Sure. As an example, there are many different what's called “capability sponsors” for projects. Across the army, the navy, the air force and the infrastructure folks at National Defence, we don't systematically look at which projects do better or worse.
Are there some that are better at moving through all the gates they are expected to? If that's the case, why is that? Do the people working in that organization get more training? Do they have more staff? It's those kinds of things.
You could also look at other parts of the organization. There's a general theme from National Defence that the ITB process is problematic for their procurement. I don't know if that's actually grounded in any kind of evidence.
It's great to make that assertion, but if that is a problem, how big is it? How many days are being lost to that? Is it on all projects? Is it just one for the air or for the marine?
That kind of information isn't systematically collected. I could keep going on a whole bunch of other examples. It would be useful to have a better understanding to look at opportunities to learn from what works, as well as to fix identified deficiencies.