre-approval documentation. Where the tracking method was identified in project plans, conformance with the ATO’s guidance (paragraph 4.2) varied, as illustrated in Table 4.2. Of the 17 projects that identified a cost tracking method in a project plan, manual tracking was the most common method identified.

Table 4.2: Cost tracking methods identified in project plans

Note a: Two projects identified tracking methods for IT-related costs only.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.5 Actual project costs are required to be included in monthly status reports and closure reports, as illustrated in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Requirements to include actual cost information in project documentation

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.6 As illustrated in Table 4.4, eight projects reported actual project costs in their status reports. Of the 43 projects that did prepare status reporting but did not report the actual cost of the project: 24 applied traffic light reporting to represent their budget position; two included traffic light reporting and reported the actual project cost in less than half of their status reports; five included either traffic light reporting on budget position or no budget reporting; and 12 did not include any budget information in status reports. As also illustrated in Table 4.4, 43 of the 56 Reinventing the ATO projects that should have had closure reports either did not prepare them or if a report was prepared, it did not include the actual cost of the project.³⁶

Table 4.4: Number of Reinventing the ATO projects where cost information was included in status or closure reports

Note a: Two of these projects did include the actual project cost but in less than half of their project status reports.

Note b: Six of these projects indicated that no cost was recorded as the project had been undertaken from business-as-usual resources or was now being undertaken as part of business-as-usual resources. One other project indicated that the actual cost of the project had not been captured.

Note c: Two of these projects did not report the actual projects costs in all status reports but reported it in more than half of their reports.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.7 The inconsistency with which project status reports are being prepared, including both the frequency and content of the reporting, does not enable the ATO to effectively measure or monitor the costs associated with the Reinventing the ATO program.³⁷ This finding is supported by an ATO internal audit of the Reinventing the ATO program (October 2016) that found the costs of the Reinventing the ATO initiatives were unclear as was the identity of those responsible for monitoring costs. The ATO further advised that costs are not being tracked at the Reinventing the ATO program level.

4.8 A review of project management documentation³⁸ found that cost estimates were available for 67 projects totalling $300.6 million for the period from 2013–14 to 2018–19. A review of project overviews and closure reports found that 17 of the 67 projects had actual costs recorded totalling $85.0 million.³⁹ Total actual costs were $9.2 million less than the estimated costs for those 17 projects.⁴⁰ The total estimated cost for those projects with no actual reported cost is $206.4 million (50 projects).

4.9 The ATO’s costing guidance indicates that regularly tracking actual project costs can help project managers to keep their projects on track, and variances between project budgets and actual costs can be useful indicators of project progress. The guidance further states that accurately recording actual cost can assist other project managers to better estimate costs for future projects. In addition to the benefits mentioned in the ATO costing guidance, this information can inform decision-making in relation to cessation or continuation of a project.

Is the ATO measuring and monitoring the savings associated with implementing the Reinventing the ATO projects?

4.13 The ATO advised that savings are not being tracked at the Reinventing the ATO program level.⁴¹ Further, there is no guidance to instruct project managers to track or record savings in project management documentation under the old project management approach. The closure report template for the revised project management approach includes a section to report benefits but does not specifically indicate that savings or financial benefits should be reported. Consequently, of the 41 projects with closure reports and the 51 projects with status reports, none reported savings.

4.14 To improve the categorisation and monitoring of project outcomes and benefits, including savings and other financial benefits, the ATO introduced the Connected Benefits Management System in July 2016. Financial benefits were categorised under the system as external or internal and financial or non-financial. Internal financial benefits are further categorised as:

• harvestable financial benefits that are tangible savings, such as funding or staff who can otherwise be redeployed; and
• non-harvestable financial benefits that are intangible productivity savings.

4.15 In April 2017, the ATO commenced formally reporting on internal financial benefits to its Resource Forum.⁴² In this report, the ATO revised its definition for harvestable benefits to ‘producing a direct budget saving’ and revised the financial benefit categories to:

• notional saving—small productivity savings or cost avoidance measures that cannot be reinvested; and
• reinvested benefit—larger productivity benefits that can be reinvested (such as a full-time equivalent position).

4.16 As indicated in Table 4.5, no projects identified harvestable savings. The projects outlined in Table 4.5 were at different stages in the project lifecycle with some being planned, others in the delivery phase and some that have been closed. For those projects being planned, the estimated financial benefits are being assured by ATO Finance.

