Government IT Rip-off

 

It's strong language for a Select Committee.

Provisionally titled 'Making IT better' the Public Administration Committee have gone for a 'Recipe for Rip-offs.' There are hints that a cartel is operating. We heard of desk-top computers costing £3,500. Something wrong there.

The evidence we heard was incredible and alarming.  IT procurement too often resulted in late, over budget IT systems that are not fit for purpose. 

Bernard Jenkin, Chair of PASC said: 

“We heard truly worrying accounts about the amount of money successive Governments have wasted on failed IT projects. According to some sources the Government pays between seven and ten times more than the standard commercial rate for its work: however the Government does not collect the information needed to verify these claims.”

One of the report’s recurring themes is the dominance of Government IT by a small number of large companies:

Bernard Jenkin commented: 

“The Government has said that it is overly reliant on an “oligopoly” of suppliers; some witnesses went further and described the situation as a ‘cartel.’ Whatever we call the situation it has led to an inexcusable situation that sees governments waste an obscene amount of public money.”

The report argues that the Government needs to do four things to break out of this relationship:

Improve the information it holds on IT expenditure, without which the Government is unable to secure the best possible price for goods and services.

Publish more information about IT projects. The Committee argues that the Government should make public information about how much its IT costs, and how its systems run. This would allow external experts to challenge current practices and identify ways services could be delivered differently as well as more economically.

Widen the supplier base by reducing the size of its contracts and greatly simplifying the procurement process to engage with innovative SMEs. Most importantly, departments need the capacity to deal directly with a wider range of suppliers, especially SMEs.

Work in a more “agile” manner. The Government needs to move towards the use of more iterative development methods which enable IT programmes to adapt to ever changing challenges. 

Bernard Jenkin, Chair of the Committee said:

“To address these challenges successfully the Government needs to possess the necessary skills and knowledge in-house, to manage suppliers and understand the potential IT has to transform the services it delivers. Currently the outsourcing of the government’s whole IT service means that many civil service staff, along with their knowledge, skills, networks and infrastructure have been transferred to suppliers. The Government needs to rebuild this capacity urgently.

“This Government, like many before it, has set out an ambitious programme aimed at reforming how it uses IT. We are greatly encouraged by the Government’s plans, and we promote a number of solutions which can transform how we deliver public services online.

“We will need to wait and see whether it can make progress in an area that has resisted so many previous attempts at reform.”

 

Comments

[virginia driver improvement program]

ourney brought up some key points and best practices. thanks for the news sharing

[HuwOS]

Corporations get ripped off in the same way, but still somehow think they are saving money with incredibly expensive mice, keyboards etc, instead of just employing a person or group of people to handle the purchasing, maintenance and replacement of equipment.

As a mildly related issue,
legislation intended to block child porn websites is now being ordered by courts to block access to usenet index sites
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14293730
This is excellent, once we have that established as reasonable we can block any sites we like, whether for political opinions we don't like or just because we can. The best thing about blocking sites is that users in the UK may not even know about the existence of sites that are blocked to them.
Well okay, blocks are easy to get around, so the only people who won't get to sites being blocked are those who didn't know about them in the first place.
But what are rugs for if not to hide things beneath.

[Andy Thomson]

Finally, a government committee that realise a small number of large IT suppliers are taking us all for chumps.

Let's hope they also realise what a joke government IT security is. My GP has gone over to the national NHS system reassuring patients that it was secure. When I challenged their so called security and pointed out all the flaws I could see from the reception area they were gob smacked!

When the DHSS CDs went missing it hit the news and many of the news pictures came from outside the office in question with all the computer screens clearly visible through the windows.

Government might have log in protocols in place, but until somebody really gets a grip the physical security of our data it is open to anybody with an agenda to steal at will.

[HuwOS]

This is also serious..
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110727/12544415289/uk-appeals-court-agrees-that-clicking-link-opening-website-is-infringing.shtml

Our court seems to have misunderstood how the web works and the appeals court have upheld that fundamental misunderstanding.
Effectively, according to the thinking here, everything anyone ever does on the web is technically infringing.

Just by clicking on the link to your site Paul, my browser created a copy of this page and so now I'm infringing.

Is that it, is that where it will end up.
Internet shut down in Britain, rest of the world cut off?

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks for all the comments. They say rather more than we said in our Select Committee Report.

[Paul Flynn]

Thanks Huw. The abiding impression of the PASC inquiry is that decisions of monumental importance are being taken by people with little understanding of IT. Probably applies to the courts too.

[Richg78]

I look forward to reading (well, skimming) this report. I would be nice if the civil service took notice, and began employing people with the technical background needed to do the job, rather just a stream of PPE graduates from the usual universities.

[HuwOS]

I hate to keep throwing in unrelated items simply because your mention of IT gives me a dubious opening.

But Graham Linehan posted this in relation to C4+1 not showing the Daily Show Global Edition

"I was curious as to why an episode of The Daily Show that would have been of particular interest to the UK public--covering, as it did, the News of The World scandal--would not be shown in this country. I tweeted @C4insider.
ReplyRetweet
@C4Insider what were the compliance problems for Daily Show? Out of curiosity.
Glinner
July 26, 2011 at 16:30
ReplyRetweet
@glinner Will do some investigating and get back to you.
C4Insider
July 26, 2011 at 17:04
Well. You'll never guess.
ReplyRetweet
Asked Channel 4 why the latest Daily Show isn't being shown on 4+1 (HT: @chrisspyrou) and got the following reply...
Glinner
July 26, 2011 at 22:44
ReplyRetweet
@Glinner We are prevented by parliamentary rules from broadcasting parliamentary proceedings in a comedic or satrical context.
C4Insider
July 26, 2011 at 21:40
Oh, OK.

Wait, what?

ReplyRetweet
@Glinner C4's restriction led by this guidance (FOIA response), specifically section 4: http://bit.ly/n48eaa
fiatpanda
July 26, 2011 at 22:53
ReplyRetweet
@Glinner Aimed at "preserving the dignity of the House", I think.
fiatpanda
July 26, 2011 at 22:57
Holy shit! So politicians in the UK...
ReplyRetweet
@Glinner Same in Ireland. Smallprint under "Rules of Coverage": http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/watchlisten/
thebeernut
July 26, 2011 at 22:54
....so politicians in the UK and Ireland are protected from satirical TV programs by the law? But only if they're for national consumption? REALLY?
"

Surely a situation that should change? Don't we think?

[Paul Flynn]

For the Britsih paliament the rules were laid down when parliament was first televised. many MPs were nervous then. Many still might be now. Most would think that reforms are overdue.