Major Programmes and the Whole of Society Approach

Introduction: rebuilding trust to enable a Whole of Society approach

The UK Ministry of Defence’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR)¹ envisioned a ‘Whole of Society Approach’ – widening participation in national resilience and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve.

However, the success of this approach hinges on public trust in the government's ability to deliver major defence programmes. When it comes to the State’s grandest endeavours – like building new military capabilities and assets – there’s a deep-rooted perception that they habitually go over budget and over schedule. In fact, our research² finds that the public has less faith in governments to deliver major projects than anything else they do. This lack of confidence is particularly acute in defence, where projects are often of greater scale and national significance, demanding even greater accountability.

In a defence landscape of heightened threats, greater uncertainty and increasing complexity, traditional delivery approaches are no longer fit for purpose. To create the foundation for a successful Whole of Society approach to national security, and to initiate a virtuous cycle of trust and success, we need a new way of managing major programmes.

Defence programmes rely on Whole of Society support

The success of defence programmes hinges on the ‘Whole of Society’ approach, demanding seamless collaboration between the industrial base, small and medium-sized enterprises providing specialist skills, individual specialists, academic and research institutes contributing advanced research, and local authorities and communities providing essential infrastructure support. With strong trust in government, we can unlock the full potential of this collaboration.

The current state of public trust: a crisis of confidence

For defence, public trust is effectively a license to operate; the Armed Forces recruit from, and operate with the consent of, the society they serve and protect. Deloitte’s latest State of the State survey³ asked the public how much it trusts the UK’s public sector across a range of capabilities. While the public have greater trust in government to use the most appropriate up-to-date technology, trust in the State trails off when it comes to delivering major projects; just 25% trust the UK government to deliver major projects on time and to budget. Our survey also showed that 30% of the public expect the national security outlook to get worse in the years ahead, an increase of 6 percentage points since 2023. At a time when anxieties about national security are growing, a lack of trust in the government’s ability to deliver critical defence programmes is not just a political challenge, it’s a direct threat to national resilience.

Why doesn’t the public trust the government when it comes to major projects?

Public distrust in the government’s ability to deliver major projects, especially in sectors like defence, stems from a confluence of factors beyond just competence.

1. Lack of transparency and effective communication. Communication gaps leave the public uninformed about project goals, progress, and challenges. Complex technical details are rarely translated into easily understandable language, fostering a sense of secrecy and suspicion. The intangible nature of national security, coupled with the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ effect (e.g. nuclear submarines) makes it harder for the public to assess the effectiveness and justify the costs of military capability projects. Demonstrating the ‘value for money’ of protecting a nation from threats, deterring aggression, or maintaining global stability is difficult; valuing benefits is near impossible when it comes to military capability, which is why the Ministry of Defence doesn’t seek to do this. However, successful initiatives like the Dreadnought Alliance, which incorporates a clear vision, mission, and ambition into all communications, demonstrate how appropriate transparency can foster greater public understanding and trust. Naturally, the underlying subject matter does not lend itself to complete openness.
2. Weak accountability and political interference. Weak accountability mechanisms fail to hold those responsible for project failures accountable, reinforcing the perception that mistakes are tolerated rather than addressed. Finally, political interference in project decisions, driven by short-term political priorities rather than long-term strategic goals, further erodes public trust.
3. Competence, high-profile failures, and media scrutiny. Governments operate under scrutiny from parliament and attention from the press, with failures broadcast to the rest of the world. The cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 programme after an expenditure exceeding £4bn, and the problems plaguing the £5.5bn Ajax programme serve as a potent symbol of such failures. There is a vast body of academic studies⁴ on the factors that create or diminish trust in institutions, and one factor is consistently cited: competence. That’s why major projects have an outsized role in defining public trust in government – because every failure is high-profile, erodes confidence in government’s competence, and reinforces the perception that the State struggles to deliver projects on time and to budget.