Table 4.5: Estimated and verified financial benefits associated with Reinventing the ATO projects in Resource Forum reports, April to June 2017

Note a: Projects not part of Reinventing the ATO were included in the reports but excluded from the ANAO’s analysis. The Reinventing the ATO projects included in the table include those projects that are currently being planned as well as closed projects.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.17 ATO Finance is also responsible for verifying realised financial benefits. However, the Resource Forum reports acknowledged that ATO Finance is unable to verify whether financial benefits have been achieved for two of the five closed Reinventing the ATO projects reported, as baselines had not been established to enable benefits to be measured.⁴³ Further, of the remaining three projects that were reported:

• one had verified notional savings of $45 000. While the project had identified monetary savings in project documentation, it had not estimated the value of potential savings;
• one had estimated notional savings of $5.5 million that are yet to be verified by ATO Finance. This project had also identified but not estimated monetary savings in its project planning documentation; and
• one did not realise any financial benefits and had identified but not estimated savings in its value case.

4.18 The reporting methodology for unverified financial benefits has improved during the three-month reporting period. For example, an unverified estimate of notional savings was included in the April 2017 report, but was removed from the May 2017 report on the basis that it could not be confirmed.

4.19 While the ATO has not been measuring or monitoring the monetary savings associated with the Reinventing the ATO program or its projects, its new internal financial benefit reporting process should assist it to capture some of the financial benefits associated with the program going forward. Further, the ATO’s approach to verifying estimated and realised financial benefits has the potential to provide greater rigour in the reporting process and enable the ATO to reinvest realised benefits in a practical way such as returning savings to the consolidated revenue fund.

Does the ATO measure and monitor the actual benefits associated with the Reinventing the ATO projects?

Reporting on project outcomes

4.20 The ATO’s project management guidance, under the previous and revised approaches, requires that a closure report is completed to record the formal termination of a project. It is expected that the closure report aligns with planning documentation, as illustrated in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Requirement for reporting on outcomes

Source: ATO project management guidance.

4.21 Under the previous project management approach, the closure report included a series of questions for the project sponsor to answer including whether the agreed project outcomes and intent had been achieved. An explanation was required if the project had not achieved its expected outcomes and intent. Under the revised approach, the closure report template focuses on summarising any benefits realised at the time of project closure in relation to the project outcomes. The achievement of project outcomes under the revised approach is captured in the post implementation review, when most expected benefits have been realised and the intention is to summarise the overall performance of the project.

4.22 Of the 57 projects closed, cancelled or transferred to business-as-usual in the Reinventing the ATO program, there were 41 projects with closure reports. Twenty-five of those projects had recorded intended outcomes in the appropriate planning documentation and 75 of 132 project outcomes (57 per cent) had been reported as achieved in closure reports, as illustrated in Table 4.7. The other 16 projects with closure reports in the Reinventing the ATO program had not clearly recorded the intended outcomes in planning documentation and for 11 of those projects it could not be determined if project outcomes were achieved from the closure reports.

Table 4.7: Outcomes reported as achieved at project closure

Note a: The number of projects with outcomes reported as achieved, not achieved or where the result is unknown, do not total to 25 as these categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, one project may have reported a number of outcomes as achieved and others as not achieved.

Note b: Intended outcomes were recorded in the business/value case, project plan/outline, outcomes map or benefits management plan.

Note c: Four outcomes were partly achieved.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.23 Twenty-one projects had started under the previous project management approach and closed using the revised closure report template. The transition of project management methodology during the course of a project introduced difficulties in determining whether intended outcomes were achieved, such as:

• discrepancies between the description of outcomes in planning and closing documentation; and
• the revised closure report focused on the realisation of benefits.

Post implementation review

4.24 Post implementation reviews are undertaken after a project has closed to evaluate whether outcomes have been achieved and determine if benefits have been realised.⁴⁴ The previous ATO project management guidance required projects to indicate in the closure report if a post implementation review was to be undertaken.⁴⁵

4.25 Under the revised approach, the closure report does not indicate if a post implementation review is required. However, it includes a section for post project value realisation information that should be reflected from the benefits management plan.⁴⁶ The achievement of outcomes is recorded in the revised post implementation review template and the relevant governance body determines if a project should conduct a post implementation review according to project complexity and budget. Post implementation review templates under both approaches required information for reporting on intended outcomes and benefits.

