What price success – or failure?

Capita hit the headlines again this week with the national papers getting hysterical about the £1m the company was fined for poor performance on the controversial London Congestion Charging scheme and a payment of £3.5m by Transport for London (TfL) for improvements to IT systems.

The budget report also revealed that Capita's share of the fines recovered will increase and that TfL has signed away its intellectual property rights for the system through a non-exclusive software licence deal with Capita.

Oh, and did we mention that the scheme has been a success? That's right, you heard us right - the Congestion Charging scheme has done exactly what it was supposed to do and reduced the amount of traffic clogging the centre of London every day.

Which brings us back to the headline – just because costs may rise on projects and performance may not be 100 per cent, does that in itself constitute failure? Of course it's absolutely right that politicians and newspapers should be questioning any 'waste' of taxpayers money on botched projects, especially given the government's track record when it comes to IT.

But is it better to have a scheme that comes in on time and budget but doesn't really achieve what it set out to in the first place or a groundbreaking project that does but may end up costing a bit more along the way? How would we react if, for example, the £2.3bn NHS IT modernisation programme ends up costing £1bn more but the end result is a vastly improved health service the UK can be proud of? Is that £1bn then 'wasted'?

The problem really lies in the negotiation and agreement of contracts like these and ensuring there is enough flexibility built in on both sides to allow for unforeseen changes to scope what may result in extra cost. On that front TfL may still have some awkward questions to answer but you can't take away the fact the Congestion Charging scheme has been a success.