Your stakeholders support the project. But have they agreed to fund it, staff it and change how they work? A friendly meeting can hide a delivery problem.
Over-optimism about stakeholders means planning on the assumption that people will agree, take action or change their behaviour more readily than the evidence supports. In a government project, those people may work for separate organisations with their own budgets, duties and priorities.
The National Audit Office (NAO) highlighted this problem in 2013. Its more recent work on government shared services, major projects and Northern Powerhouse Rail provides further lessons about commitment, decision-making and cooperation.
Table of Contents:
What did the NAO say about stakeholder optimism?
In Over-optimism in government projects (December 2013), the NAO warned that government can underestimate the time needed to engage stakeholders and overestimate its ability to reconcile their views. It also cautioned against assuming how groups outside government control will behave. [1, page 8]
For a project manager, the practical question is: what does the plan need each stakeholder to do, and what evidence shows they can do it?
Still identifying stakeholders? Use our government stakeholder list and downloadable PDF to build your initial list. Then use the checks below to test the commitments your project depends on.
FiReControl: missing support from delivery partners
The NAO's 2013 report described how FiReControl lacked early support from local Fire and Rescue Services. The department pursued a national control system without adequate consultation or sufficient powers to require participation. The project was cancelled in December 2010. The NAO reported that at least £482 million would be wasted. [1, page 8]
Practical lesson: involve the organisations that must operate the service while the design can still change. Establish how participation will be secured before committing to a delivery plan.
Recent NAO findings from 2025 and 2026
Government shared services, March 2026: support is not a delivery commitment
The NAO found that permanent secretaries had expressed support for the shared services strategy, but some departments could not commit to a timetable for joining. HM Treasury and the Department for Education wanted more information on costs before assessing whether joining was feasible and offered value for money. The Matrix cluster's business case nevertheless assumed their participation. [2, paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7]
The NAO also found no single central owner with a clear mandate to secure departmental participation. It warned that governance and technical gaps threatened delivery. [2, conclusion]
Practical lesson: record support, funding, capacity and an agreed start date separately. A department can favour a strategy while being unable to implement it on your timetable.
Mega-project governance, March 2025: agree the purpose before promising delivery
The NAO highlighted how disagreements over critical issues can lead to delays, pauses and programme resets. Without a shared vision, government risks committing to budgets and timetables too early. It called for clearer accountability and stronger checks on affordability, feasibility and value for money before final approval. [3]
Practical lesson: ask sponsors to agree the intended outcome, major trade-offs and who can settle disputes. A steering group needs authority to make decisions as well as a diary slot.
Northern Powerhouse Rail, March 2026: benefits depend on other organisations
The NAO found that significant changes in scope had created uncertainty and delayed benefits over more than a decade. It recognised progress in clarifying the programme, but said further work was needed to connect it with national and local growth plans. Effective working across central and local government would be essential. [4, conclusion]
Practical lesson: identify who must act for each benefit to happen. Completing infrastructure does not, on its own, complete every organisation's contribution to the intended economic outcome.
Warning signs and evidence to ask for
Before you report that everyone is on board, ask for the evidence.
| What you hear | What may be missing | Evidence to ask for |
|---|---|---|
| Everyone is on board. | Agreement from people with authority to commit resources. | A named decision-maker, agreed responsibilities and unresolved conditions. |
| The team will find time. | Capacity alongside existing work. | Named staff, allocated days and cover for their usual duties. |
| Consultation is complete. | Answers to concerns that could change the design. | A record of concerns, responses and resulting decisions. |
| Users will adopt the system. | Evidence that it works for their real tasks. | User testing, access checks, training plans and support arrangements. |
| Another programme will deliver that. | An agreed dependency with an accountable owner. | A confirmed output, acceptance criteria, delivery date and fallback. |
| We can sort the disagreement later. | A decision route and time in the schedule. | A decision owner and deadline before dependent work starts. |
A checklist to test stakeholder commitment
Use these questions before approving a business case, fixing a launch date or moving to the next project stage.
- What action do we need? Describe the decision, resource, approval or behaviour required from each key stakeholder.
- Who can commit? Check that your contact has the authority to agree it.
- What is confirmed? Record the evidence and its date. Keep assumptions visible.
- What makes participation difficult? Ask about cost, competing work, lost functionality and operational disruption.
- Have we allowed enough time? Include decision meetings, consultation, testing and training in the schedule.
- What happens if they cannot deliver? Agree a trigger for escalation and a workable fallback.
- Who will challenge the plan? Invite someone outside the delivery team to test its most important assumptions.
Update the evidence when funding, leadership, scope or delivery dates change. Yesterday's agreement may no longer cover today's project.
Worked example: a shared service rollout
Imagine you are launching a shared booking service in September. Three departments support it. The project dashboard reports stakeholder engagement as green.
Closer questioning reveals that one department has no budget for data preparation. Another cannot release staff for testing. The third needs an accessibility issue resolved before it can approve the service.
Record each condition with an owner and a deadline. Link testing and data preparation to the launch milestone. Ask the sponsor to resolve the resource gap, and agree when a delayed or phased launch must be considered.
The useful status is specific: three departments support the proposal; none has yet met all the conditions for launch.
Put the checks into your stakeholder plan
For each key stakeholder, record the action needed, commitment evidence, open conditions, owner and next review date.
Explore stakeholder management templates Try the stakeholder engagement explorerReferences and further resources
The National Audit Office independently scrutinises public spending for Parliament. Read the reports behind the examples:
- National Audit Office, Over-optimism in government projects, December 2013, page 8.
- National Audit Office, Governance and decision-making on mega-projects, 14 March 2025. See also the NAO's findings and recommendations summary.
- National Audit Office, Northern Powerhouse Rail, 11 March 2026, conclusion.
