Category Archives: Campaign4Change

Universal Credit and Pitchford – good move or a potential conflict of interest?

Posted on 21/02/2013 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that the executive director of the Major Projects Authority, David Pitchford, is to take interim charge of the delivery of Universal Credit, starting this week, says Government Computing.

Pitchford will stay initially for a three-month stint until a permanent replacement is appointed. He joins DWP’s CIO Andy Nelson, who was previously at the Ministry of Justice,  in helping to oversee the Universal Credit project.

Pitchford and Nelson are jointly taking the place of Philip Langsdale, DWP’s highly respected CIO, who passed away just before Christmas last year.

The Daily Telegraph and Independent have portrayed Pitchford’s appointment as a sign that Universal Credit is in trouble. The Telegraph’s headline on Monday was

Welfare reforms in doubt as troubleshooter takes over

And the Independent reported that:

“Ministers have been forced to draft in one of the Government’s most experienced trouble-shooters to take charge of the troubled Universal Credit programme – amid fears the complex new system could backfire.”

But DWP officials say Pitchford’s appointment is not a sign Universal Credit is behind schedule.

A DWP spokesperson said, “David Pitchford will be temporarily leading Universal Credit following the death of Philip Langsdale at Christmas. This move will help ensure the continued smooth preparation for the early rollout of Universal Credit in Manchester and Cheshire in April. A recruitment exercise for a permanent replacement will be starting shortly.”

In Pitchford’s absence, the day-to-day running of the Major Projects Authority will be handled by Juliet Mountford and Stephen Mitchell, with oversight from government chief operating officer Stephen Kelly. Pitchford will retain overall responsibility for the MPA’s activities, says Government Computing.

Comment

On the face of it Pitchford’s appointment is a clever move: the Cabinet Office now has a senior insider at the DWP who can report back on the state of the Universal Credit project.

Francis Maude, who is the Cabinet Office minister in change of efficiency and is trying to distance the government from from Labour’s IT disasters, is almost openly worried about the smell that could come from a failure of the Universal Credit project.

DWP secretary of state Iain Duncan Smith keeps reassuring his ministerial colleagues that critics are ill-formed and all is well with the project. But it is not clear whether he has an overly positive interpretation of the facts or understands the complexities of the project and all that could go wrong.

Even officials at HMRC are having difficulty understanding some of the detailed technical lessons from the work so far on RTI – Real-time information. Although RTI does not need Universal Credit to succeed, Universal Credit is dependent on  RTI.

With  much conflicting information within government over the state of the Universal Credit project – which is compounded by DWP’s refusal under FOI to publish several consultancy reports it has commissioned on the scheme – it is useful for the Cabinet Office to have the highly experienced and much respected Australian David Pitchford run Universal Credit. 

Pitchford is a much-valued civil servant in part because he is straight-talking. He said in  2011 that government projects failed because of:

– Political pressure

– No business case

– No agreed budget
– 80% of projects launched before 1,2 & 3 have been resolved
– Sole solution approach (options not considered)
– Lack of Commercial capability  – (contract / administration)
– No plan
– No timescale
– No defined benefits

Since he made this speech, and it was reported, Pitchford has become a little more guarded about what he says in public. The longer he stays in the innately secretive UK civil service, the more guarded he seems to become but he is still one the best assets the Cabinet Office has. His main advantage is his independence from government departments.

Potential for a conflict of interest?

The Major Projects Authority exists to provide independent oversight of big projects that could otherwise fail. Regularly it is  in polite conflict with departments over the future direction of questionable projects and indeed whether they should come under the scrutiny of the MPA at all.

Pitchford’s taking over of Universal Credit, even on an interim basis, raises questions about whether he can ever  be seen in future as an independent scrutineer of the project. According to The Independent, Pitchford will report directly to Iain Duncan Smith – bypassing the DWP’s permanent secretary Robert Devereux.

Once his secondment to the DWP ends Pitchford may wish to criticise aspects of the project. Can he do so with the armour of independence having run the project? Would he have the authority to delay Universal Credit’s introduction?

Pitchford is now an integral part of Universal Credit. He is in the position of the local government ombudsman who is seconded to a local authority, or an auditor at the National Audit Office who sits on the board of a government department.  If a big project at the department goes wrong, the permanent secretary can say to the NAO:  “Well you had a representative on our board. Are you in a position to criticise us?”

The MPA does a good job largely because it is independent of departments. There are signs that it is intervening to stop failing projects or put them on a more secure footing. Can the MPA remain independent of departments if its head has been seconded to a department?

On the other hand Francis Maude is likely to receive an account of how Universal Credit is going. And the Universal Credit project will have the benefit of an external, independent scrutineer as its head.

But if the MPA and Universal Credit are inextricably linked how can the MPA do its job of being an independent regulator of big IT projects including Universal Credit?

Pitchford takes on Universal Credit role

Government brings in troubleshooter to get Universal Credit on track.