4.26 As indicated in paragraph 4.22, there were 41 projects with closure reports in the Reinventing the ATO program. Of the 21 projects that had closed under the revised approach, none had completed a post implementation review. The remaining 20 projects had closed under the previous project management approach, with seven projects indicating in their closure reports that a post implementation review was to be conducted, as illustrated in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Projects requiring post implementation review

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.27 Two of the completed post implementation review reports identified in Table 4.8 had applied the project management template and had clearly assessed the outcomes described in the business case and reported on benefits realised. For the two projects, 19 of 26 intended project outcomes had been achieved resulting in the realisation of financial and non-financial benefits. The remaining three post implementation review reports did not report against business case success measures, and as a result the achievement of outcomes and benefits was less clear.

Portfolio benefits reporting

4.28 The Value Management Office prepared portfolio benefits status reports for the Integration Forum⁴⁷ and the Executive. Since reporting began in May 2016, 11 reports were produced to June 2017. The portfolio benefits reports included analysis of projects from all change programs of work in the ATO.

4.29 Initially the portfolio benefits reports captured the status of project documentation required by the relevant project management approach and some reporting on benefits. The format and content of reporting however changed over time as the Connected Benefits Management System was introduced and reporting progressed. For example, six of the 11 reports included reporting on the status of individual projects in a variety of ways, such as:

• two reports identified priority projects, although how they were prioritised was not clear;
• three reports identified high engagement projects with the Value Management Office; and
• one report included individual projects that had been ordered to halt, or stop and close.

4.30 A traffic light system was used for the high engagement projects to indicate the level of confidence that the Value Management Office maintained that projects were on track. The Value Management Office maintained a high level of confidence regarding progress for most of the Reinventing the ATO projects that had high engagement. The Value Management Office did not report a low level of confidence regarding the progress of any Reinventing the ATO projects.

Did the ATO identify and address projects not delivering anticipated benefits?

4.31 Since the commencement of the Reinventing the ATO program, 11 projects have been cancelled, as a result of the ATO’s review of Reinventing the ATO projects. Table 4.9 outlines the reasons for cancelling these programs.

Table 4.9: Reasons for cancelled Reinventing the ATO projects

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.32 These projects were identified for cancellation through a number of different exercises, including queries from program governance bodies regarding the absence of status reporting from specific projects.⁴⁸ A second exercise was undertaken following the unscheduled system outages experienced by the ATO in December 2016 and January 2017. As a result of these outages, the ATO cancelled a number of projects that did not relate to the four identified priority initiatives for the remainder of 2016–17.⁴⁹

4.33 Status reporting is one of two regular, structured processes for the ATO to monitor whether projects are achieving their intended benefits and identify where corrective action may be needed; the second process is governance gate reviews.

Status reporting

4.34 Status reporting is required for the Reinventing the ATO program and projects, as illustrated in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Reinventing the ATO status reporting requirements

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.35 As outlined in Table 4.4, project status reporting has been sporadic. The preparation of strategic program status reporting has varied among programs, with programs preparing between 16 and 24 status reports each, as illustrated in Figure 4.2. Program status reporting did not always align with program governance body meetings and there was variance among program governance bodies in relation to the frequency of meetings as also illustrated in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Frequency of program governance body meetings

 

 

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.36 Program status reporting includes traffic light reporting to demonstrate individual projects’ overall status positions. Some program status reports also use traffic light reporting to illustrate other aspects of project health including budget, scope, readiness and schedule. Challenges associated with identifying and addressing projects at risk of not delivering their expected benefits include adequate monitoring of project status, and the capacity of program governance bodies to take action to address identified issues.

Monitoring of project status

4.37 The ANAO reviewed the monitoring of Reinventing the ATO project status through traffic light reporting. As illustrated in Table 4.10, 20 of these projects reported an overall status of red or amber for more than half of their status reports.⁵⁰

Table 4.10: Projects monitored by program governance bodies and status

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.38 The Contemporary Digital Services program had the largest number of projects with an overall status of red or amber (8 of 37 projects).⁵¹ As illustrated in Figure 4.3, a significant proportion of these projects were often discussed at program governance body meetings, together with projects that had reported an overall status of green.

