Pilot Programme Proposal
Phase 0: A 24-36 month proof-of-concept with €200-500M budget, specific success criteria, and go/no-go gates before committing to full programme.
PAC/NAO Challenge
"You want billions committed before any proof this approach works?
Where's the pilot? Where's the gateway review?"
This document addresses this by proposing a structured pilot phase with
independent validation before major investment decisions.
Strategic Framing: Insurance, Not Imminent Response
This initiative is strategic risk reduction, not a response to an imminent threat. The probability of US service termination to allied governments is low under normal conditions. However, the impact of such an event would be catastrophic. This programme is insurance: reducing dependency and leverage while maintaining partnership. The pilot validates whether this insurance is technically achievable and cost-effective before major commitment.
1. Pilot Programme Overview
| Aspect | Specification |
|---|---|
| Duration | 24-36 months (with 6-month extension option if needed) |
| Budget | €200-500M across all participating jurisdictions |
| Scope | 2-3 non-critical government services per jurisdiction |
| Governance | Lightweight structure reporting to national CIOs |
| Decision point | Full Cabinet/Treasury sign-off required at each gate |
| Exit criteria | Clear conditions for terminating pilot if unsuccessful |
Pilot Budget Breakdown
UK share: Approximately £80-150M (based on 25% contribution weight)
2. Gateway Review Structure
The pilot follows IPA Gateway Review principles with five formal decision points.
Strategic Assessment
Month 0
Programme approval
Business Case
Month 6
Detailed design
Delivery Strategy
Month 12
Procurement complete
Investment Decision
Month 24
Pilot results
Full Programme
Month 30-36
Go/No-Go
Gateway Decision Matrix
| Gate | Key Questions | Decision Authority | Possible Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| G0 | Is there a valid strategic case for sovereign cloud? | Cabinet/National Cabinet | Approve pilot / Reject |
| G1 |
Is the technical approach sound? Are costs realistic? HARD PRECONDITION: Has JIC/NCSC threat assessment validated the strategic rationale? |
Senior Officials + IPA review | Proceed / Revise / Stop Cannot proceed without intelligence validation |
| G2 | Are vendors capable? Are contracts value for money? | Procurement authority + IPA | Award contracts / Re-tender / Stop |
| G3 | Has the pilot demonstrated capability? Are services functional? | Technical Board + IPA | Proceed to full programme / Extend pilot / Stop |
| G4 | Is full programme investment justified? Are risks acceptable? | Cabinet/Treasury | Approve full programme / Phased approach / Terminate |
3. Pilot Service Selection
Pilot services are selected based on: (1) non-critical nature (failure doesn't affect citizens), (2) representative workload patterns, (3) known technology requirements, (4) willingness of owning department to participate.
UK Proposed Pilot Services
1. GOV.UK Static Content (Tier: Low risk)
Description: Static informational pages from GOV.UK (not transactional services)
Technology: Object storage, CDN, basic compute
Success criteria: 99.9% uptime, <100ms latency, successful content sync
2. Internal HR Portal (Tier: Low risk)
Description: Civil Service HR self-service for leave requests, directory
Technology: Web app, relational database, authentication (Keycloak)
Success criteria: Feature parity, successful login integration, data integrity
3. Open Data Portal (Tier: Medium risk)
Description: data.gov.uk or subset, demonstrating data services
Technology: Object storage, APIs, search (PostgreSQL), analytics
Success criteria: API compatibility, query performance, data freshness
EU Proposed Pilot Services
1. Europa.eu Information Pages
Static content from European Commission websites
2. EU Open Data Portal
data.europa.eu demonstrating cross-border data access
Canada Proposed Pilot Services
1. Canada.ca Static Pages
Informational content from federal portal
2. Open Government Portal
open.canada.ca data catalogue
Australia Proposed Pilot Services
1. data.gov.au
Australian open data portal
2. Non-production myGov sandbox
Testing environment (not production)
4. Success Criteria and Metrics
Quantified Success Criteria for Gate 3
All criteria must be met for "Proceed" recommendation. Partial achievement triggers "Extend pilot" recommendation. Major failure triggers "Stop" recommendation.