Welfare reforms in doubt after troubleshooter takes over

1 Comment

Posted in Agile, Campaign4Change, change management, DWP, excessive secrecy, Freedom of Information, Government IT, HMRC, IT-related failures, Major Projects Authority, Real-Time Information, Universal Credit

Tagged , , ,

Don’t fire staff before going live – lessons from a SAP project failure

Posted on 13/02/2013 | Leave a comment

By Tony Collins

When an NHS chief executive spoke at a conference in Birmingham about how he’d ordered staff cuts in various departments in advance of a patient administration system going live – to help pay for the new system – it rang alarm bells.  

This is because more staff are usually needed to cope with extra workloads and unexpected problems during and after go-live. That’s a lesson BT and CSC gradually learned from Cerner and Lorenzo go-lives under the National Programme for IT. It’s also a lesson from some of the case studies in “Crash”.

The trust chief executive who was making the speech was managing his go-live outside of the NPfIT. He didn’t seem to realise that you shouldn’t implement savings in advance of a go-live, that the go-live is likely to cost much more than expected, and that, as a chief executive, he shouldn’t over-market the benefits of the new system internally. Instead he should be honest about life with the new system. Some things will take longer. Some processes will be more laborious.

Bull-headed

If the chief executive is bull-headedly positive and optimistic about the new IT his board directors and other colleagues will be reluctant to challenge him. Why would they tell him the whole story about the new system if he’d think less of them for it? They would pretend to be as optimistic and gung-ho as he was. And then his project could fail.

Much of this I said when I approached the trust chief executive after his speech. It wasn’t any of my business and he’d have been justified in saying so. But he listened and, as far as I know, delayed the go-live and applied the lessons.

Disaster

Now a SAP project disaster in the US has proved a reminder of the need to have many extra people on hand during and after go-live – and that go-live may be costlier and more problem-laden than expected.

The Post-Standard reported last month that a $365m [£233m] system that was intended to replace a range of legacy National Grid’s payroll and finance IT has led to thousands of employees receiving incorrect payments and delayed payments to suppliers. Some employees were not paid at all and the company ended up issuing emergency cheques.

Two unions issued writs on behalf of unpaid workers, and the Massachusetts attorney general fined National Grid $270,000 [£172,500] for failing to comply with wage laws. New York’s attorney general subpoenaed company records to investigate.

Hundreds assigned to cope with go-live aftermath

National Grid spokesman Patrick Stella said the company has assigned hundreds of employees, including outside contractors, to deal with problems spawned by the new system. Many of them have been packed into the company’s offices in Syracuse in the state of New York. Others are dispersed to work at “payroll clinics,” helping employees in crew barns or other remote locations.

For more than a year National Grid worked to develop a new system to consolidate a patchwork of human resource, supply chain and finance programs it inherited from the handful of U.S. utilities it has acquired. The system, based on SAP, cost an estimated $365m, according to National Grid regulatory filings.

Stella said the glitches to be expected when a complex new system goes live were exacerbated in the wake of Sandy, when thousands of employees worked unusual hours at unusual locations. “It would have been challenging without Hurricane Sandy,” Stella said.

SAP software woes continue to plague National Grid.

Payroll blunder.

National Grid struggles to fix payroll problems.

Leave a comment

Posted in BT, BT Health, Campaign4Change, Cerner, CSC, IT projects, IT-related failures, NHS, npfit, SAP

Big IT suppliers and their Whitehall “hostages”

Posted on 30/01/2013 | 6 comments

By Tony Collins

Mark Thompson is a senior lecturer in information systems at Cambridge Judge Business School, ICT futures advisor to the Cabinet Office and strategy director at consultancy Methods.

Last month he said in a Guardian comment that central government departments are “increasingly being held hostage by a handful of huge, often overseas, suppliers of customised all-or-nothing IT systems”.

Some senior officials are happy to be held captive.

“Unfortunately, hostage and hostage taker have become closely aligned in Stockholm-syndrome fashion.

“Many people in the public sector now design, procure, manage and evaluate these IT systems and ignore the exploitative nature of the relationship,” said Thompson.

The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages bond with their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them.

This month the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issued  a pre-tender notice for Oracle ERP systems. Worth between £250m and £750m, the framework will be open to all central government departments, arms length bodies and agencies and will replace the current “Prism” contract with Capgemini.  

It’s an old-style centralised framework that, says Chris Chant, former Executive Director at the Cabinet Office who was its head of G-Cloud, will have Oracle popping champagne corks. 

“This is a 1993 answer to a 2013 problem,” he told Computer Weekly.

In the same vein, Georgina O’Toole at Techmarketview says that central departments are staying with big Oracle ERP systems.   

She said the framework “appears to support departments continuing to run Oracle or, indeed, choosing to move to Oracle”. This is “surprising as when the Shared Services strategy was published in December, the Cabinet Office continued to highlight the cost of running Oracle ERP…”

She said the framework sends a  message that the Cabinet Office has had to accept that some departments and agencies are not going to move away from Oracle or SAP.

“The best the Cabinet Office can do is ensure they are getting the best deal. There’s no doubt there will be plenty of SIs looking to protect their existing relationships by getting a place on the FCO framework.”

G-Cloud and open standards?