Figure 4.3: Discussion of Reinventing the ATO projects with ongoing issues by the Contemporary Digital Services program

 

 

Note: No meetings were held in September, November or December 2015, January 2016 or January 2017.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.39 In 18 instances, these projects were subject to follow-up action (Table 4.11). Requesting additional information was the most frequent action, such as in relation to the total expected cost of the project, the original project budget and the amount spent to date (refer Chapter 3). In only one instance was a remediation opportunity identified for action.

Table 4.11: Nature of action taken in relation to projects with ongoing issues

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.40 Due to the variability of issues affecting these eight projects⁵² (refer paragraph 4.38), even with greater scrutiny, the extent that the program governance bodies can take corrective action is limited:

• two projects are subject to intergovernmental dependencies; one of these projects has been put on-hold until a whole-of-government solution can be implemented;
• two projects are subject to delays while the ATO allocates resources to other organisational priorities; and
• three projects have been impacted by inadequate project planning; one of these projects has been put on-hold while project outcomes are defined.

Provision of adequate information to program governance bodies

4.41 The ANAO also reviewed the Governance, Design and Evaluation program in further detail, as that program had a high number of instances where reporting was not provided in relation to particular projects.⁵³

4.42 The Governance, Design and Evaluation program has nine projects as illustrated in Table 4.10. For one of the projects, no program-level status reporting was completed.⁵⁴ While projects were identified in status reports, an update on their progress was often not included and instead the reports would indicate that the projects could not be assessed, as illustrated in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Proportion of Governance, Design and Evaluation projects that could not be assessed for reporting purposes

 

 

Note: No meetings were held in November 2015 or January, June, August, September and October 2016, or January 2017.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

4.43 In February 2017, six of these projects were closed, one was cancelled and the overall status was not reported for the remaining two projects.

4.44 The absence of reported project information does not support timely corrective action to be identified and implemented when required.

Governance gate

4.45 As discussed in Chapter 3, the previous and revised project management frameworks include governance gates that are intended to serve as decision points for project progression. Under the previous framework, project sponsors were responsible for these decisions, however responsibility shifted to program governance bodies under the revised program management framework.

4.46 Projects should be assessed at the different governance gates to determine whether projects should be continued, modified or discontinued. Both project management frameworks include governance gate templates to assist with this determination.

4.47 There was limited conformance with undertaking these governance gate reviews among the Reinventing the ATO projects:

• governance gate 1 templates were completed for five projects; of which, three had decisions to proceed recorded and two did not have any decision recorded;
• governance gate 2 templates were completed for eight projects; of which, seven had decisions to proceed recorded and one did not have any decision recorded;
• governance gate 3 templates were not completed for any projects; and
• governance gate 4 templates were completed for one project, which did not record any decision.

4.48 As at June 2017, 18 projects should have the full suite of governance gate documentation as they were either Tier 2 or initiated under the revised project management framework and have closed. Another 36 projects that were Tier 2 or initiated under the revised project management approach were in flight, cancelled, halted or transferred to business-as-usual, and should have passed at least governance gate 1 and possibly governance gates 1 and 2. Fifteen projects were Tier 3 projects and not required to complete the governance gate process.⁵⁵

4.49 The level of non-conformance with undertaking these governance gate reviews indicates that the ATO was not routinely applying this framework to assess the ongoing viability and relevance of Reinventing the ATO projects.

Appendix 1 Entity response

 

 

Appendix 2 List of Reinventing the ATO projects

Table A.1: In flight Reinventing the ATO projects

In flight projects are those underway.

Note a: The acronyms are: GDE—Governance Design and Evaluation; WTPSS—Working with all our partners in Tax and Super Systems; OWCC—Optimised Workforce Capability and Culture; CDS—Contemporary Digital Services; TES—Tailored Engagement and Support; and SD—Smarter Data.

Note b: ‘Not applicable’ represents those projects that did not have documentation or were not required to prepare documentation.

Note c: The ATO advised that while these projects align with the Reinventing the ATO program, they are new policy proposals or broader whole of government initiatives.

Note d: The ATO advised that as a result of a change request the expected cost for this project increased from $10.7 million to $19.6 million. The additional expected cost approved through the change request was not included in the ANAO’s analysis outlined in paragraph 4.8.

Note e: This figure represents the expected cost of the IT component of the project only.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

Table A.2: Transfer to business-as-usual Reinventing the ATO projects

Projects that were transferred to business-as-usual included those: where implementation of deliverables was transferred to business lines rather than being undertaken through projects; where subsequent project phases were transferred to business-as-usual; and that were not prioritised under the Reinventing the ATO program.

Note a: The acronyms are: GDE—Governance, Design and Evaluation; WTPSS—Working with all our partners in Tax and Super Systems; OWCC—Optimised Workforce Capability and Culture; CDS—Contemporary Digital Services; TES—Tailored Engagement and Support; and SD—Smarter Data.

Note b: ‘Not applicable’ represents those projects that did not have documentation or were not required to prepare documentation.

Note c: Documentation provided to the ANAO during the course of the audit indicated that these projects were being carried out as business-as-usual. Subsequent to the completion of the ANAO’s analysis, the ATO advised the ANAO that the status of these projects was in flight.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

Table A.3: Halted Reinventing the ATO projects

Projects can be halted for a range of reasons, including intergovernmental dependencies, organisational capacity (such as unavailability of relevant resources) and inadequate project planning.

In December 2016 and February 2017 the ATO experienced severe systems outages. These system outages and subsequent remediation work had impacts on the projects under the Reinventing the ATO program—some projects were put on hold as the ATO undertook a review to understand the impacts. As a result of the review, some projects were cancelled, closed or further halted.

Note a: The acronyms are: GDE—Governance, Design and Evaluation; WTPSS—Working with all our partners in Tax and Super Systems; OWCC—Optimised Workforce Capability and Culture; CDS—Contemporary Digital Services; TES—Tailored Engagement and Support; and SD—Smarter Data.

Note b: ‘Not applicable’ represents those projects that did not have documentation or were not required to prepare documentation.

Note c: The ATO advised that while these projects align with the Reinventing the ATO program, they are new policy proposals or broader whole of government initiatives.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

Table A.4: Closed Reinventing the ATO projects

According to the ATO’s project management approach, projects should be closed when the intended products and services to be delivered through the project have been finalised and/or accepted by the relevant business line (although there were some exceptions as shown in Table 4.7).

Note a: The acronyms are: GDE—Governance, Design and Evaluation; WTPSS—Working with all our partners in Tax and Super Systems; OWCC—Optimised Workforce Capability and Culture; CDS—Contemporary Digital Services; TES—Tailored Engagement and Support; and SD—Smarter Data.

Note b: ‘Not applicable’ represents those projects that did not have documentation or were not required to prepare documentation.

Note c: As noted in Footnote 39, reported costs for some projects did not include all cost components. The cost for this project reflects consultancy costs only and therefore, does not represent the total project cost.

Note d: These figures were reported in the IT component closure report of this project and do not represent the total project expected and actual costs. This report was not included for the purpose of the ANAO’s analysis of closures as a separate project closure report was completed for the project. The whole of project closure report did not report an estimated cost or actual cost.

Note e: The ATO advised that while this project aligns with the Reinventing the ATO program, it is either a new policy proposal or broader whole of government initiative.

Note f: The closure report for this project indicated that project costs were not effectively tracked over the life of the project and as a result, the approved budget has been reported as the actual cost of the project.

Note g: The approved budget has been reported as the actual cost of the project.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.

Table A.5: Cancelled Reinventing the ATO projects

Projects can be cancelled for a range of reasons, including: being no longer necessary, relevant or aligned with organisational priorities; lack of progress; duplication of work with another project; and, no longer requiring project-based work.

Note a: The acronyms are: GDE—Governance, Design and Evaluation; WTPSS—Working with all our partners in Tax and Super Systems; OWCC—Optimised Workforce Capability and Culture; CDS—Contemporary Digital Services; TES—Tailored Engagement and Support; and SD—Smarter Data.

Note b: ‘Not applicable’ represents those projects that did not have documentation or were not required to prepare documentation.

Note c: Documentation provided to the ANAO during the course of the audit indicated that this project was cancelled. Subsequent to the completion of the ANAO’s analysis, the ATO advised that this project was supported to remain in flight.

Note d: The ATO advised that while this project aligns with the Reinventing the ATO program, it is either a new policy proposal or broader whole of government initiative.

Source: ANAO analysis of ATO information.