Technical Success Criteria
| Metric | Target | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|
| Platform availability | ≥99.9% uptime (8.76 hours max downtime/year) | Automated monitoring, monthly reports |
| Service latency | P95 <200ms for web applications | Application performance monitoring |
| Migration success | 100% of pilot services migrated without data loss | Data integrity verification, user acceptance testing |
| Interoperability | Cross-jurisdiction API calls successful 99%+ | Automated integration testing |
| Security posture | Zero critical/high vulnerabilities unpatched >30 days | Continuous vulnerability scanning, pen testing |
| Recovery capability | RTO <4 hours, RPO <1 hour demonstrated | Quarterly DR exercises |
Operational Success Criteria
| Metric | Target | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|
| Cost variance | Within 20% of budget | Monthly financial reporting |
| Schedule adherence | Key milestones within 3 months of plan | Project tracking, IPA review |
| Vendor performance | All SLAs met >95% of time | Contract management, SLA reporting |
| Team capability | Core platform team trained and retained | Skills assessment, retention metrics |
Coordination Success Criteria
| Metric | Target | Measurement Method |
|---|---|---|
| Governance effectiveness | No deadlocks exceeding 30 days | Decision log, escalation records |
| Standard adoption | All jurisdictions using common APIs and formats | Interoperability testing |
| Knowledge sharing | Documented lessons learned, shared tooling | Repository activity, cross-party contributions |
5. Go/No-Go Decision Framework
At Gate 4, the following decision framework applies:
| Outcome | Criteria | Next Steps |
|---|---|---|
| GO: Full Programme |
All technical criteria met Cost within 20% of budget No major governance failures All jurisdictions confirm continued participation |
Proceed to full business case Submit for Cabinet/Treasury approval Begin Phase 1 procurement |
| CONDITIONAL: Phased Approach |
Most technical criteria met with issues Cost 20-40% over budget Some governance challenges resolved 3+ jurisdictions confirm participation |
Proceed with reduced scope Address specific issues Additional 12-month phase before full programme |
| EXTEND: Additional Pilot |
Technical criteria partially met Identified issues are fixable Political will remains |
12-month pilot extension Additional €50-100M budget Revised success criteria |
| NO-GO: Terminate |
Multiple technical failures Cost >50% over budget Unresolvable governance breakdown Any jurisdiction withdraws |
Orderly wind-down (12 months) Data returned to original systems Lessons learned report Consider alternative approaches |
Independent Validation
Go/No-Go decision must be supported by:
- IPA Gateway Review: Independent review by Infrastructure and Projects Authority
- NAO Value for Money: NAO assessment of pilot costs vs. outcomes
- Technical Expert Panel: Independent technical review (3 external experts)
- User feedback: Civil servants using pilot services surveyed
6. Pilot-Specific Risks and Mitigations
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| CloudStack doesn't meet government security requirements | Medium | High | Security assessment at Gate 1; fallback to OCI Dedicated as comparison |
| Open-source FaaS (OpenFaaS/Knative) performance inadequate | Medium | Medium | Benchmark against AWS Lambda; accept higher latency or develop optimisation |
| Multinational coordination proves unworkable | Low | High | Lightweight governance for pilot; can fall back to national-only approach |
| Vendor market doesn't respond to tenders | Low | High | Market engagement before tender; consider in-house capability |
| Political change withdraws support | Medium | High | Cross-party briefings; frame as national security not political project |
| Pilot succeeds but full programme fails due to scale | Medium | High | Pilot must include scalability testing; stress tests at 10x load |
Summary
| Aspect | Value |
|---|---|
| Duration | 24-36 months |
| Budget (total) | €200-500M |
| UK share | ~£80-150M |
| Services piloted | 2-3 per jurisdiction (8-12 total) |
| Gateway reviews | 5 formal gates with IPA involvement |
| Go/No-Go decision | Month 30-36 with Cabinet/Treasury approval |
| Exit option | Terminate at any gate with orderly wind-down |
Document Status
This pilot programme proposal provides the "prove before committing" structure that addresses PAC, NAO, and Treasury concerns about large-scale IT investment.
Version: 1.0 | Last updated: January 2026