The Challenge
A Gibraltar government ministry had committed £12M to a 3-year digital transformation programme. After 18 months:
- £7M spent, nothing delivered
- Programme 18 months behind schedule
- Vendor relationship deteriorating
- Leadership confidence collapsing
- Political pressure mounting
- National Audit Office asking questions
The internal programme team was exhausted, the vendor was defensive, and leadership was considering cancelling the programme entirely.
The question: Can this be saved, or should we stop?
Our Approach
Leadership asked for an independent health check with one requirement: brutal honesty.
Phase 1: Independent Health Check (Weeks 1-4)
Activities:
- Reviewed 18 months of programme documentation
- Interviewed 23 stakeholders (leadership, programme team, vendor, users)
- Analyzed spend vs delivery
- Assessed vendor contract and performance
- Evaluated benefits achievability
- Identified root causes
Honest findings:
❌ Programme couldn't succeed as scoped
- Original scope was 60% larger than budget could support
- Vendor had oversold capabilities
- Internal team lacked experience for programme complexity
- Governance was ineffective (monthly meetings, no decisions)
- Benefits case included benefits that were unachievable
- No clear accountability for delivery
✅ Programme could be saved if...
- Scope reduced to achievable ambition (40% reduction)
- Vendor relationship commercially reset
- Governance strengthened significantly
- Internal capability supplemented (PMO support)
- Benefits case made realistic
Critical recommendation: Stop 3 of 7 workstreams. Save £4M. Focus on what's actually achievable.
Phase 2: Recovery Planning (Weeks 5-8)
We worked with leadership to develop recovery plan:
Commercial reset:
- Renegotiated vendor contract (removed undeliverable scope)
- Established clear performance metrics
- Introduced milestone-based payments
- Created exit clauses if performance didn't improve
Governance reset:
- Weekly senior leadership reviews (not monthly)
- Clear decision-making authority and escalation
- Red/Amber/Green reporting with honest status
- Vendor accountability framework
Scope reset:
- Stopped 3 workstreams saving £4M
- Focused on core platform delivery
- Realistic timeline (18 months, not 6)
- Benefits case recalculated (70% of original, but achievable)
Capability reset:
- Embedded Lumina PMO support (6 months)
- Trained internal team
- Strengthened risk management
- Improved planning discipline
Phase 3: Recovery Delivery (Months 3-9)
First 90 days (critical):
- Delivered first working release (proof programme could succeed)
- Established vendor cadence and accountability
- Rebuilt stakeholder confidence through visible progress
- Demonstrated new governance was working
Months 4-9:
- Continued delivery momentum
- Transferred PMO capability to internal team
- Scaled down Lumina involvement (3 → 2 → 1 → 0 consultants)
- Maintained governance discipline
The Outcomes
Programme Recovery
- ✅ First release delivered Month 4 (vs previous 0 releases in 18 months)
- ✅ Programme back on realistic schedule
- ✅ Vendor performance improved significantly
- ✅ Governance functioning effectively
- ✅ Stakeholder confidence restored
Financial Impact
- ✅ £4M saved by stopping unachievable workstreams
- ✅ Remaining budget reallocated to deliverable scope
- ✅ Total programme cost: £8M vs original £12M
- ✅ Benefits delivered: 70% of original case vs trajectory of 0%
- ✅ Net benefit: £6.8M over 5 years (vs £0)
Capability Transfer
- ✅ Internal PMO team now managing programme independently
- ✅ Governance discipline sustained post-Lumina
- ✅ Risk management capability significantly improved
- ✅ Vendor management skills enhanced
Political Impact
- ✅ NAO satisfied with recovery actions
- ✅ Ministerial confidence restored
- ✅ Programme used as example of good recovery practice
Client Perspective
"Lumina told us things we didn't want to hear, but needed to hear. Most consultants would have kept quiet and taken our money. They told us to stop spending £4M on things that would never work."
— Permanent Secretary
"The independent health check saved the programme. We were six months from a complete write-off. Now we're delivering real benefits."
— Programme Director
What Made It Work
- Honest diagnosis - Told them to stop spending £4M (consultants rarely do this)
- Commercial expertise - Reset vendor relationship to realistic terms
- Governance reset - Weekly leadership engagement made decisions happen
- Quick wins - First delivery in Month 4 rebuilt confidence
- Capability transfer - PMO support that built internal strength
The Hard Conversations
Week 3 finding: "This programme can't succeed as currently scoped."
Leadership reaction: Disbelief, then acceptance
Our recommendation: Stop 3 workstreams, save £4M, focus on achievable outcomes
Alternative: Continue spending £4M on workstreams that will definitely fail
Leadership decision: Stop the workstreams (politically difficult, financially correct)
This is why independence matters. A vendor wouldn't recommend stopping £4M of work. We did, because it was the right answer.
Services Delivered
Long-Term Impact
12 months post-recovery:
- Programme delivered successfully
- Benefits realisation tracking: 72% (vs target 70%)
- Internal team managing operations independently
- Vendor relationship professional and productive
- NAO report: Programme recovery cited as good practice example
Lessons Learned
What we'd do again:
- Honest diagnosis saved the programme
- Stopping unachievable work freed resources for achievable work
- Quick wins rebuilt confidence rapidly
- Weekly governance made decisions happen
What we'd do differently:
- Involve vendor more constructively earlier (initially adversarial)
- Benefits measurement framework could have been stronger
- More emphasis on celebrating team (they delivered the recovery)