Is the FCO framework another sign that the Cabinet Office, in trying to cut the high costs of central government IT, cannot break the bond – the willing hostage-captive relationship –  between big suppliers and central departments?

The framework appears to bypass G-Cloud in which departments are not tied to a particular company. It also appears to cock a snook at the idea of replacing  proprietary with open systems.

Mark Thompson said in his Guardian comment: 

– Administrative IT systems, which cost 1% of GDP, have become a byword for complexity, opacity, expense and poor delivery.

– Departments can break free from the straitjackets of their existing systems and begin to procure technology in smaller, standardised building blocks, creating demand for standard components across government. This will provide opportunities for less expensive SMEs and stimulate the local economy.

– Open, interoperable platforms for government IT will help avoid the mass duplication of proprietary processes and systems across departments that currently waste billions.

–  A negative reaction to the government’s open standards policy from some monopolistic suppliers is not surprising.

Comment

It seems that Oracle and the FCO have convinced each other that the new framework represents change.  But, as Chris Chant says, it is more of the same.

If there is an exit door from captivity the big suppliers are ushering senior officials in departments towards it saying politely “you first” and the officials are equally deferential saying “no – you first”. In the end they agree to stay where they are.

Will Thompson’s comments make any difference?

Some top officials in central departments – highly respected individuals – will dismiss Thompson’s criticisms of government IT because they believe the civil service and its experienced suppliers are doing a good job: they are keeping systems of labyrinthine complexity running unnoticeably smoothly for the millions of people who rely on government IT.

Those officials don’t want to mess too much with existing systems and big IT contracts in case government systems start to become unreliable which, they argue, could badly affect millions of people.

These same officials will advocate reform of systems of lesser importance such as those involving government websites; and they will champion agile and IT-related reforms that don’t affect them or their big IT contracts.

In a sense they are right. But they ignore the fact that government IT costs much too much. They may also exaggerate the extent to which government IT works well. Indeed they are too quick to dismiss criticisms of government IT including those made by the National Audit Office.

In numerous reports the NAO has drawn attention to weaknesses such as the lack of reliable management information and unacceptable levels of fraud and internal error in the big departments. The NAO has qualified the accounts of the two biggest non-military IT spending departments, the DWP and HMRC.

Ostensible reformers are barriers to genuine change.  They need to be replaced with fresh-thinking civil servants who recognise the impossibility of living with mega IT contracts.

Mark Thompson’s Guardian article.

6 Comments

Posted in Agile, Campaign4Change, Capgemini, change management, Cloud, Cloud Computing, cost avoidance, cost reduction, culture, DWP, G-Cloud, Government IT, HMRC, innovation, managing change, managing outsourced services, open source, open standards, operational issues, Oracle ERP, Politics, private sector lessons for the public sector, procurement, project management, reducing cost strategically, supplier relationships

Tagged , ,

Universal Credit – the ace up Duncan Smith’s sleeve?

Posted on 24/01/2013 | 3 comments

By Tony Collins

Some people, including those in the know, suspect  Universal Credit will be a failed IT-based project, among them Francis Maude. As Cabinet Office minister Maude is ultimately responsible for the Major Projects Authority which has the job, among other things, of averting major project failures.

But Iain Duncan Smith, the DWP secretary of state, has an ace up his sleeve: the initial go-live of Universal Credit is so limited in scope that claims could be managed by hand, at least in part.

The DWP’s FAQs suggest that Universal Credit will handle, in its first phase due to start in October 2013, only new claims  – and only those from the unemployed.  Under such a light load the system is unlikely to fail, as any particularly complicated claims could managed clerically. 

The second phase of Universal Credit, which is due to begin in April 2014, is the important one, in terms of number of claimants. But this phase may be delayed with a general election approaching, according to Government Computing, which quotes the FT.

This is from the DWP’s website:

“Universal Credit will start to take new claims from unemployed people in October 2013.”

It continues:

“For people in work this process will begin in April 2014. The remainder of current claims will be moved to Universal Credit from 2014, with the process being complete by 2017.”

Comment: 

The projected costs of real-time information, an HMRC project on which the success of Universal Credit depends, have increased by tens of millions from an initial estimate of £108m, according to Ruth Owen, Director General, Personal Tax, HMRC.  At least HMRC is being open about RTI – relative to the DWP which continues to deny FOI requests for the risk register or independent assessments of the progress or otherwise of the Universal Credit IT project.

Auditors at the National Audit Office found that the Rural Payment Agency’s Single Payment Scheme for farmers dealt with so few claims that it could have been handled manually for a fraction of the cost of an IT system that went awry. Perhaps Iain Duncan Smith has learnt from that episode.

As Universal Credit phase one will handle only new claims from the unemployed, there may be no need initially for complicated monthly interactions with HMRC’s Real-time information [PAYE] systems. 

There may be further restrictions on go-live UC candidates. The DWP may insist that unemployed new claimants are single, childless, between certain ages and not receiving certain benefits or tax credits. They may have to have a valid bank account.

So the numbers of claimants and simplified processing will maximise the chances of a go-live success.

This may explain why the Major Projects Authority has not intervened (yet) to delay the October 2013 go-live date.   

It makes sense to minimise complications when going live. But the Passport Agency found that although the go-live of new systems in 1999 went well, extra IT-related security checks slowed down the issuing of passports, such that backlogs built up, people lost their holidays and queues built up at passport offices. It was a project disaster. 

The real test of the agile-based Universal Credit project will be when existing benefit claimants move onto the new systems in large numbers. This will not happen before the next general election. The plan is for the roll-out to be completed by the end of 2017.

Meanwhile does Iain Duncan Smith plan to claim a victory for the go-live of Universal Credit when the initial transactions are so simple, and the numbers involved  so insignificant, they could be managed clerically if necessary?

 As long as Universal Credit does not reduce payments to the genuinely disabled and the most needy, it is generally regarded as a good idea. It should cut fraud and administrative costs. 

It’s a pity though that no central department can be open about the progress of its major  IT-related projects; and on forcing these progress reports out of dark departmental corners the coalition has made no difference at all.

Will GDS delay Universal Credit by a year? – David Moss’s blog

3 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, change management, DWP, excessive secrecy, Freedom of Information, Government IT, managing change, public services, Real-Time Information, Universal Credit

Tagged , , , , ,

A paperless NHS by 2018? Could it ever happen?

Posted on 16/01/2013 | 1 comment

By Tony Collins

The NHS should go paperless by 2018 to save billions, improve services and help meet the challenges of an ageing population, Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt will say today.

In a speech to the Policy Exchange this evening, the Health Secretary will say that patients should have compatible digital records so their health information can follow them around the health and social care system.

This would mean, says the DH, that in most cases, whether patients needs a GP, hospital or a care home, the professionals involved in their care could see patient histories “at the touch of a button”.

Hunt’s speech comes as two reports are also published which – says the DH – demonstrate the potential benefits of making better use of technology.

The DH says a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers on the potential benefits of better use of IT “found that measures such as more use of text messages for negative test results, electronic prescribing and electronic patient records could improve care, allow health professionals to spend more time with patients and save billions”.

But the DH press release – and coverage of it by the BBC – does not mention the reservations in Pwc’s report.

Pwc says it could take 10 years or more for the NHS to derive the full benefits from some of the priority actions and further actions mentioned in its report.

Pwc also says that “significant further work is required to further substantiate some of the evaluations of potential benefit, and especially the evaluations of potential financial benefit. This work should be completed before the broad implementation of the recommended actions commences…”

A National Mobile Health Worker report, also published today, was a pilot study on introducing laptops at 11 NHS sites.

On the way towards the 2018 goal, Hunt will say that he wants to see:

– By March 2015 – everyone who wishes will be able to get online access to their own health records held by their GP.

– Adoption of paperless referrals – instead of sending a letter to the hospital when referring a patient to hospital, the GP can send an email instead.

– Clear plans in place to enable secure linking of these electronic health and care records wherever they are held, so there is as complete a record as possible of the care someone receives.

– Clear plans in place for those records to be able to follow individuals, with their consent, to any part of the NHS or social care system.

– By April 2018 – digital information to be fully available across NHS and social care services, barring any individual opt outs.

The NHS Commissioning Board is leading implementation and it has set a clear expectation that hospitals should plan to make information digitally and securely available by 2014/15.

This means that different professionals involved in one person’s care can start to safely share information on their treatment. This is set out in the NHS Commissioning Board’s recent publication ‘Everyone Counts: planning for patients in 2013/14′.

Hunt says:

“The NHS cannot be the last man standing as the rest of the economy embraces the technology revolution.

“It is crazy that ambulance drivers cannot access a full medical history of someone they are picking up in an emergency – and that GPs and hospitals still struggle to share digital records.

“Previous attempts to crack this became a top down project akin to building an aircraft carrier. We need to learn those lessons – and in particular avoid the pitfalls of a hugely complex, centrally specified approach.

“Only with world class information systems will the NHS deliver world class care.”

The Government recently announced it would be making £100 million available to NHS nurses and midwives to spend on new technology.

Challenges

The Pwc report is not an analysis of the costs of introducing shared electronic records across the NHS. But it does mention some of the challenges. It says:

“There are delivery risks to be addressed before the potential benefits can be realised.”

This is Pwc’s list of challenges of introducing better IT in the NHS, especially a shared electronic patient record:

– “The realisation of the potential benefits will depend on the concerted action and commitment of bodies from across the health and social care system.”

– “… the maximum possible benefits presented by this review will not be realised unless key supporting elements are put in place and unless appropriate and timely investments are made.”

–  “The availability of funds to cover one-off investment costs in technologies, information gathering or reworked organisational processes.”

– “The willingness of system bodies to adopt the technologies or commit to information gathering and use.”

–  “The clear and concise documentation of the benefits achieved and challenges faced by pilot programmes or early adopters of technologies or information protocols, to support other organisations in implementing actions in a cost-effective and efficient way.”

– “Strong and positive leadership to promote use of information and technology, and prioritise the commitment of resources and time to it and commitment of bodies from across the health and social care system.

– “The incentivisation of the adoption of the proposed actions, particularly when coordinated system-wide action is required.”

– “Measures to make contracting for the provision of systems and services as easy, quick and cost-effective as possible; and

– “The development of new or revised robust governance processes to not only support programme delivery but scrutinise the delivery of benefits.”

Comment:

On the face of it Hunt’s good intentions and the DH’s press release on his speech are little more than political rhetoric.

Indeed it appears that Hunt commissioned the Pwc report to give an independent voice to a political announcement. Pwc concedes in its report that it was commissioned to highlight the “potential benefits that could be achievable through the more efficient and effective use of information and technology in the NHS and social care before any action is taken”.

It is inconceivable that the NHS will be paperless or have shared electronic patient records by 2018. Each ward in every major hospital has a range of paper forms. These will take an unknown number of years to standardise for the purposes of electronic records; and shared electronic records will not take place across the NHS without enormous changes in culture and practice, and initial investments.

Nearly every secretary of state for health, shortly after coming to the post, is given a draft speech by his officials about the NHS’s having shared electronic patient records by a distant date.  A new government will be in power by 2018 and Hunt’s promise in January 2013 will have long been forgotten.

Yet Hunt’s announcement is still welcome because it will continue to add energy to the very slow move to shared electronic records.

It is astonishing in a technological age that patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes, or have complex health problems, can be treated at different specialist centres in various parts of the UK without their records being shared. A patient can be seen within a week in two different hospitals without each hospital sharing the patient’s most recent notes and diagrams.   This problem has to be grabbed by the throat – but not with a centralised system or database as proposed in the NPfIT.

Hunt recognises this. He talks of the need for records to be linked – from where the data currently resides. But Hunt needs to say how it will happen, and provide some limited investment for it to happen – tens and not hundreds of millions of pounds.

The political will is there – but without the means to achieve a shared electronic record it may never happen.

Pwc report

Jeremy Hunt challenges the NHS to go paperless by 2018 – DH press release

Going paperless would save the NHS billions – BBC online

1 Comment

Posted in Campaign4Change, e-health, ERP, Government IT, health, health records, NHS, npfit, operational issues

Tagged

Frustrated with the system – Govt CIOs, executive directors, change agents

Posted on 14/01/2013 | 3 comments

By Tony Collins

Today The Times reports, in a series of articles, of tensions in Whitehall between ministers and an “unwilling civil service” over the pace of change.

It says a “permanent cold war” is being conducted with the utmost courtesy. It refers to Downing Street’s lack of control.

In one of the Times articles, Sir Antony Jay, co-creator of the “Yes Minister” TV series, writes that the civil service is more prepared to cut corners than in the 1970s  but hasn’t really changed. “If a civil servant from the 1970s came back today they would probably slot in pretty easily,” says Jay.

Politicians want “eye-catching” change while civil servants “don’t want to be blamed for cock-ups”, he says.

Separately, Mike Bracken, Executive Director of Digital in the Cabinet Office, has suggested that a frustration with the system extends to CIOs, executive directors to corporate change agents.

Bracken created the Government Digital Service which is an exemplar of digital services.  His philosophy is it’s cheaper and better to build, rent or pull together a new product, or at least a minimum feasible product, than go through the “twin horrors of an elongated policy process followed by a long procurement”.

Bracken has the eye of an outsider looking in. Before joining the Cabinet Office in July 2011 he was Director of Digital Development at the Guardian.

Bracken’s blog gives an account of his 18 months in office and why it is so hard to effect change within departments. I’ve summarised his blog in the following bullet points, at the risk of oversimplifying his messages:

Collective frustration

–  After joining the Cabinet Office in 2011 Bracken made a point of meeting senior officials who’d had exalted job titles, from CIOs and executive directors to corporate change agents. “While many of them banked some high-profile achievements, the collective reflection was frustration with and at the system,” says Bracken.

Civil service versus citizen’s needs

–  “I’ve lost count of the times when, in attempting to explain a poorly performing transaction or service, an explanation comes back along the lines of ‘Well, the department needs are different…’ How the needs of a department or an agency can so often trump the needs of the users of public services is beyond me,” says Bracken.

– Policy-making takes priority over delivery, which makes the civil service proficient at making policy and poor at delivery. “Delivery is too often the poor relation to policy,” says Bracken. Nearly 20,000 civil servants were employed in ‘policy delivery’ in 2009. Each government department produces around 171 policy or strategy documents on average each year. Bracken quotes one civil servant as saying: “The strategy was flawless but I couldn’t get anything done.”

Are citizen needs poisonous to existing suppliers?

– Departmental needs take priority over what the public wants. Bracken suggests that user needs – the needs of the citizen – are poison to the interests of policymakers and existing suppliers. “Delivery based on user need is like kryptonite to policy makers and existing suppliers, as it creates rapid feedback loops and mitigates against vendor lock-in,” says Bracken.

– “When it comes to digital, the voices of security and the voices of procurement dominate policy recommendations. The voice of the user [citizen] barely gets a look-in. ( Which also explains much of the poor internal IT, but that really is another story.)”

A vicious circle

Bracken says that new IT often mirrors clunky paper-based processes. [It should usually reflect new, simplified and standardised processes.] “For digital services, we usually start with a detailed policy. Often far too detailed, based not just on Ministerial input, but on substantial input from our existing suppliers of non-digital services. We then look to embed that in current process, or put simply, look for a digital version of how services are delivered in different channels. This is why so many of our digital services look like clunky, hard-to-use versions of our paper forms: because the process behind the paper version dictates the digital thinking.”

Then things take a turn for the worse, says Bracken. “The policy and process are put out to tender, and the search for the elusive ‘system’ starts. Due to a combination of European procurement law and a reliance on existing large IT contracts, a ‘system’ is usually procured, at great time and expense.

“After a long number of months, sometimes years, the service is unveiled. Years after ‘requirements’ were gathered, and paying little attention to the lightning-quick changes in user expectation and the digital marketplace, the service is unveiled to all users as the finished product.

“We then get the user feedback we should have had at the start. Sadly it’s too late to react. Because these services have been hard-wired, like the IT contract which supplied them, our services simply can’t react to the most valuable input: what users think and how they behave.

“As we have found in extreme examples, to change six words the web site of one of these services can take months and cost a huge amount, as, like IT contracts, they are seen as examples of ‘change control’ rather than a response to user need.

“If this 5-step process looks all too familiar that’s because you will have seen it with much of how Government approaches IT. It’s a process which is defined by having most delivery outsourced, and re-inforced by having a small number of large suppliers adept at long-term procurement cycles.

“It is, in short, the opposite of how leading digital services are created, from Amazon to British Airways, from Apple to Zipcar, there is a relentless focus on, and reaction to, user need…”

GOV.UK the civil service exemplar?

Bracken says: “In the first 10 days after we released the full version of GOV.UK in October 2012, we made over 100 changes to the service based on user feedback, at negligible cost. And the final result of this of this approach is a living system, which is reactive to all user needs, including that of policy colleagues with whom we work closely to design each release.”

Bracken says long procurements can be avoided.  “When we created GOV.UK, we created an alpha of the service in 12 weeks … We made it quickly, based on the user needs we knew about… As we move towards a Beta version, where the service is becoming more comprehensive, we capture thousands of pieces of feedback, from user surveys, A/B testing and summative tests and social media input.

“This goes a long way to inform our systems thinking, allowing us to use the appropriate tools for the job, and then replace them as the market provides better products or as our needs change. This of course precludes lengthy procurements and accelerates the time taken for feedback to result in changes to live services.”

Comment:

More big government projects could follow GOV.UK’s example, though some officials in their change-resistant departments would say their systems are too complex for easy-to-reach solutions. But a love of complexity is the hiding place of the dull-minded.

The Times describes the conflicts between the civil servants and ministers as a “crisis”. But conflicts between civil servants and ministers are a good thing. The best outcomes flow from a state of noble tension.

It’s natural for some senior civil servants to oppose change because it can disrupt the smooth running of government, leading potentially to the wrong, or no payments, to the most vulnerable.  It’s up to ministers like Francis Maude to oppose this argument on the basis that the existing systems of administration are inefficient, partly broken and much too costly.

A lazy dependence on the way things are will continue to enfeeble the civil service. Ministers who push for simplicity will always come into conflict with civil servants who quietly believe that simplicity demeans the important work they do. To effect change some sensible risks are worth taking.

The reports of a covert and courteous war between parts of the civil service and ministers are good news. They are signs that change is afoot. Consensus is far too expensive.

3 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change, change, change management, cost reduction, efficiency savings, EU procurement, G-Cloud, Government digital Service, Government IT, Politics, public sector, public services

Tagged , ,

Real reform? Cabinet Office axes 3 framework contracts

Posted on 03/01/2013 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

The Cabinet Office has ended three framework procurements after an internal review, reports Government Computing.

Framework contracts have made it easy for buyers in central departments to prolong IT buying habits of the past, by ignoring new ideas, and by-passing SMEs and G-Cloud. They can use frameworks to choose known suppliers without going to a full open tender each time.

Now Bill Crothers, the government’s chief procurement officer says bold action is needed to save more money and attract more innovative suppliers.

He told Government Computing:

“After looking at the current frameworks in use, we’ve decided to cease the Application Development, Delivery and Support Service and Hosting Services procurements from today and Service Integration & Management Services will not be progressed through the framework route.

“Frameworks which are already operating effectively and delivering significant change such as the Public Services Network and G-Cloud provide a model for success and will continue.”

The Cabinet Office says fewer IT frameworks will attract a wider range of suppliers. Frameworks let buyers choose from a list of pre-approved suppliers. They will be allowed only where they are shown to deliver against the commercial ICT strategy and can attract businesses of all sizes.

Cabinet Office Parliamentary Secretary Chloe Smith said:

“Framework agreements only work if they deliver what they set out to deliver and drive the greatest competition from a wider range of suppliers, including SMEs.”

Comment

In 2010 Nigel Smith, who was then CEO of the Office of Government Commerce, said that nearly a third of everything government spends is on procurement. He spoke of the need for major changes, saying there was “massive duplication”. He added:

“We need shooting if we don’t make the changes.” 

In 2011 Chris Chant who was then programme director at the Cabinet Office for G-Cloud, said something similar.

“The vast majority of government IT in my view is outrageously expensive, is ridiculously slow, or agile-less, is poor quality in the main and, most unforgivably I think, is rarely user-centric in any meaningful way at all.”

It can cost £50,000 to change one line of code, he added.

John Suffolk, when he was government CIO, spoke of “bucket-loads of cash” that can be saved by common IT systems, and eliminating duplication and disparate infrastructures.

So what has happened since? Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude and his senior officials have made some important changes. But government IT is an aircraft carrier whose rudders don’t move left or right, except by tiny amounts. Crothers and his procurement team can accept this or resolve to tackle the fundamentals.

Ceasing three framework contracts is moving the rudders of government IT a small amount but it’s a start. As politicians say: there is a lot more to do, and time is running out.

The reservoir of will to reform central government administration is nearly full at present. It may be running low by the time the next government comes to power.

 Three procurement frameworks axed.

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change

MPs criticise cash incentives to hospitals to take CSC Lorenzo – The Times

Posted on 18/12/2012 | 2 comments

By Tony Collins

MPs are criticising offers to hospitals under which they install the CSC Lorenzo system under the National Programme for IT in return for cash incentives, said The Times yesterday.

The Times’ headline was “Hospitals offered cash to take ‘cowboy’ IT system”, a reference to criticism by Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee after the commitee published a report on the National Programme for IT.

The paper said that CSC will pay hospitals millions of pounds in “signing-on” fees to use the Lorenzo patient administration system, which was developed under the NPfIT.

Graham Frost, sales director for CSC health, is quoted as saying to eHealth Insider that the company has had a “huge rush of trusts enquiring about the incentive fund” and was expecting 24 to sign up. They could “call on this kitty for initial expenses”.

Richard Bacon, a member of the Public Accounts Committee who has made a plethora of disclosures on failures of the NPfIT, was quoted by The Times as saying that if hospitals came to him for advice he would urge them not to take the system.

Hodge was quoted as saying: “If this is true, it’s a mind-boggling waste. I just cannot believe the NHS is bribing trusts to take on an IT system which is known to have problems at a time when they are struggling to reduce their budgets.”

The Department of Health says: “We have made some central funding available for trusts implementing Lorenzo to help cover the costs”.  The funding depends on a robust business case, said the department’s spokesperson.

Comment:

So much for the dismantling of the NPfIT. In reality the Department of Health is using its influence and financial power to drag the wagon of the national programme along on its bare axles. It has from the start.

If CSC can afford t0 pay large cash incentives to trusts and still make money from its installations one wonders if, even with cuts on the NPfIT budgets, there is still too money left in the programme. The incentives give CSC an advantage over SMEs in a market that is supposed to be fair and balanced.

The Department of Health should be doing its best to ensure fair and open competition in the NHS – not tipping the scales in favour of one supplier.

Is the NPfIT still doing damage within the NHS – and to taxpayers?

Thank you to Dave Orr for alerting me to the article in The Times

The Times’ article

2 Comments

Posted in Campaign4Change

Cornwall Council – a model of local democracy

Posted on 12/12/2012 | 1 comment

Cornwall Council yesterday debated in an open and informed way proposals to set up a major joint venture with BT, keep services in-house or have a limited “strategic partnership”.

The debate was webcast and councillors voted on the basis of a wealth of information published by the council on its website. On the specific potential benefits of a joint venture the council had information from BT and Kevin Lavery, the council’s chief executive. Lavery also produced a useful “pros and cons” summary of the options available to councillors.

On the risks of a joint venture, and the experiences of other authorities, councillors had invaluable information from Cornwall Council’s independent “Single Issue Panel” of councillors, and from Dave Orr who has a deep understanding of Southwest One, the failed joint venture in Somerset with IBM.

In the end the full council rejected proposals for in-house services, and also decided against setting up a major joint venture with BT. Councillors voted for a limited strategic partnership which includes telehealth and telecare, ICT and document management.  How this will work, whether BT will want to run it, and whether it will need a new competitive tender are questions yet to be answered.

Jim Currie, the council leader, and a sceptic of a major joint venture, warned councillors about the dangers of making a decision under pressure of fear.

“The doom and gloom is just not sustainable,” he said. “The fear that has been put in us has to be modified by reality. The reality is that the vast majority of councils will go under before we do.”

He added that the council has expertise, pensions, and trading contacts that would be given away in a joint venture or outsourcing deal. A costly SAP system would also be transferred. The council, he said, would be “giving away the ERP that cost us so much money and lots of IT updates that go with it”.

Comment:

Cornwall Council has emerged from the debate over the proposed joint venture with BT as an exemplar of local democracy. Alec Robertson, the former council leader, who was ousted because of his strong support for a joint venture, comes out of the debate with credit.

There was pressure to do so but Robertson decided that the future of council services should be a decision taken by the full council and not by an inner circle of cabinet councillors. This was a bold step but a critical one in favour of local democracy.

Jim Currie who was voted Cornwall’s leader after Robertson was ousted, also emerges from the debate with credit. Like Robertson Currie is a conviction politician.

But the clear winner of the debate is Cornwall Council. Its reports on the options available to councillors are not perfect but at least they make clear what is and is not being published; and a great deal has been published. Everything Cornwall Council has done is in marked contrast to the partnership decision of Barnet Council which kept its decision on a partnership deal to an inner circle of cabinet councillors. Barnet was entitled to do so, but it was a macho stance given the strength of local opposition. Barnet published little information on its proposals compared to Cornwall.

It would be a pity, though, to shine a light on Cornwall’s democratic strengths by putting Barnet in the shadows. Democracy has its flaws, but Cornwall Council has shown how those weaknesses can be tackled by more democracy, not less.

Cornwall Council – middle way agreed.

The biggest cause of shared services failure?

Shared services in the public sector – Tim Manning.

Jude’s Blog (local councillor)

Very thin joint venture is supported – Andrew Wallis (local councillor)

1 Comment

Posted in BT, Campaign4Change, local democracy, local government, outsourcing, public-private partnerships, SAP, shared services

Is BT having trouble meeting some of its promises?

Posted on 10/12/2012 | Leave a comment

By Tony Collins

Six weeks ago BBC’s Watchdog broadcast an advert for BT Vision, which offers broadband-based pay-TV packages.  “With BT Vision you won’t miss a thing,” says the advert.

Chris Hollins, a presenter of Watchdog, then tells millions of viewers:

“Big promises. Tempting promises. But according to customers who contacted Watchdog they are empty promises.”

Can BT always be trusted to deliver on its promises? BT Vision is a completely different part of the company that bids for joint venture and outsourcing contracts with local authorities. At the same time BT is marketing its services to Cornwall Council and other local authorities partly on the basis of its unified corporate strength, as a FTSE 100 company.

Can BT’s culture and practice be separated from one division to the next?

Maragret Outschoorn told Watchdog of how she had been five months without a proper service. Sue Bennett, another BT Vision customer, had had problems for two and a half years, since 2010. She told the programme she had been on the phone to BT Vision nearly every week, sometimes for two or three hours.

“Like others who contacted us Sue fell foul of BT Vision’s habit of passing customers from one person to another for weeks on end without sorting out their problem,” said Hollins.

Joe McCaffrey said he spent about 13 hours on the phone over a period of 18 days and each time he had to re-trace the history of his problems.

Breaking up can be hard to do

“So what if a customer decides there are just too many problems to navigate through and they just want to leave BT Vision?” asked Hollins. “Can they achieve their goal? Kieran Potter couldn’t. He was told he’d have to pay a £200 cancellation fee first.

“I ended up having an argument with them for the best part of 13 months saying I want to cancel; I want to leave,” said Potter. “By the time I did get them to cancel me they still wanted me to pay £70 which was in July this year, which I refused. The only reason they did cancel was because I threatened to get in touch with Watchdog.”

Earlier this  year Ofcom revealed that for every 1,000 customers BT Vision received four times as many complaints as its nearest rivals. “We continue to hear from customers who are told they will be charged to leave even though their service is plagued with problems,” said Hollins.

Cornwall Council will decide tomorrow whether to go ahead with a mega-deal in which IT and other services are outsourced to BT. Some council officers and BT favour the services being delivered by a joint venture company that is owned completely by BT. Underlying the assumptions being made by the council is that BT would fulfil its promises and, if not, could be found in breach of contract. Remedies in the contract would give the council the ability to obtain compensation or terminate and bring services back in-house. A 134-page report to Cornwall’s councillors is underpinned by a catalogue of BT promises and guarantees.

But how easy would it be in reality to ensure that BT meets its promises? And how easy would it be in practice for the council to leave BT if termination became necessary?

BT’s response to Watchdog

“BT would like to apologise to the customers featured in the report. Where issues have occurred with BT Vision, we have made efforts to help customers to enjoy the service at its best.”

“However, it is clear that in these particular cases, we have failed to deliver the excellent and timely customer service customers would expect from BT. Where these customers have asked to leave, we have waived charges for leaving contracts early. We are also in the process of agreeing compensation, where appropriate, for some of these customers…”

BT’s full response to BBC Watchdog broadcast.

Comment:

A deal with BT may be good for Cornwall Council and its taxpayers. The evidence we have seen so far looks one-sided though.

The council’s presentations to councillors appear to make the assumption that BT’s promises and guarantees are inviolable, that contractual remedies for any breaches would be easy to enforce, and termination would be straightforward. Could this be because of what TS Eliot called the inability of humankind to bear very much reality?

BT Vision – Watchdog 31 October 2012

BT Vision tops Ofcom pay TV customer complaints

Leave a comment

Posted in BT, Campaign4Change, local government, managing outsourced services, public sector, public services, public-private partnerships