The Negative Feedback Loop

This erosion of trust manifests not only in public opinion but also in the governance and oversight that directly impacts project delivery. A lack of faith in programmes’ ability to deliver results leads to intensified oversight. This increased scrutiny, while intended to improve accountability, ironically reduces the flexibility needed for efficient project execution. Instead of focusing on problem solving and timely completion, significant resources are diverted to managing the scrutiny. This creates a self-perpetuating ‘negative loop’: diminished trust leads to increased oversight, which, in turn, diverts resources away from core project activities, hindering progress. This downward trend, where reduced confidence translates into less effective resource allocation, restricts successful delivery. The resulting poorly executed projects, with their attendant cost overruns and delays, further erode public confidence, creating a vicious cycle of diminished trust, diverted resource allocation, and ultimately, poor outcomes.

From programme success to public trust: a virtuous cycle

The defence landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace. Heightened threats, increased uncertainty, and exponentially complex technological advancements render traditional delivery approaches no longer fit for purpose. Often, the traditional approach to programme delivery - a linear progression of plan, integrate, manage, intervene - proves too rigid and inflexible to navigate a defence environment that is evolving at an unprecedented pace.

We therefore cannot simply replicate the practices and performance of the past; doing so risks hardcoding failure into programme DNA at the outset. Major defence programmes need to proactively anticipate challenges, foster seamless collaboration, embrace continuous innovation, and adapt to change. Only by transforming programme management and delivery mindsets can we break the negative feedback loop and foster virtuous cycles of trust and success. This is where Deloitte’s NextGen Delivery approach comes in:

• From Plan to Anticipate: Moving beyond static plans and embracing proactive foresight, anticipating challenges and opportunities before they arise.
• From Integrate to Unify: Going further than basic integration and cultivating a truly unified delivery ecosystem where everyone is aligned and working towards a shared mission with common data, tools, and KPIs.
• From Manage to Innovate: Shifting from simply managing tasks to fostering a culture of innovation where teams are empowered to challenge assumptions and explore new solutions.
• From Intervene to Evolve: Instead of reacting to problems, we embrace change as a constant and continuously evolve our approaches for optimal outcomes. Embedding continuous improvement into the delivery lifecycle, embracing an agile mindset, data-driven insights, and a culture of constant prototyping and enhancement.

By adopting this change in mindset, we can deliver successful defence programmes that not only meet operational needs but also build and maintain public trust. This creates a virtuous cycle: successful projects foster public confidence, which in turn facilitates the approval and execution of future initiatives. The result is a stronger, more resilient defence system built on a foundation of public trust.

Conclusion

Rebuilding trust in defence programmes is the foundation for making the Whole of Society approach a reality. These programmes depend on the skills, infrastructure, and commitment of industry, SMEs, academia, communities, and individuals - and that commitment is only sustained when people are confident in delivery and leaders are accountable. Every project delivered on time, on budget, and with the required outcomes, strengthens that belief.

To unlock this virtuous cycle, we must:

1. Transform programme delivery mindsets with NextGen Delivery – replace rigid, sequential models with adaptive, anticipatory approaches that can navigate VUCA environments.
2. Hardwire transparency into delivery – make progress, challenges, and benefits visible and understandable to all stakeholders, building confidence through openness.
3. Embed genuine Whole of Society collaboration – involve every contributor from the outset, aligning efforts around a shared mission and shared outcomes.

When delivery is adaptive, transparent, and inclusive, trust grows. And with that trust, the Whole of Society approach moves from aspiration to reality - uniting government, industry, and the public in building the capabilities our national security demands.

For further resources on delivering major programmes in defence, explore our insights:

_____________________________________________________________

References:

1. Strategic Defence Review 2025 – Making Britain Safer: secure at home, strong abroad
2. State of the State | Deloitte UK
3. State of the State | Deloitte UK
4. Devine, D. et al. (2025), The causes of perceived government trustworthiness. European Journal of Political Research, 64: 1394-1412.; Brezzi, M. et al. (2021), “An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris,